Bud Held holds forth on new theory for tracking runners’ decline
Bud Held after setting a world record in 2008.
Lots of folks have puzzled over age-grading — which helps oldsters compare themselves to youngsters. Truth is, our current WMA Age-Graded Tables (officially used only for combined events) are the work of a committee. Based on real stats but with some marks excluded as too “out there.” But committees involve egos and compromises. So we’re always on the lookout for a new theory. Up steps Olympian Franklin “Bud” Held, inventor of the modern javelin and current WR man in the M75 and M80 vault. He writes: “From time to time I put some effort into looking for a better way to predict human decline in track and field events. Our current age-graded tables are dependent on current performances. In many cases, current world records are not good markers for what is humanly possible. This is likely a result of some events lacking heavy competition.” (Here’s a video of a well-known “outlier.”)
Bud continues with his statistical observations:
There is a law known to manufacturers that states “The cost of a manufactured item is inversely proportional to the number of those items manufactured.” The law seems to apply in a direct way to track and field. “The more competitors and the more events held, the better the record.”
In masters track and field the older age groups are the least well represented, and this is especially true in the case for older women in field events.
I have discovered some correlations and consistencies that contribute to performance predictions. So far, I have only been working on running events. The running data seems to be most reliable, probably because these events are so heavily contested. Here are some of the observations I have made:
- Men and women decline in running speed at approximately the same rate.
- Women’s times at all distances and all ages are approximately 11% slower than men.
- The rate of decline is relatively linear between age 35 and age 65.
- The rate of decline begins to increase exponentially at around age 65.
- This rate, or slope, of decline increases as the race gets longer. (Distance runners decline faster than sprinters.)
- The decline slope is relatively determinable. It increases from 1/135 per year for the 100m race to approximately 1/100 per year for long distance races.
Among the 10 distances I analyzed within the open class up through age 65, only three runners do not fit well with my slopes and projections. These are “Flo-Jo” Joyner and Merlene Ottey in the women’s sprints and Yekaterina Podkopayeva in the women’s middle distances. All the men’s times, including Usain Bolt’s, fit well.
It is interesting to note that it is possible, by using slopes and differentials, to predict the projected records for women without using any data whatsoever from women’s performances.
For example, The projected W50 100m record can be obtained by increasing the men’s open record by 11% and adding 20 years of decline. Thus: 9.58 x 1.11 + 9.58 x 20/135 = 12.05
Merlene Ottey’s recent M50 time of 11.95 is only .10 seconds under that projected record. Merlene’s time for the W45 100m is, however, nearly 5% under the projected world record (by that method), and pretty much has to be statistically disregarded. Flo-Jo’s time of 10.49 is only 9.5% above Bolt’s time. It does not fit with the more universal 11% differential and also needs to be statistically discarded.
Other than the times of the three women noted above, the slopes and differentials fit quite well.
Is Bud onto something? Any other theories worth trying?
13 Responses
It’s a very interesting question, but I fear the answer is rather complicated.
1 Not all men’s world records open class are equally sharp. So for some you have to predict the record time. Unfortunately it is a rather complicated curve you have to deal with. See on my site (and yes, I’ll have to update that): http://home.xmsnet.nl/weiatletiek/RunningRecords.html
2 I do not believe the difference between women and men is a simple ratio either. It is, as far as I can see, another complicated curve.
3 And that was only about the open class, how about aging? It is true that at a certain age decline sets in and at another certain age accelerated decline sets in. Both have a genetic component and most likely for all disciplines those ‘certain ages’ are different. And not that certain!
4 I am especially interested in the decline in the high jump, my first discipline. Decline sets in somewhere between 30 and 35, followed by a linear decline to at least 80 in women and 90 in men! That is a much higher age than Bud guesses, than the new gradings suppose, the old gradings supposed etcetera. See http://home.xmsnet.nl/weiatletiek/RecPyrEng.html
When I started with that high jump statistics, 1998 I think, my guess for the accelerated decline was much lower. The masters world records of the time did not support another guess, but we have the Pellmans now and the Happs, and who knows what will follow? I will not be surprised to see big improvements of our world records. We have to wait for women and not only gifted for our sport but also gifted in having an accelearted decline at age 95 or so.
Bud’s analysis is quite well done. When I saw the revised factors for M60 in the multi’s, my first reaction was that the committee members determining the factors must not be very fast in the 100 meters thus taking points away from those of us who need to do well in that event. By applying Bud’s formula, I believe the product is more realistic. (FYI-I have an advanced degree in decision sciences)
Not only does it enable us to better understand the ‘age’ factor, it would serve as a model for age grading the multi-event tables.
I always believed the difference should be 10% between men and women.
“The more competitors and the more events held, the better the record.”
Using that reasoning, at least twice as many men worldwide have competed and have recorded times over the past 100+ years then women have.
Women have yet to get closer to their athletic potential compared to me, give it another 40 years. Some records are closer to 10% now, including the 400 and the 3000. The marathon is much better. I do think we will see a 2:02:30 soon on the men’s side, which will bring it back into the 10% range. 11% is a bit on the weak side, I am willing to bet as the decades progress 10% will be a more “universal” number.
“compared to MEN, (not me)of course
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.
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.
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.
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
Bud, have you published this study in more detail elsewhere?
Thanks Bud. Nice stuff to dive into.
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
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
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
Leave a Reply