Dive into this athlete’s performance at 2023 Birmingham using our in-depth report. By comparing their results to those of similar athletes, we identify key strengths and areas in need of improvement. For this specific race, our analysis is based on the performance of 978 similar athletes.
We compare the athlete's running times with peers who have similar finish times. This chart helps you quickly determine if your running pace was too fast or too slow for your overall finish time.
We compare the athlete's workout times for each station with peers who have similar finish times. This chart helps you quickly identify if any workouts were too fast or too slow relative to your overall finish time.
This section showcases the entire Rutherford Meg's performance at each station and run segment compared to the average.
It reveals strengths and areas for improvement, providing insights into how the athlete's times stack up against typical HYROX competitors with same finish time.
In HYROX racing, pacing is crucial. The pacing line highlights Rutherford Meg's pacing strategy, identifying segments where they may have started too fast or too slow, guiding them toward a more balanced race approach.
This chart illustrates the spread of splits of all athletes competing in the same division, providing a visual representation of the distribution of times for each split.
Use this chart to compare the Rutherford Meg's performance against the competition, identifying areas of strength and those needing improvement.
This chart includes Top 10%, Top 25%, Top 50%, Top 75%, Top 90%, and Top 100% of the athletes. The outliers have been removed for clarity.
Based on our analysis, here are the focus areas for improvement. The goal is to determine how quickly the athlete could improve on some stations and where is the path of least resistance to improve Rutherford Meg's time.
The percentile rank is the current position of the athlete compared to the competition. It goes from 0 to 100, where 0 is the best and 100 is the worst. It show the potential improvement for each station. The athlete should focus on the stations with the highest potential improvement and the biggest duration.
A big improvement in the Farmer's carry station will not be as impactful as a small improvement in the wall ball station for instance. Just click on a station to see how easy it will be to improve and how important it is to focus on it during training.
For this athlete we identified a possible improvement of 03:26. Check the detail of the improvement plan below.
| Splits | Potential Improvement | Time | Focus During Training |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sled Push | 00:58 | 03:53 to 02:55 | 28.2% |
| Wall Balls | 00:49 | 06:14 to 05:25 | 23.8% |
| Sled Pull | 00:36 | 06:44 to 06:08 | 17.5% |
| Run Total | 00:34 | 49:32 to 48:58 | 16.5% |
| Ski Erg | 00:29 | 05:44 to 05:15 | 14.1% |
| Burpees Broad Jump | 00:00 | 06:46 to 06:46 | 0.0% |
| Rowing | 00:00 | 05:31 to 05:31 | 0.0% |
| Farmers Carry | 00:00 | 01:42 to 01:42 | 0.0% |
| Sandbag Lunges | 00:00 | 05:13 to 05:13 | 0.0% |
| Rutherford Meg | Perfect Race | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Splits | Total | Average | Total | |
| Running 1 | 04:50 | 00:00 | 05:29 -00:39 | 00:00 +00:00 |
| Ski Erg | 05:44 | 04:50 | 05:17 +00:27 | 05:29 -00:39 |
| Running 2 | 06:02 | 10:34 | 05:52 +00:10 | 10:46 -00:12 |
| Sled Push | 03:53 | 16:36 | 02:58 +00:55 | 16:38 -00:02 |
| Running 3 | 06:10 | 20:29 | 06:14 -00:04 | 19:36 +00:53 |
| Sled Pull | 06:44 | 26:39 | 06:26 +00:18 | 25:50 +00:49 |
| Running 4 | 06:14 | 33:23 | 06:16 -00:02 | 32:16 +01:07 |
| Burpees Broad Jump | 06:46 | 39:37 | 07:10 -00:24 | 38:32 +01:05 |
| Running 5 | 06:21 | 46:23 | 06:27 -00:06 | 45:42 +00:41 |
| Rowing | 05:31 | 52:44 | 05:36 -00:05 | 52:09 +00:35 |
| Running 6 | 06:19 | 58:15 | 06:20 -00:01 | 57:45 +00:30 |
| Farmers Carry | 01:42 | 01:04:34 | 02:26 -00:44 | 01:04:05 +00:29 |
| Running 7 | 06:28 | 01:06:16 | 06:19 +00:09 | 01:06:31 -00:15 |
| Sandbag Lunges | 05:13 | 01:12:44 | 05:26 -00:13 | 01:12:50 -00:06 |
| Running 8 | 07:11 | 01:17:57 | 07:01 +00:10 | 01:18:16 -00:19 |
| Wall Balls | 06:14 | 01:25:08 | 05:38 +00:36 | 01:25:17 -00:09 |
| Roxzone | 07:37 | 01:38:52 | 07:57 -00:20 | 01:38:52 |
Based on the splits analysis, Meg performed particularly well in the running segments, with running 1 being 24 seconds faster than average and running 4, running 5, and running 6 being 6-9 seconds faster than average. She also had a strong performance in the farmers carry, being 51 seconds faster than average. However, she struggled in segments such as wall balls, sled push, ski erg, running 2, and the overall running time.
To improve her overall performance, Meg should incorporate a combination of strength training, endurance training, and specific skill drills into her training routine. By focusing on her weaknesses and implementing targeted exercises and techniques, she can improve her performance in the specific segments mentioned above and ultimately enhance her overall race performance.
| Similar Athletes | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mares Judith | 2019 Karlsruhe | 01:39:01 | |
| Law Gwen | 2023 Singapore | 01:38:55 | |
| Ellis Jacqs | 2024 Melbourne | 01:38:49 | |
| Macgillivray Heather | 2023 Hong Kong | 01:38:50 | |
| Harris Carey | 2023 Birmingham | 01:39:13 | |
| Weiß Tanja | 2023 Wien | 01:38:58 | |
| Warner Emma | 2024 Malaga | 01:38:25 | |
| Bowater Imogen | 2024 Birmingham | 01:39:22 | |
| Smith Kaya | 2023 Hamburg | 01:38:58 | |
| Kovac Nina | 2024 Madrid | 01:39:22 | |
| Other Results from this athlete | ||
|---|---|---|
| No other results found for this athlete. | ||
Unlock your potential with our pace calculator tool, designed to help you craft your ideal race splits and propel yourself to new heights.
Pace Calculator
