Please log in to connect with Strava.

The RunClever Ratings© system began when our founder realised that his sprint times were significantly above average, but his marathon times were below average. Whereas other runners he knew, had very consistent levels of ability across all distances. Of course, the reasons for this type of variation are well known, with muscle fibres the first thing that comes to mind for many.

But how, therefore, could they solve the light-hearted quandary, of who was the ‘better’ runner? Similar debates have played out in public, was Bolt’s 9:58 100 metre run better than Kiptum’s 2:00:35 Marathon? Can Cheptegei stake a claim with his 12:35.36 5km time?

To answer this question, one would first have to understand what a standard distribution of ability across the running distances spectrum would be. So we sourced as much data as possible from studies across the world that contained data sets of athletes and their best times across a range of distances. Working with experts, an algorithm was developed whereby one data point of time taken to run any given distance could churn out an expected time / pace for the for that individual to run any other distance. Then, factoring in whole data sets of different runners’ pace for different distances, an average expected pace could be developed for different distances, and therefore establish a baseline of what would be an expected pace for different distance.

These elements were then combined with evidence-based models on how different factors impact a run, such as elevation (‘net’, ‘total’ and ‘profile’ if you feel the need to get very nerdy), temperature and the surface you’re running on. A 5km with an elevation of 2000ft, at 35 degrees in thick mud, is quite different to 12.5 times round your local running track. But thanks to RunClever Ratings©, we know exactly how different those times should be.

What this gives us, is a system that can analyse any standard run and provide two different ratings for that run. One is a pure ‘Speed Rating’, simply how does the time you have just run that distance in, compare to the world? Then a Personal Run Rating, which is, taking into account all the factors involved in your run, how does it compare to the world. Ultimately, how good is your ‘engine’, what is your overarching fitness?

The more data points we have, the more we can refine your rating and tell you what your current levels of fitness are (there are several components that make up overall fitness). We call these additional bits of information ‘enhancements’, as whilst they’re good to have, you can still get a very accurate rating without them. Some examples of enhancements are weight, bodyfat % (Someone running a 5km in 16 minutes with a bodyfat of 50% is much more impressive than someone with a bodyfat of 15%) and elevation profile (a 400ft hill at the start of a run is different to one at the end, which in turn different to 400ft of elevation spread evenly across a run).

This system does have its limitations, it begins to lose accuracy for runs less than 2 miles, and runs of more than 30 miles. We know why this happens, which is because other factors than actual cardiorespiratory ability come into play at a more significant level. So, we do not provide ratings for runs outside of this range.

On top of the pure Speed Rating and Personal Run Rating, if you sign up to RunClever, you will gain an ‘Official Rating’ for your running ability. I.e. if you went out for a run tomorrow morning, how quick do we think you’d do it. In the past, we have used this for face to face running events to hold handicap races, but we now mostly use it to rank our athletes for prizes on our leaderboards, and show how your rating has changed over time, which is hopefully progression on an upwards trajectory.

So, what kind of ratings can you expect? Our algorithm tells us that a Rating of 140 is the limit of human ability, there is little chance anyone could surpass this. However, we’re not even close to having someone on earth that could achieve this, with world record holders for various events sitting a few points either side of 130.

A rating of around 120 for a run would show the standard of an International elite athlete, whilst 110 is something you’d expect to see from a Nationally competitive athlete. At a rating of around 100 you would be good enough to win local races, and 90 would put you as a top club runner. Moving down to a rating of around 70, this would still put you above average within the running community, let alone against the national population.

Even though a rating of around 60 would put you as an average runner, you would still be significantly fitter than the average non-runner. If your rating was getting below 50, you’d start to be in the slower cadre of runners, but still fitter than the population at large.

Its only when you hit ratings in the 20’s that you get to around walking pace at most distances, and are about what you would expect the average non-runner would be. In fact, when we tested this theory, we found that when healthy adults who had not been an active runner in the last 10 years, tried a run of 2+ miles, they came out with an average Personal Run Rating of 24.56.

Back to the question, of what was the best ever run? Well, we crunched the numbers, and it is indeed Kelvin Kiptum’s 2:00:35 2023 Marathon in Chicago that takes the crown. It was always likely to be a marathon, as that’s where the focus, money and desire to enhance a time has been for a few decades now. That, and the fact that 100m is too short a distance for our model to take account of, so Usain, if you want to get in touch with any dispute to Kiptum being better, you’ll have to help us develop a new sprinting model.

Apart from judging elite athletes, we use RunClever Ratings© for a whole host of other purposes. Firstly, you can monitor your runs, and understand whether there are any adaptations you can make to help achieve your goals. For example, you may observe that you can run faster on dirt than grass, meaning swapping all your runs to dirt and slowing them down, means you can do longer runs and therefore train more effectively for that half marathon.

You may also keenly monitor your development using the combination of run ratings. For example, your speed ratings might all be staying the same, and your pace not increasing. However, if we can see your personal run rating increase, it shows that you are getting fitter and you are developing. For example, your latest 10km might be slower than the previous one, but if it was a hot day with lots of elevation, you can immediately see whether it was actually a better run, or you are indeed stalling on progress – meaning you can make any interventions that are needed.

We can also guide you on what distances of running you excel at, which isn’t just of interest to higher level runners. Lots of our athletes sign up because they want to do a sponsored run, and we might be able to tell you whether you actually might find a half marathon comparatively easier than a 10km, as strange as that might seem. Especially if you’re aiming for a particular time, or want to beat that annoying colleague who’s doing it too.

Last but not least, we also have the RunClever leaderboards (it’s your choice on whether or not you’d like to opt in). And if you top any of those leaderboards, there are prizes on offer.