Ageless results

by Jonathan Beverly

First compiled by the World Association of Veteran's Athletes (WAVA) in 1989, Age-Graded Tables underwent a thorough updating in 1994. The current tables are "pretty solid," says Al Sheahen, editor of National Masters News and chair of the WAVA age-graded subcommittee. "They're backed by 30 years of experience and thousands of actual results." The finished product describes the upper limits of performance at every age and distance. Given this upper limit, the tables enable a runner to compute two new descriptions of a running performance (for specifics, see the sidebar "Do the math" below):

• Age-adjusted time. Multiplied by a runner's actual time, an "age factor" adjusts the time to what it would have been in their prime.
• Performance-level percentage (PLP). Dividing one's time by the "age standard" provides a percentage value that can be compared to any distance or age.

The implications of these two conversion factors are numerous and exciting. "From an individual point of view," says Sheahen, "you can chart your progress year after year. While you may run a minute slower at 50 than at 47, your performance level percentage might be two points higher, so you've actually improved." Runners can also compare their performances with other runners at different ages.

Madeline Bost, a 57-year-old New Jersey runner and race director, comments, "When I'm 'on,' my strongest competition comes from two women who are 67 and 48 years old -- we run different times, but I always compare my adjusted times to them, and I'm disappointed when they beat me."

Age-Graded race results

Some, like Joe McDaniel, editor of Oklahoma Runner, consider age-graded tables essential. "It is the only fair way to determine awards for masters prize money, teams, and Clydesdales. There will never be a perfect way to give awards in these three categories, but nothing will ever come any closer than the WAVA system. We use it all the time in Oklahoma races."

Citing a specific race in which a 40-year-old received the masters prize money with a time of 18:23 while a 68-year-old who finished 2 seconds later walked away empty-handed, McDaniel asks, "Now, who had the better performance?" (WAVA tables give them adjusted times of 17:20 and 13:34, respectively.) "I am completely sold on this system," McDaniel states.

Richard Ferguson, a masters runner from Galveston, Texas, believes "All masters awards should be given on an age-graded basis. There are many times when an overall award, such as airline tickets, goes to the masters winner. Unfortunately, the award is almost never given on an age-graded basis. Nothing could be more absurd. When was the last time you saw a 70-, 80-, or 90-year-old runner win the tickets? And yet everyone over 40 is competing for them."

"Why choose 40?" Sheahen argues in regard to overall masters awards. "If you're not going to age-grade, why not give the prize to a 25-year-old and be done with it?"

For the past two years, USATF-New Jersey has been awarding the cash prizes for their masters 5K championship on an age-graded basis. USATF-NJ executive director Jim Siedlinski reports, "You get mixed remarks. The best system is one that preserves the age-group awards and is augmented by age-graded awards." Other races, including the USATF masters long-distance "Indy Life Circuit" are also awarding both traditional and age-graded prizes.

Advocating for such a mix is Ken Stone, webmaster for the Masters Track and Field home page, who states, "Age-graded results are no substitute for actual competition. Our sport can't lose sight of that. Age-adjusted results are mainly for comparing apples and oranges. If you have a choice between five-year age-group scoring and age-graded scoring, I'd pick age-group results -- the actual head-to-head results of a race. However, age-grading is the only game going to compare runners of vastly different age."

The ultimate use of the age-graded tables is to stage an age-handicapped race, or "Portsmouth Start." Starting with the oldest competitors first, runners are sent off at different times. Ideally, equivalent performances would bring runners to the finish at the same time, preserving head-to-head, but age-adjusted, competition at the tape.

While Sheahen has used handicapping often in track races, applying it successfully in road races is rare. After trying for two years, the "Equalizer 10K" in New York's Central Park was "found to be unsuccessful as a concept," according to Tom Kelley, computer systems associate for the New York Road Runners Club. "No one understood the concept or knew what they were supposed to do, especially concerning the various start times and how to interpret the results."

To simplify matters, one could apply the age adjustments to the entire field. Bost directs three New Jersey races that give masters age-graded prizes, but she has reservations about age adjusting across the board. "Never age-adjust the open results," Bost cautions. "The open runners run actual times, while the age-graded results are handicapped and should only be compared to each other."

Mississippi State University professor Rodney Pearson, developer of an age-graded computer program (see "Resources" sidebar below), states, "Basically I think that the overall winner of the race should get the number one award. To do otherwise would just be some form of affirmative action."

Sheahen, however, disagrees: "For a small race where you would be giving everyone an award if you used age groups, I see no reason why you couldn't compute all the awards based on performance levels. The tables are perfect for comparing performances -- it equalizes things."

Keith Stone of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, is age grading this year's results in a club series he directs. "I look at age-graded results as another scoring method that stirs up the mix a bit," says Stone. "The three-deep, five-year age groups are getting a bit old, and the demographics change so much from year to year that it's hard to predict outcomes in advance. WAVA scoring means we end up with no unused awards, and good runners usually go home with some reward." The series is still in progress, so Stone has yet to "see what the reaction of some 'stud' runner will be when he's beaten by a 58-year-old man."

Not everyone is a fan

However, the most vocal runners were those who would have won the masters trophies had they not been awarded on an age-graded basis. "There was a lot of discussion about this among the membership," reports Kim Kazimour, current FTC board president. "After two years club members petitioned the board to change back." Age grading was voted out at a controversial meeting in the summer of 1996, and hard feelings led to one board member's eventual resignation.

"Based on our experience," Williamson concludes, "I wouldn't recommend that clubs hand out age-graded masters trophies unless they intend to hand out regular masters trophies too. That's probably the only way to do it without making people angry -- and they do get angry!"

The keys to integrating age-graded results successfully appear to be communication and compromise. Bost recommends first publishing age-adjusted results along with standard results and listing the top age-graded masters in club publications. David Siconolfi of Compuscore in New York has been providing an age-graded time, place, and performance factor on all results cards since 1991.

Jack Moran uses age grading to single out the best performances (those over 85 percent PLP) in his Minnesota Running & Track magazine. Siedlinski of USATF-NJ says, "We're presenting it now as an exhibition tool at many races and setting a foundation for the future."

Siedlinski admits that "some strict traditionalists just won't run an age-graded race." In contrast, Bost tells of a 56-year-old who trained a full year for a summer 10K in which he placed first in the age-graded masters, and an 80-year-old who excitedly noted that the age-graded prize money went 10 deep this year, giving him a chance to place. "As athletes age," Bost observes, "they appreciate age-grading more." Clearly we will all learn to appreciate it, in time.

Jonathan Beverly, a frequent FootNotes contributor, is a member of the New York Road Runners Club. He hopes that age grading will become commonplace by the time he starts benefiting from it in the 2010s.

Do the math

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

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.

Rodney Pearson's downloadable Masters Program can be found at www2.netdoor.com/~runner/swrunner.html

Oklahoma Runner has an on-line calculator at www.runningnetwork.com/OKRunner/ results/index.html