Forums >Suggestions and Feature Requests>Age-graded performance
Awesome
Do the math age-graded time = time * age factor At 53, Madeline Bost ran a 10K in 42:37. The women's 10K age factor at 53 is .8545. Multiplying her time by the factor (42:37 [2,557 seconds] * .8545) gives a 36:25 age-graded time. performance-level percentage (PLP) = par 10K standard for age / actual time The 10K standard for women at 53 is 35:01. Dividing the standard by Bost's actual time (35:01/42:37) yields 82 percent PLP. Resources Age-Graded Tables, the full set of factors and standards for all track and field events, is available for $6 plus $1.25 postage from National Masters News, P.O. Box 50098, Eugene, OR 97405. The Runner's Training Diary, by Bob Glover and Shelly-lynn Florence Glover, presents age-graded tables for all distance events and instructions on their use.
When it’s all said and done, will you have said more than you’ve done?
As a 30 year old male, I must respectfully disagree.
Hey Eric,
Did anything ever get implemented for this? If yes, where can I find it??? I think it would be interesting to be able to sort all of your performances over the year by an age grade. Maybe because those are the only PRs I am setting these days...
ETA -- sorry for raising a ghost, but was thinking of age graded performances and this seemed to match.
And you can quote me as saying I was mis-quoted. Groucho Marx
Rob
I use this calculator for age grades:
http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html
It's implemented in JavaScript, so while you might not be able to just hijack the code for copyright reasons, the logic is all exposed (and the formulas/factors themselves are all public anyway). I poked around to see how I might implement a script on my own, just haven't gotten a chance to code it up. Worth a look as a starting point.
(+1 for the feature! I love being able to compare performances across distances.)
Options,Account, Forums
There are tables here: http://www.runscore.com/Alan/AgeGrade.html
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
If this were to ever be implemented (which I am in favor of) the Howard Grubb 2015 WMA tables are the de facto standard. They are the ones to use. They were just updated in 2015, prior update was 2010 so there wouldn't be a huge amount of maintainence required as far as updating the tables once you have them.
On a personal note, using the 2015 factors my AG performances have been downgraded a percent or two depending on distance. There's a guy in the UK named Martin Rhees with a little help from Bernard Lagat and Haile G, who is personally re-writing the old dude record book (and bumping up the standards for all of us to hit).
I have been wondering if the 40s would get downgraded based on Lagat.
Just checking in on this again...
Have I really been here for nine years?
Clearly I've been here long enough that I don't remember requesting this, or even why I requested this.
Have I really been here for nine years? Clearly I've been here long enough that I don't remember requesting this, or even why I requested this.
They say the memory is the first thing to go...
#artbydmcbride
I forgot about that.......
Runners run