AGT 101: Making sense of these priceless WMA tables
The raw numbers in the Age Graded Tables may seem daunting, but there is method in this masters madness. I’ve found several sites that explain how to use the AGT, which have been through several iterations over the years. A good introduction was written by Running Times editor Jonathan Beverly almost a decade ago. British statwiz Howard Grubb offers his plug-and-play AGT (based on the 1994 tables). Canadian hurdler Jess Brewer (who smashes subatomic particles in his day job) crunched the numbers, too. Several distance-running sites have their own versions — catering to roadies. And Hy-Tek incorporates the AGT in its track-meet software.
The introduction to the 1994 AGT is excerpted here.
A technical explanation of age-grading by one of the AGT pioneers was written by Alan Jones.
National Masters News columnist Mike Tymn wrote a nice piece in 2000 on how the AGT could be used in comparing marathon runners.
A bloke named Rod Baron critiqued the tables using marks by his fellow Ryston Runners in the United Kingdom.
The 1994 Age Graded Tables came in a yellow booklet (pictured here). I’m hoping National Masters News makes the new tables — with acompanying how-to instructions — available ASAP.
Bottom line: The AGT have been growing long in the tooth. Now they’re back — tanned, rested and ready to make you look good, better or worse. Take your pick.
3 Responses
I look forward to a “plug and play” version or a nice little booklet where I can just look up my age, distance, time, and get the age-grading etc in plain english. There is a reason why I am an historian and not a mathematician – and a reason why folks like me just need the results and not the multiple x by y and divide by the length of your nose. I have enough trouble running races without having to engage in higher math. Oxygen debt continues to do a job on my brain. So – what is the age-grading for woman running a mile at 7:12:59 at age 70?
If age grading tables did what they are supposed to do, which is to adjust performances based on the differences in athletic “potential” at different ages, they would never need revising. Improvements in performances over time would be accepted merely as more people having reached a higher level of their ahtletic potential than in the past, as opposed to a need to revise the tables.
We need to remember that age grading tables are not only used to let runners of different ages compare performances. They are also a big part of field events. For instance, they are an integral part of the point calculation in events such as the Weight Pentathlon. When age grading tables are revised the records for these events go out the window, and you find yourself with a “new javelin” v “old javelin” scenario. If I had set a long-standing record in these events, which no one seemed to be able to break, and then have it delegated to irrelevence because the age grading tables were revised, I would be pretty upset.
Dang, just yesterday I ordered the 1994 tables.
Mary: As I understand it, a W70 7:12.59 mile time is equivalent to an age-graded time of 4:31.49.
For those interested, here’s the math: First, find the spreadsheet column with your event (Fmile is column CI). Then find the row with your age (age 70 is row 68). Your age-factor (.6276) for this event is found where the row and column intersect.
Now convert your performance to seconds (7:12.59 = 432.59 seconds) and multiply by the age factor (0.6276), resulting in an age-graded mile time of 4:31.49. (432.59 seconds multiplied by 0.6276 equals 271.49, or 4:31.49.)
Leave a Reply