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

If I'm fit I'm generally between 85%-87% for 3000m to 5000m. Maybe a little below at 10k. Through my 50s that was nearly always good enough to win age group outside of national championship.

It frequently placed in nationals - although sometimes it was steeplechase, which is a soft event - and sometimes I got lucky, where a better runner ran below form. It would be fast enough to be around the top 40 on world rankings at 5000m 55+, and a bit higher at 3000m indoors or steeplechase.

There are some very good runners, but every age group the depth gets less, and if you can stay at the same level, you get further up the ranks. It only takes one or two good guys to be injured or not travel and a nationals can get very 'winable.' I know the 55-59 has been won in around 18:15 a few years back.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Question, are the masters road championships one off races, or did they take place within regular races like the open USA road championships?

I believe always part of regular road races.

Allen1959 wrote:

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Question, are the masters road championships one off races, or did they take place within regular races like the open USA road championships?

I believe always part of regular road races.

Cool. I was just wondering because they always take place in obscure places compared to the regular running circuit. The masters half marathon championships took place in Ann Arbor , a college town......The Regular 5k championships took place in NYC, and again the half marathon championships is taking place at the Chicago half marathon.

I'll just focus on winning my age group and master division in big city races. Not interested in going to some unknown town just to run 5k to half marathon.

There's a big difference between 80% and 86%... 86% is like 1:13 HM age graded for a Masters. You're almost Smoove good.

If you can run a 1:13 HM, you should be sub-2:40 marathon, in fact it should be a piece of cake. I would say 86% AG is national level for sure.

Bruin1996 wrote:

I think you are right.. the age graded time is the percentage of World record standard time for your age/your time. My question was if there is a correlation to percentile for 80% age graded time (how many percent of runners am I faster than or the general public). I am pretty sure I am top 1% among US 43 year old guys given the 70% overweight/obesity weight and the majority of non-runners but wondering if anyone knows how I stack up against runners (probably just average or below average compared to LetsRunners).

If you go to

, you can see how your time stacks up against other runners in your age group and event. It also calculates your age grading for the time.

In the older age groups, there is usually an outlier who sets the world record and only a handful of other runners can come remotely close, so the percentage age group ranking is not indicative of how many other runners are better than you. If you're close to 90%, you're among the fastest in the world.

For example, I ran an 87% age graded indoor 400m this spring. That's the 5th fastest time in the world this year in my age group.

In the M45 (a more competitive age group), a 90% age grading would be just enough to break into the top 10 in the world in the indoor 400m.

Sure.. we could compare our race times for fun. I only have NYC Marathon planned in November and possibly a local 10K for fun on July 4 in 2 Days.

I ran high school XC and track (above average in my team but way below average by LetsRun standards), ran a 3:51 marathon right after high school. Then, I didn’t do any serious/consistent running for over 20 years (most runs at 8:30-10:00 pace betweem 3-6 miles long). Just got back into running seriously 2 1/2 years ago after running a 4:12 marathon and wanting to improve upon that. I am beating my PR’s from high school through structured/consistent training with high mileage, strength training, and significantly healthier diet.

Yup.. I am a UCLA grad class of 1996.. hence my username. I have been thinking about joining a track club for training but I live and work in the Inland Empire so the clubs in LA and OC are a bit far for me to train with regularly on weekdays. Perhaps I could join for some weekend training runs or something.

The 1:13 Half was on a downhill half marathon (once called the fastest half in the USA). I have run 1:18 on a regular half marathon and I think I can run a bit faster than that now. Sub-2:45 is the goal for NYC to qualify for Tokyo and Berlin (I think I need 2:43 for 80% AG). Maybe I could run sub-2:40 at one of those Revel downhill marathons.

So I ran a local 10K on July 4.. 34:52 good for 81% AG.. 249 ft elevation gain. Loop so no net elevation change. No one to pace me as first place was low 32 (29 year old guy with a 1:05 half and 2:17 marathon PR ran Olympics marathon trials.. probably taking it easy) and 3rd was over 37. Did you do any races on July 4?

Just checking the 2017 masters world rankings. In the M45 category, Anthony Whiteman ran 11 seconds faster than anyone else over 800m, and nearly 20 seconds faster over 1500m.

