10 Round Numbers - Age Grade version?

Murph_D

How about a unified 10 Round Numbers table that takes age/sex into account? The targets on the standard table seem to be about 70% age-grade for 30-35 year old male runners. I know there are factors for and against the validity of age-grades for performance comparison across age groups but it might be interesting (even though I think I would only qualify on one distance myself). I'd propose 70% as the target, applying 2015 WMA age grade factors, using this calculator. So instead of entering the time, you'd enter the age-grade achieved. (70% is what some consider to be "Regional" standard.)

Any thoughts on this?

Chivito550

Murph_D wrote: »

How about a unified 10 Round Numbers table that takes age/sex into account? The targets on the standard table seem to be about 70% age-grade for 30-35 year old male runners. I know there are factors for and against the validity of age-grades for performance comparison across age groups but it might be interesting (even though I think I would only qualify on one distance myself). I'd propose 70% as the target, applying 2015 WMA age grade factors, using this calculator. So instead of entering the time, you'd enter the age-grade achieved. (70% is what some consider to be "Regional" standard.)

Any thoughts on this?

Have never been a fan of the age grading thing. If somebody chooses to race somebody younger than them then all possible excuses should be left at the door beforehand. I've come across some masters athletes in my time who would enter races against younger people in a win-win situation. If they beat somebody, fantastic, if they lost, "ah sure, I'm way older than him".

All the round numbers are achievable for O40s. The 400 may be trickier because it's more speed based, but I don't see many people here under 40 trying it anyway.

aquinn

If I'm in with a chance then agreed.

RayCun

Just set yourself your own targets? The 'best of' thread has a column for category so you can record your PBs there, whatever they are, and note your age (and age grade too, if you like)

Murph_D

Forgot about 'best of' thread. Just checked - for some reason it doesn't seem to have very many entries this year. I'm just thinking of this in terms of another way of thinking about evaluating performance beyond raw times. Of course it's imperfect, not taking conditions into account for example, but what method does? For instance a 29 year old M running 5k in 19:59 - good enough for 10 Round Numbers table, but only a 65 percent age grade, so not necessarily as good as a 44 year old running 21:20 for example. I assume there is some logic to the WMA grading system in the first place, altnough no doubt some will disagree. One of the things I like about it is the simplicity of comparing relative performances.

ger664

If it kills me I am going to break 20 for 5K and get to post in that thread. Age is just a number that is easier to forget as you get older.

rom

There should be multiple grades within the thread. For example the current targets should be bronze with a silver and gold,diamond targets similar to graded meets. Similar to the 1000 mile challenge then if the thread motivates someone to try harder then it served it purpose.

Ososlo

ger664 wrote: »

If it kills me I am going to break 20 for 5K and get to post in that thread. Age is just a number that is easier to forget as you get older.

Ha ha I'm a long long way behind you but I also will get on that table even if it kills me might not be a bad way to go actually!
No other table will do

RayCun

rom wrote: »

There should be multiple grades within the thread. For example the current targets should be bronze with a silver and gold,diamond targets similar to graded meets. Similar to the 1000 mile challenge then if the thread motivates someone to try harder then it served it purpose.

while I understand the reasoning, the attraction (for me) of the original Big 8 was the simplicity of the idea. When you start adding events, and male/female versions, and age grading, and gold/silver/bronze...

If everyone posts their PBs in the same place - whatever they are, in whatever event - then you can set your own targets.

Oh, that guy is a minute faster than me - but my age grade is better, cool.

If I speed up by ten seconds, I can be faster than that runner.

Yay I'm the fastest woman (or O40, or...)

My current half marathon PB is 1:51, but I think I can get it down to 1:4x...

Krusty_Clown

Can't see any reason to upgrade the existing thread, as the 'oul lads and lassies are clearly out-performing their younger counterparts, across the a wide range of distances :P (or maybe the younger folk just don't feel the need to justify their existence by including their achievements in a table :rolleyes:).

Probably best to have a separate thread that consolidates across all distances, for anyone who wants to enter it, sorted by age grading. For example:

Age-graded performance thread:
Name|Event|Competition|Category|Time|Age Graded %
Krusty_Clown|Marathon|Copenhagen|F35|4:01:33|56.92|
Ger664|5k|Trim AC Braveheart|M65|19:55|63.4|
SomeDodgyOldGuy|400m|Wicklow Graded Meet 5|M65|61:21|93.3|


Not sure why it's not sorting correctly on 'Age Graded %' though.

Murph_D

Sorting sorted

Age-graded performance thread:
Name|Event|Competition|Category|Time|Age Graded %
Krusty_Clown|Marathon|Copenhagen|F35|4:01:33|56.92|
Ger664|5k|Trim AC Braveheart|M65|19:55|63.4|
SomeDodgyOldGuy|400m|Wicklow Graded Meet 5|M65|61:21|93.3|

Chivito550

May as well adjust performances based on height, weight, nationality etc so as well.

Personally this type of thing only encourages people to lower the bar. Sub 20 mins 5k should be within everybody's capabilities, regardless of age or gender IMO.

Murph_D

Chivito550 wrote: »

May as well adjust performances based on height, weight, nationality etc so as well.

Personally this type of thing only encourages people to lower the bar. Sub 20 mins 5k should be within everybody's capabilities, regardless of age or gender IMO.

Who said anything about 5k? :rolleyes:

Krusty_Clown

Chivito550 wrote: »

May as well adjust performances based on height, weight, nationality etc so as well.

Personally this type of thing only encourages people to lower the bar. Sub 20 mins 5k should be within everybody's capabilities, regardless of age or gender IMO.

It's like everything else - if there's an appetite for it, it will survive. If there isn't, it will slowly drift back through the Boards annals of history. I'm not really into the age graded performances myself either, but the table itself is an interesting one (those % figures are genuine stats, based on those events/times), as it gives a 63 year old guy trying the 400m an opportunity to compare his performance against others - much in the same way the IAAF tables work. It's much the same principle, just factoring in age.

Murph_D

Besides, thinking Chivito's point through a little, wouldn't any genuine advantage based on height/weight/nationality etc. already be factored in? A tall skinny Irish lad running a bit faster than a stocky old Kenyan would skew the stats accordingly. (Perhaps there are flaws in the WMA dataset, but they seem to have a degree of traction.)

Anyway, just an idea. Maybe Ray's idea to add Age Grade to the "Best Of 2015" thread is the way to go. It might liven up that fairly quiet area at least, where's the harm in that? The Round Numbers would still be there as the REAL mark of excellence. :pac:

wrstan

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

:

Age-graded performance thread:
Name|Event|Competition|Category|Time|Age Graded %
Krusty_Clown|Marathon|Copenhagen|F35|4:01:33|56.92|
Ger664|5k|Trim AC Braveheart|M65|19:55|63.4|
SomeDodgyOldGuy|400m|Wicklow Graded Meet 5|M65|61:21|93.3|


Not sure why it's not sorting correctly on 'Age Graded %' though.

Seriously! Is the SomeDodgyOldGuy handle taken?
I can't belive I didn't think of that. :-)