Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Age Gradings
Am I missing something or does the age grading thing quite strongly "favour" older athletes? Someone setting a world record at 25-35 will be training full time training for olympics or other major events and probably have a team of coaches, nutrition advisors etc.
Obviously a world record at age 50 is also an outstanding effort but probably set by someone who's life doesn't revolve around running to quite the same extent and who maybe was never an olympic class athlete (they probably retire by then) just a very good amateur.
So it should be quite a bit easier to achieve an 80% score at age 50 than at 30.
Or not?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Personally, I find the masters merit standards more useful than age gradings (link below). Suspect what you say is broadly true in that top athletes will have achieved what they wanted and probably don't feel the need to break veteran records. Certainly I knew someone (now departed) who broke a veteran 10k world record in Glasgow and while an achievment it's not comparable with the open world record (he was a very good amateur). On training not sure I agree - some of the regular prize winning super veterans have retired early, are almost obsessed with the sport and train every single day. For track running, masters events are really the only outlet if you want to keep going whereas for road races it's less of a problem. Realistically I can't run 200 metres nowadays at the same speed as when in my 20s (there'd be something wrong if I could) and so masters merit standard gives me good idea of what to aim at.
http://www.athleticsdata.com/aboutus/adstandards.aspx
I find the age grading percentages useful for comparing my performances in different events, gives me an idea of perhaps what I should be capable of over different distances. Certainly better than those masters merit standards as I doubt I'll ever trouble the scorers with those!
73.6%
I've got an age graded best of 79.16%
of what though. I don't realy understand what it means.
With regards to motivation of ex athletes you've just got to look at Arthur Thompson. The former British race walker from the 60's who was voted European Vet of the year last year and now holds more vet world records than you cab shake a stick at
Thanks Ed,
...best I get training
What is your point exactly, IW?
(apart from the obvious that ceal is doing pretty special things in the vet ranks)
I'm M35 (36) and having the same times as senior men in the 800 (2.00m) and 1500 (4.08) seems harsh!!
Must be the hardest standards of the lot! Its what Athletics weekly use to put the results in the mag, so I have only got in there once for my 4.04 - but usually its around 4.10/4.11 - surely the standard should be 4.12 for v35's??
what % did you get for that 4.04 Simon?
I just had a quick look at the BMAF site and couldn't see a guide to age graded standards
god knows - I've only seen the % thing in road races - like the Serpy LFOTM 5k at Hyde Park...
I just think I shold be cut some slack (well a few seconds!!)
(Media Whore that I am!!)
I'm a bit surprised by the age grading: I just ran my first Half Marathon (Andover Trail Runners 4th September) in 2:29:01 which equates to 1:56:56. Apparently it's a hilly course - mostly off-road, but I have no comparison. According to the age-grading, I beat all the other ladies if you compare my adjusted time against the actual finish times posted on the website. (I have no idea what ages the other ladies were - many were younger!)
Before I kid myself into thinking that at 59, I've done better than expected, would someone like to puncture my ego please! My ambition was to finish before the full marathon runners finished - and my "normal" mile rate is 11 minutes per mile over 8-10 mile runs, dropping to 9 minute miles if I'm doing 56 or less. Really don't think I'm very fast, and I still walk up the steep bits!
I think it's helpful to remember that age grading doesn't cut across the age groups (at least, that's how I understand it). It's simply how you compare with other people in your age group, so it's not a pointer towards what you might have done in a different age group or comparing you with people currently in other age groups. Whether it's easier to get a good age grade as you get older, I don't know, but I do know that a lot of us older folk do train quite hard at times, and some ferociously so.
Fiona - the official UK athletics ranking lists for half marathon in your age group (female 55-59) go up to two hours, so that's what UKA considers 'good', and for 60-65 it goes up to 2:10. There were only a few hundred women who made it onto either of those ranking lists last year. So feel free to consider yourself good for your age, especially since it was your first half marathon.
I don't really follow that table, but I'm a bit dense. What do all the 'n's mean?
Hi Fiona, You've picked up on an 8 year old thread, but no less interesting for that.
If you want to use the adjusted time, then you would need to use everybody else's adjusted time, for a proper comparison. If you don't know their ages then you wont be able to do that. But what you can do is to keep track of your own results, as you age, and watch your decline....or improvement!
Park Run results give age gradings (percentages) for every runner, every week, so that it is possible to make comparisons, if you wish.
From the tables that you have used it would appear that your half marathon gives you 56.3%. If you had finished in 2 hours it would show 69.9%, and for a man of the same age, the two hours would show 60.44%. So there are various ways of using these tables. I'm now seventy two, and the age gradings are the only aspect of a results page that bring me any consolation! Enjoy your running.
Ha! I hadn't noticed the dates! Good grief.
Thank you for your prompt response. I think you've made a very valid point about the percentages. I'll try to do the local Parkrun occasionally to get a better perspective on my own running times. Whatever the finish time meant, it was a really great place for a run.
Fiona