Jess Brewer posts new Age-Graded Tables lookup form for all ages
Click here for age-graded lookup of single-age marks.
About Ken Stone
Ken has followed track as an athlete, writer and web-master since the late 1960s, and saw most sessions of track and field at the 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He also attended the 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Trials, the last three as a blogger and Patch correspondent. [More...]
Ken Stone
-
14 Responses
But it would still be good to have a comprehensive look up table including age-graded percentages. We’ve had them before. Is anyone working on one?
For several years, I’ve been trying to map my progress against my age graded percentage – crudely put, if I’m getting older but my % is rising, I’m improving. I also want to keep check on which event is my best. Is % in one event rising while falling in another, for example? You can’t do that properly by looking at the output from the new calculator, no matter how up to date and welcome it nevertheless is.
Anyone?
“if I’m getting older but my % is rising, I’m improving.” Well Tom, it could also be that the gradings are overrating older athletes. Which I think is the case.
The present set of age gradings are only made for 5-year intervals. It is of course possible to find in between rates per year, but it remains interpolating.
Forget tables. Try one of these age-graded calculator apps:
http://lollylegs.com/lollylegs/training/age_grade.htm
http://www.mastersathletics.net/index.php?id=2595
I suspect that Weia is right. To me age grading is a good comparison tool for an individual but may not be as accurate for everyone. The affects of aging vary so much from person to person. Plus the number of masters athletes who are able to maintain the same fitness level as they were at their peak cannot be high.
Riley, those are outdated gradings…
Ken, your “Officially, the Age-Graded Factors are used only for combined event scoring.” is incorrect. All age gradings for all disciplines are based on about the same statistics and calculations. The pecularities of the multi events are in the IAAF tables that are used after the age grading.
The origin of the age gradings is in the multi events, that would be correct. But Al Sheehan’s first tables contained all disciplines already.
The Jess/Howard-site does not contain the women’s javelin… And maybe more.
Jess …please verify if david ashfords world record m4o 110 is a12.9999 he was forty years old and ran 13.73 if so that would make the mark even more respected on the books …wow
I have a printed copy of the Masters Age-Graded Tables (1990 Edition). Interestingly it contains World and American age-group records as of July 1990. The Decathlon and Pentathlon records are NOT age-graded. Rather they appear to be taken from the actual IAAF scoring tables (1962 IAAF scoring tables for the Deca and 1985 IAAF scoring tables for the Pent), which explains the very low point totals (i.e., world M85 Pent score: 372.
The age-graded tables were revised and printed in 1994. I a printed copy of the Masters Age-Graded “1994 revised tables”. The 1994 copy states:
-In 1983, Chuck Phillips (USA) introduced his first edition of “Dr. Track Age Standards” for every track, field and road event.
-In 1986, the first complete age-graded track and field meet was staged in Los Angeles by NMN.
-In 1988, WAVA supported and encouraged standardization of age factors.
-In 1989, a complete set of masters age-graded tables was compiled and published in 1989 by WAVA and NMN. A first printing of a booklet containing the age-graded tables was published in February, 1989 with a second printing of the same tables in July 1990 (my copy).
Note that although the age-graded tables have an official use by using five-year age group factors in the multi-events (meaning you score as many points in an event at age 64 as at age 60), the tables themselves are in one-year increments. That way for the 100m you can calculate an age-graded equivalent for your age in any event, whether 37, 46, 59, 62, etc.
The tables were subsequently updated in 2006 and 2010, but I believe these tables were posted on line.
The biggest problem (which also applies to the open multi-events where the IAAF Dec/Hept tables have also been revised periodically) is that it is now impossible to compare masters age-graded multi-event scores set over the past near half-century without obtaining the original marks and cranking them through each of the scoring tables.
One, of course, assumes that the masters record keepers know if an age-group Pent record set in 2016 is a better score than that from a Pent record set in 1989.
What would be very, very, helpful would be if a tech savoy person could link on-line the original and all revised masters scoring tables together in such a way that one could then plug in the actual marks* from any masters Deca/Hept/Pent from any past decade and have the scores for each scoring table (including the current one) displayed for comparison.
i.e.
1989 score:
1994 score:
2006 score:
2010 score:
See my False Start column:
http://ortmanmarchand.com/fsg.html
* There are very specific rules regarding recording actual marks in multi-events involving rounding down throw marks and running times.
Interesting David, the early years I did not know of!
Bernd Rehpenning has made top ten all time lists for Europe, with in the multi-events everything recalculated, see: http://www.evaa.ch/top-10.html
I have digitally the last version of the age gradings made by the late Al Sheahan (1994 I think, I’ll have to look it up), the last revision by Rex Harvey (2006) and the current age gradings by Bernd Rehpenning (2010 but some revisions as of 2014). The first two are for 1 year intervals, the last one only 5 years. As I have an excel file for all multi events, including the 20-athlon, it will not be too much work to make something you ask for.
And I have my own grading system too… 😉
This is a useful and current age-grading calculator.
http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html
The new calculator seems not to work for the 300m hurdles. It tells me my 54 second time from last year is equivalent to a 42 sec open time. This is either a conversion to another 300m time (which is not what open athletes run) or the calculator is reading 54 as a 400m IH time (very reasonable for an open athlete and even possible for me forty odd years ago) and telling me I’m the equivalent of Hemery, Aki-Bua, Moses, et al rolled into one–which I,m several quanta beneath. Howard Grubb’s calculator automatically converted 300 hurdle time to 400m IH time equivalents.
Not a big fan. This is what I would be if I were younger, or smarter, or better looking. I am what I am.
Leave a Reply