How good is a 80% age-graded time compared to other runners of your age and the general public?

Smoove wrote:

So I think you can be national classes a masters runner at lower than 90, but that goes to my earlier point that it is so much thinner at the masters division than in the open division.

True. And, of course it becomes ever thinner as one moves up through the age groups.

Looking at my 5K times over the years, my Age Grade percentage has been remarkably consistent. At age 23 it was 80%, at 43 it was 81%, and 82% at age 57.

In my 20s, I was essentially mid-pack; in my 40s I would occasionally place as a master in smaller races, but not even close against regional competition.

Now, at 58, most of my competition has disappeared. Second M55-59 has been my worst finish, including at least one major regional event. But compared to the top-tier age-group competitors, I'm still a long ways behind. There just aren't many of them.

Allen1959 wrote:

Now, at 58, most of my competition has disappeared. Second M55-59 has been my worst finish, including at least one major regional event. But compared to the top-tier age-group competitors, I'm still a long ways behind. There just aren't many of them.

I believe that in masters competition, especially in the 55 and up, much of the competition is simply getting to the start line healthy. That's why I never object to someone in the 70-74 or similar getting an award, despite being the only one in that age group at the race. They earned it simply by showing up while their competition didn't.

Bruin1996 wrote:

Hi everyone,

I have been training pretty seriously for the last 2 1/2 years and have managed to bring my track distance times (these are times during track speedwork intervals.. not actual races) and my road half marathon to above 80% age graded as a 43 year old guy. Working on getting my road marathon to above 80% age graded next. How good is your time if you are over 80% age graded compared to other runners and to the general public of your same age? I know I am definitely not nationally competitive but I feel I am at least locally competitive. I tried to search for this on the internet but couldn't find anything.

That's better than locally competitive. During my years as a masters competitor, I regularly ran 72-75% of age-graded and in my neck of the woods--which is, admittedly, a minor market--that always nabbed me a trophy. Living in NYC or Boston, of course, is a different matter.

I never made it to 76%. So from my perspective, 80% is doing very well indeed.

Now, we had a guy here in town who ran a 19:16 5K in his mid-60s. It got him a state age record in Mississippi, easy. That's a whole other level of good.

A question for those of you that track your age grading. I understand that several have observed a consistent age grade score in the same distance as they age. But have you noticed any discrepancies across distances?

I ask because I race all distances, from the mile to the marathon, with all my PRs set in the last 14 months as a young (40-44) masters runner. When you compare my times at the various distances via McMillan or similar, my times are very even across the board - my half is what you would expect to see, based on my 5K, etc. However, under age grading, my times at the shorter distances are "better" according to age grading. They break down as follows:

Mile 84.5%

5K: 82 %

10K: 82%

10M: 81%

Half: 80.5%

Full: 78.5%

I actually consider myself slightly better at the longer distances, so I find this curious. I'm wondering if it's just because most elite masters move up in distance as they age, skewing the tables slightly.

Coffee Grind wrote:

No way 80% is national class. I have recent AG times of 72% for 5k, 75% for two miles, and 80% for the mile. At 43 years old I am no where near national class.

I was mid to high 80% in college and just barely walked on to my team.

You need to be 90% to even sniff national class level.

At the USATF Masters 10K championship this year only 5 men broke 90% in age grading with Nate Larson a 55 year old who ran 33:24 leading the list with a 93.9%. Only one 40 year old cracked the top 10 a 47 year old who ran 33:36 and scored a 87%.

So yeah I'd say 80% and up is national class.

Two points: USATF Masters Championship meets simply don't draw the top guys. It's just not representative of anything. Look at the 2017 outdoor results. Plenty of the regular masters posters on these boards would've been able to win the steeple, 5000 or 10,000 based on those results but simply weren't going to LSU to race.

As to the poster who asked about age grading across distances, I am generally consistent, but my marathon is the worst of all of my age graded performances even though I've had some very good performances at legit races at that distance. Admittedly, my best time is relatively slower than my other times, but that is the nature of the marathon I think.

My best age graded time was at the 15k, which makes sense not just because it was a very good race for me but because it is a moderately raced distance. So you compound the thinner fields generally at the masters level and an infrequently raced distance, and then you have a great age graded performance. It is a quirk that illustrates the shortcoming of the entire age grading process.

To illustrate my point that people just don't show up to masters championship events: the top 3 guys at Gate River Run had faster 10k times than the winner of the USATF 10k road championship. And that's a 15k race. They split the 10k on the way to the 15k faster than the winning time at the 10k masters championship. Same with the winner of the Bix 7 miler. Same with top 2 guys at Peachtree (although that's not a great example - those two guys were Lagat and Abdi).

Smoove wrote:

To illustrate my point that people just don't show up to masters championship events: the top 3 guys at Gate River Run had faster 10k times than the winner of the USATF 10k road championship. And that's a 15k race. They split the 10k on the way to the 15k faster than the winning time at the 10k masters championship. Same with the winner of the Bix 7 miler. Same with top 2 guys at Peachtree (although that's not a great example - those two guys were Lagat and Abdi).

In another sense, Lagat and Abdi at Peachtree ARE a great example. Because those are the people that aren't showing up at the USATF Masters Championships, along with Deena Kastor, Blake Russell, Meb, Joan Samuelson, etc

If you can show up at a national championship and finish in the top 10% then you're national class. It doesn't matter if faster runners exist. Otherwise every race would just be a time trial and you could submit your times.

I don't see the logic of that.

If the top 10% finisher in this race is the 50th ranked runner in his age group in his event nationally is he still national class? What if he is the 100th ranked age grouper in his event ?

