But seriously, awesome race. Just leave the "grading" to sports like synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics.
... and triathlon.
But seriously, awesome race. Just leave the "grading" to sports like synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics.
... and triathlon.
No, they typically overestimate older runners' performances.
This tells you lose less till age 40 than previously thought.
as for age-grading, whiteman clearly is an outlier. tony young and jim sorenson and kevin castille on the american side are too--some guys simply lose a smaller percentage of what they had when they were young. my age-graded perfromances have stayed within a 2% range for the most part from ages 18-44...
If you saw the race you know that Age Grading isn't needed. It was an outstanding performance straight up
Cush is right. Why is it so hard for people to think that 3:58 at 40 is as much an "outlier" as 3:45 or better at 28? Two guys have done the former, and three have done the latter (four if you count Lagat's converted 1500's). Age-grading is a measure of statistical significance, and for guys like Whiteman, how well they are "beating" the age-decline in performance.
socalcush wrote:
as for age-grading, whiteman clearly is an outlier. tony young and jim sorenson and kevin castille on the american side are too--some guys simply lose a smaller percentage of what they had when they were young. my age-graded perfromances have stayed within a 2% range for the most part from ages 18-44...
1) We don't know that (not a lot of 40+ runners put in the work needed - family, work, etc are bigger priorities)
2) I've never seen age-grading be stated as a 'statistical' measure. People always say "This time is worth X with age-grading" which it is not.
3) The man of the topic was a 3:52 miler in his day. He was not a 3:45 miler.
None of this is meant to take away from his amazing performance, but age-grading is just plain silly.
right tone wrote:
outside chance of making the Olympic team if he can find a few seconds, 3:35 ish might be enough looking at last and this year.
http://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=1500&agegroup=ALL&sex=M&year=2011http://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=1500&agegroup=ALL&sex=M&year=2012Has there been any male 40+ runners in recent times who have competed in an Olympic middle distance event?
he can't make the olympic team even if her did get the qualifying time because he's not on the drugs testing register
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/news/sub-4-at-40/Totally off subject but super cool to see Scott Wietecha's name pop up and with a pretty quick time.
Really wish I could see how he would have competed against some of the young guns on the NCAA level at regionals or nationals this year. Not saying he would have won it all, but I bet he would still give a couple of guys a run for their money.
Scott W had to run in No Man's Land much of the race. Kung Foo Cage Boxing Ultimate Fighter training for a couple of years made him tough. He did break down and eat junk at McDonald's Midnight rendezvous.
Drug test him.
I'd pretty much agree that if you can "stop the rot" you can get significantly improve relative to where you were as an open athlete, so it's not neccessarily odd that a 3:52 miler might better that age graded (how many people who ran at that level keep going at 40?).
From my experience - racing from 14 to 55 - that all the way through my 40s, when I was running well, my age graded performance was virtually at the same level as my best as an open runner (and across a range of distances).
With some smarter training (from an outside coach) - I've pretty much manage to not slow down since age 49, and so over the last couple of years I've had big age graded prs.
So I think, with a combination of smart training, and maybe some good genes, Whiteman has beaten the curve by slowing down less than would have been expected.
Is that the same Scott W from sc? Dueled with the ernst kid?
This guy is the epitome of being genetically gifted.
Harry Seward wrote:
1) We don't know that (not a lot of 40+ runners put in the work needed - family, work, etc are bigger priorities)
Ask Steve Scott, Johnny Walker, Rod Dixon and Eamonn Coghlan how hard it was to run a low-4 minute Mile in their late 30s and early 40s compared to their younger, faster years. The fact that Coghlan, back in 1994, was the first and only Master to break 4 minutes before Whiteman speaks volumes to its difficulty.
>>3) The man of the topic was a 3:52 miler in his day. He was not a 3:45 miler.>None of this is meant to take away from his amazing performance, but age-grading is just plain silly.
Not plain silly because age-grading provides a relative context and comparison - no one is claiming an exact science here via age-grading.
You're absolutely right. Relative context. I offer a solution. Age-graded performances need to be relative to the difference between the age-group world record holder's overall personal best and his age-group personal best.
The way it's set up now, age-grading is based on the difference between the overall world record and the age-group world record. Nevermind the fact that (I don't believe) any age-group record is held by someone who holds an actual existing world record. When we see El G training and racing through 50+ yrs, we might see an appropriate multiplier in this regard, but until then, it's just a bunch of old people looking for ways to feel better about themselves.
Look, I don't mean to take away anything from great performances from masters athletes, I just think the concept of age-grading is so ridiculously flawed that it needs to be looked at as a joke until a more realistic approach is taken. Sub 4 at 40 is no joke and needs to be recognized as an incredible feat, but a 3:58 mile is NOT the same as a 3:45 mile. Ever. Statistically, sure. But practically speaking, greater rarity =/= greater performance.
>>Age-graded performances need to be relative to the difference between the age-group world record holder's overall personal best and his age-group personal best.>a 3:58 mile is NOT the same as a 3:45 mile.<<
Agreed in this context, but it is important to consider why the vast, vast majority of world class runners don't compete as Masters when they reach 40-plus - yes, time is a factor, different time of their lives, been there done that, don't want to train hard anymore, sub-performance not good enough for them and little if any monetary incentive, but some 40-plus talents, such as Eamonn Coghlan, Steve Scott and Rod Dixon, have tried and found out how hard it is to train at a high intensity without getting hurt or to stay healthy long enough to race fast.
So three men have broken 3:46 for the Mile and two men 40-plus have broken 4 minutes for the Mile, so to me, in a relative context to one's age, they are comparable performances with the current age-graded tables adding context.
I bet none of you dweebs complaining about age grading are anywhere near 40. When you're a bit older you'll recognise this as a stellar performance.
Well done Mr Whiteman, I hope you can go faster still.
Thanks for posting vid. link. That was awesome. Loved the way he kept looking back with 200m to go. Perhaps more of a 'habit' after turning 40. I very rarely looked back in races when I was younger, but since turning 40 (seven years ago now!) I do it more often, esp. when I have a bunch of 20 somethings chasing me down! :)
Well done Mr. Whiteman, that was badass.