I have always understood 60% to be local, 70% to be regional, 80% to be national, and 90% to be world class. Anything over 80% at least in my age groups will usually win the AG in a good sized marathon and get you into the top 10 of the AG in a world major, so that is far better than regional, and 98% is too stringent for world class -- that is just a hair or two away from a world record = 100%.
Those are the percentages that most age grade websites use but I’ve always thought they were a bit soft.
80% of my age group (40-44) would net you #38 in my age group at Boston this year. But I agree that 80% will typically be good for a top 3 in most bigger races, especially the marathons.
I was thinking world class should only be those folks that have legitimate chance of winning an Olympic or World Major, which would be somewhere around 97/98%.
You're really bad at math. World class is basically those who are in the mix for a top ten world ranking --- less than 1/1000th of one percent. Likewise with National Class.
Those are the percentages that most age grade websites use but I’ve always thought they were a bit soft.
80% of my age group (40-44) would net you #38 in my age group at Boston this year. But I agree that 80% will typically be good for a top 3 in most bigger races, especially the marathons.
I was thinking world class should only be those folks that have legitimate chance of winning an Olympic or World Major, which would be somewhere around 97/98%.
You're really bad at math. World class is basically those who are in the mix for a top ten world ranking --- less than 1/1000th of one percent. Likewise with National Class.
This is not a "math" issue but a question about age grading percentages. I don't think you understand how they work. 100% is a world record. Anything over 90% is typically regarded as world class and is very hard to achieve. That doesn't mean the top 10 percent of finishers in a race.
Likewise National class doesn't mean the top 20 percent of finishers. It is a function of how close you are to world record pace.
Anyone that's not currently sponsored by a brand or has run an otq.
So >98% of the members on this site, myself included.
I've run an OTQ but will acknowledge that someone running 2:20's is not a hobby jogger, in fact far from it. I'd say a hobby jogger is someone who only runs 3-4 times per week or less. They don't usually run more than 4 or 5 miles or so at one time, usually less. They don't really do any real workouts, just the act of running makes them tired so they don't really have a workout pace since everything is a workout.
If you're running every day or almost every day, and occasionally running more than 6 miles at once, and occasionally doing a workout, then you're not a hobby jogger. This is because you're actually TRAINING and testing your SPEED, you're not just out for a jog as a leisurely hobby.
I would hesitate in calling a 2:20 marathoner not a hobby jogger. Actually even OTQ is way too generous, and I’m talking the new standard of 2:17. So whether someone who OTQed is a hobby jogger may up to debate, a 2:20 marathoner is mostly still a hobby jogger
I hate to beat a dead horse but no one in the real world uses the term hobby jogger and certainly not someone capable of running a 2:20 marathon or a sub 35 10K. Jogging by most definitions is to run at a steady gentle pace, most people define this as 6 mph or less. Other definitions use intensity to distinguish between running and jogging but the fact is people who are running 6 minute miles aren't jogging and therefore can't be considered "hobby joggers." Maybe this board needs a new term like "hobby runner" or no pro runners who are faster than most.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.