It's labeled a national championship race but there are no real standards to get in, and as a practical matter it is a regional race. Look at the results. The vast majority of the top finishers are from the northeast and the majority of those seem to be from Massachusetts. You have people running much better times in races all over the country every month, but they aren't bothering to travel to face relatively subpar competition in a race that is less competitive than their local races. Why would they? To claim to be a national champion?

It is a national championship race in name only. The same is true with the championship masters track meets.

Joe Newton used to talk about excellence vs success. Winning a race, even if it carries a national championship lable does not make you excellent.

My sense is that for most aging runners, top-end speed declines more rapidly than endurance. So the world best for the shorter distances is comparatively slower in the older age groups.

The fact that the equivalency calculators, for you even in your 40s, are accurate from the mile to the marathon, I think demonstrates that you are maintaining speed better than most. And the age-grade tables reflect the same.

For me, the comparative calculators increasingly overestimate my mile time as I have aged, as would be expected. But the age-grade percentages have been quite consistent:

1-mile

Age 23 -- 78.1%

Age 43 -- 78.7%

Age 58 -- 80.5%

5K

Age 23 -- 80.5%

Age 43 -- 81.5%

Age 57 -- 82.9%

Marathon

Age 23 -- 76.6%

Age 43 -- 74.1%

Age 58 -- 78.6%

Smoove, why'd you dodge me at Gasparilla? Wqs OA masters champ at 60 and 91%. I'm sure you'll pen a way to put it down because you were a better runner than me at age 24. But whatever, you seem like a real joy.

notafatty wrote:

Coffee Grind wrote:

No way 80% is national class. I have recent AG times of 72% for 5k, 75% for two miles, and 80% for the mile. At 43 years old I am no where near national class.

I was mid to high 80% in college and just barely walked on to my team.

You need to be 90% to even sniff national class level.

At the USATF Masters 10K championship this year only 5 men broke 90% in age grading with Nate Larson a 55 year old who ran 33:24 leading the list with a 93.9%. Only one 40 year old cracked the top 10 a 47 year old who ran 33:36 and scored a 87%.

So yeah I'd say 80% and up is national class.

USATF "championships" aren't very meaningful.

Take a look at the Carlsbad 5000 results. I'd estimate 40-50 guys over 40 were over 80%. 33 masters guys under 18.

they don't post ag%s so I'm not sure, but eyeballing it....

notafatty wrote:

Coffee Grind wrote:

No way 80% is national class. I have recent AG times of 72% for 5k, 75% for two miles, and 80% for the mile. At 43 years old I am no where near national class.

I was mid to high 80% in college and just barely walked on to my team.

You need to be 90% to even sniff national class level.

At the USATF Masters 10K championship this year only 5 men broke 90% in age grading with Nate Larson a 55 year old who ran 33:24 leading the list with a 93.9%. Only one 40 year old cracked the top 10 a 47 year old who ran 33:36 and scored a 87%.

So yeah I'd say 80% and up is national class.

this is better - it has age graded scores. The USATF masters 5k road champs last year in Syracuse - 84!!!!! guys broke 80%. 10 over 90%.

ok so some USATF champs are good races. Too bad they killed this one off.

Wow, Coyote? Why the hate? I haven't put one person down on this string (and don't do it much at all).

I didn't dodge you at all at Gasparilla. I won the masters division in the half marathon which I ran at goal marathon pace as a workout in anticipation of Boston. There's no shame in my game at all.

And I was dog crap at 24. I was good at 22, then didn't run much from 23 until about 40 and became a good masters runner. About on par with you from an age grading perspective. Your success doesn't diminish mine any, so I wish you and the other masters runners out there well and hope to be performing as well as you are at 60 (Allen brags about you on the weekly thread all of the time).

Smoove ,

Take a look at the start lists for the USATF Master Outdoor Championships M1500 and notice the depth from age 50 and up:

http://www.usatf.org/Products---Services/Event-Registration-Status.aspx?e=113571

The road racing championships also attract some excellent competition. Check out this guys coverage:

http://www.runningprof.com/

Cross country used to be EXTREMELY competitive in all age groups incredible depth

Sometimes the fields are not as deep,like last years outdoor in Louisiana.

As a supporter of master's track and field I encourage you to take a closer look.

every national championship (and even world championships) is a crapshoot at the youth and masters level. that doesn't mean they're not meaningful--you can only race who shows up, and winning is usually better than losing--but i don't have a problem differentiating between being a national champ and being the best in the nation. both are fun (and i've been both), but they are very often two different things.

my advice to a budding masters runner would be:

1) on the track, times are probably way more meaningful--and satisfying--than winning particular races.

2) on the roads, wins are probably more important--and satisfying--than times.

3) in x-c place is always the prime measure.

world class and national class measures are arbitrary--i guess they're useful if your primary goal is to measure yourself against your peers when you can't always race head to head, but i can't imagine why you'd really give a crap about that kind of label at our age. i really like the joe newton quote mentioned earlier regarding success and excellence...

by the way, to the OP bruin96--are you a ucla grad? if so, and you're local, and you're looking for a club, feel free to contact me...

cush

agip wrote:

The USATF masters 5k road champs last year in Syracuse - 84!!!!! guys broke 80%. 10 over 90%.

That was a heckuva race. Unfortunately, that was marathon day for me last year, so I couldn't be there. I was really disappointed to hear the 5K won't be in Syracuse again this year (when I have no marathon scheduled). Of course, I would be WAY back at the finish, but still would be fun to be in such a deep masters race.

I suppose it's not really fair for it to be perennially here in the Northeast. August 18 in Atlanta this year, I believe. Six weeks sooner, still East Coast. Another deep field?