Comments on: Bud Held holds forth on new theory for tracking runners’ decline

By: buzz stevens

buzz stevens — Sun, 13 May 2012 14:34:12 +0000

Hi Bud, this may seem a bit invasive but I began playing Racquetball in the late 1960s and pastored the Methodist church in Point Loma in the 70s. When I got to know Taxer, your successor at Westminster, I was stunned to learn you designed the Ektelon. Mikel and I have continued to our friendship over the years. I’ve always wanted to convey to you how impressed I was to learn a preacher could accomplish what you have.

I just turned 76 and still playing a decent game on court along with blogging why the organized church is out of sync with most of life today.

Best to you, Buzz Stevens

By: Chip Smith

Chip Smith — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:47:47 +0000

Hi Bud. I found this site while looking for masters records age 65. I am thinking of competing in the 2012 summer event in august. Don’t know where it will be yet. Will you be there? Would be great to see you again. Sue and I still live in Memphis and own a counseling center for eating disorders and trauma. – http://www.transformationmemphis.com. Hope you get this message. All my best. Chip

By: Bud Held

Bud Held — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:18:55 +0000

I am currently looking at a way to utilize all age group world records to determine the reliability of current open class world records. One way to determine reliability is to see how closely the data points fit a smooth curve. It appears that for ages 35 through 65, the Men’s 100m. 200m, 1500 and 5000 fit the slopes the best. none of the women’s distances have really good fitting data points. It makes a good case for predicting women’s marks from men’s data.
If I come up with some good stuff in the next couple of years, I will publish it – probably of Ken’s web site.
Bud

By: Weia Reinboud

Weia Reinboud — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:26:02 +0000

Thanks Bud. Nice stuff to dive into.

By: Steven Snow

Steven Snow — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 02:37:42 +0000

Bud, have you published this study in more detail elsewhere?

By: Bud Held

Bud Held — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:39:19 +0000

My 11% differential between men and women’s running potential is a rather rough estimation. Open class world record differentials range from 9.5% to 12.4%. That is a lot of variation. The real question is: Is the variation due to poor data or is it due to real differences between men and women as they go from sprints to distance running? A further question is: Does this percentage hold true for all ages masters ages? More results and more study should allow us to close in on the answers. There are not only natural performance variations to consider, but performance drugs have certainly skewed the data. My feeling is that there is a fairly narrow differential of around 11%. I will stick with that number until something more definitive shows up. There is evidence to indicate that the 11% does not apply to events that require upper body strength. The differential appears to be lager, but I have not analyzed this yet.
Another important question is regarding the slope of decline: Is there a definable slope of decline for each distance, and does that slope apply to both men and women for all ages between 35 and 65? Weia suggests, from her high jump data that a straight line decline may apply beyond age 65. The high jump (and to a lesser extent, the pole vault) is a unique event in that the measured height does not actually represent the amount of the jump. That is to say that a jumper who clears 7 ft. really only jumps about 4 ft. because his center of gravity is already about 3 ft above the ground when he starts his jump. When this starting height is factored in, the exponential decline begins to show up at around age 65 again. The starting height advantage compensates for the exponential decline in older jumpers such that a straight line projection of the measured height appears to hold up pretty well. The only problem here is that a tall 100 year old woman may be able to step over a projected world record height without jumping at all.
Weia also points out that not all men’s world records are equally sharp.
The men’s records currently appear to be more consistent than the women’s records, and provide a pretty good base for determining women’s potentials if percentages and slopes can be verified. There may be a way to come up with a pretty good estimate of what open class world records really should be. There is a lot of data out there, and it is always going to be a bit of a murky mix, but if some good analysts and statisticians put their minds to it they can come up with some useful relationships.
Thanks for the excellent input Weia, Vance and Matt. I have put forth a number of postulates, based on my observations. I appreciate all the input I can get.
Matt, My slope for the 800m is 1/117. I made up an empirical formula, if you are interested: Slope Factor = 94 + 150/m^.28. My current “model T” formula for all races and all ages between 35 and 65 using listed open class world records is:
WR+WR/(94+150/m^0.28)*(Age-30). m = race length in meters.
My current formula for ages 66 though 100 is:
WR+WR/(94+150/m^0.28)*(Age-30)+WR*(age-65)*2.2/3300.
Bud

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:53:00 +0000

Yes, certainly some evidence of doping, but then so do the men, they are not above suspicion either. Some of their records may be aided. I still feel that women have a little farther to go in their progression athletically and will approach men’s times at least in running, closer to the 10%. Field events may be something different. Is a 20 foot men’s pole-vault closer to a 18’ performance by a woman. 10%? Probably not, I bet it is more like 13%, honestly I have not compared WR differences in men and women’s triple, long jump, high jump, etc. 13% sounds realistic.

By: Math Check

Math Check — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:15:40 +0000

Adding 10% to the male 400, 800, and 3K WR’s still equates to times that are faster than all of the female WR’s.

400 – 43.18 X 1.1 = 47.498 – Female WR = 47.60

800 – 101.11 X 1.1 = 111.221 – Female WR = 113.28

3000 – 440.67 X 1.1 = 484.737 – Female WR = 486.11

Also, let’s keep in mind that all of these particular female records must be looked at with suspicion due to “Iron Curtain” and Chinese doping allegations. More specifically, how is it humanly possible that Kractochvilova ranks #1, #2, and #20 all-time for the 800, 400, and 200?

For the lawyers that frequent this board, the preponderance of evidence is greater than 50.01% that Kractochvilova was doped. The evidence that I am speaking of was her hyper-developed musculature, excessive hair growth below the navel (hirutism), and enlarged genitalia.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:22:49 +0000

What is the slope of decline in the 800 1/130?? Using 10% and a WR of 1:41 flat for men;
Yekatarina Podkopayeva age (46)WR of 2:02.82 almost makes sense.
111x 1.1 + 101 x 16/130 = 2:03.53
I think my math is correct.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:41:29 +0000

“compared to MEN, (not me)of course