I guess the 800 and 1500 age grade is now one of the toughest in comparison to other events? Maybe the percentage shouldn't be of the world record in the age group, but of the average of top 10 (athlete's) times or such? This prevents the age grade being skewed in different events by one 'freak' setting crazy masters records. The same thing will happen when Lagat rewrites the Masters records in his events.

Masters running will grow in popularity as we continue to live longer and healthier lives, and especially with the new treatments around the corner such as senolytics. The discussion then will need to be had as to whether they should be considered peds.

At the risk of triggering certain people and derailing this excellent thread again, it also needs to be pointed out that the middle and long distance rankings for the 45-49 category are dominated by European athletes. This is the age category who would have been 20 somethings at their athletics prime 20 years ago, at the height of the EPO era, when the senior rankings then, as we all know, were completely dominated by Africans. O.K., so obviously masters running is more popular in Europe than Africa or anywhere else, but still, it does seem odd that (Lagat aside) there aren't more Moroccans and Kenyans in these lists.

https://www.mastersrankings.com/rankings/

I saved the age graded factors that were used when I turned forty so I can get apples to apples;) Latest tables knock me down half a percent .

Details on how the current tables are being updated:

https://runnersconnect.net/age-grading/

Here’s the deal:

If you relied on the current world record, the age grading system would require frequent updates and revisions, and you wouldn’t be guaranteed a smooth progression when moving up in ages.

For example, if the all-time best 5k for a male 58-year-old was 16:00, but the all-time best for a male 59-year-old was 15:58, the same performance would be worse for an older runner, which doesn’t make sense.

Now:

To get around these sorts of problems, age-grading calculators use a smoothed curve to predict the best performance for a given age level. This curve is derived using statistical analysis of top performances, and is extremely close to the actual all-time bests for every age from about 16 to 50, but actual all-time bests jump around outside of that age range.

How reliable is age grading?

Age-grading as a concept is great, but there are a few drawbacks to the current methods used.

First, there are several different “versions” compiled by different statisticians floating around, and these will produce slightly different results when you plug in the same performance level.

Further, as records are broken, the models will eventually need to be updated. Though a smooth curve prediction of age-group bests will last longer without revisions, as more and more records get broken, the formula will gradually get less accurate.

The Howard Grubb / Alan Jones age grading calculator, which is probably the most commonly-used variant, gets updated about every five to ten years.2

I've seen the Euro domination of masters running first hand in my marathons. Part of me wonders if it is simply a matter of motivation where most of the top Africans were doing this as a way to make a living and they have now either earned that financial security they were seeking in the case of the true world clas guys, or there simply isn't enough money in masters running to make it a viable way for the second tier Africans to meaningfully supplement their income. Compare that to the Euros who are doing it maybe more as a lifestyle choice - it's how they stay healthy and running the NYC Marathon is a good way to go visit a great city.

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.

Duncan Greenshields has produced an alternative to Age Grading. It compares your performance in an event to everyone else in the world (based on 4 years of mastersrankings.com data), and it gives you a "standard score" and percentile. By only taking data from mastersranking it is effectively only taking data from serious athletes taking part in sanctioned track events. But the database is quite large as it covers the whole world. I did a quick check over 5000 M and my 75% AG becomes just 53% using his method. I.e. I am better than 53% of the serious runners in my age group. 80% AG becomes 71% so I guess the better you are the more the numbers will converge.

An interesting approach, but check this out

Compare a 45 year old running 15:41 for the 5000m.

- That is a 88 on the age grade tables

- That is a 944/94 Duncan score.

Maybe that is because the Duncan score approach uses the entire 45-49 age group, which is a challenge. When I plug in my actual age of 46, it is a little closer because that is a 91 in the age grade calculator. Another issue - the masters rankings website uses track times only, whereas most people are racing on the roads, I think, so that creates a bit of an apples and oranges issue.

Smoove wrote:

Another issue - the masters rankings website uses track times only, whereas most people are racing on the roads, I think, so that creates a bit of an apples and oranges issue.

I noticed it is only track so the only data in it will be serious/competitive runners only. I too am not sure what to make of it. But it did confirm one that I had realized over the years. I'm 63 and my results cause most of my non running peers to assume I am some kind of superstar, yet I've grown to realize that I am really just middle of the pack compared to other serious runners. When I calculated my result I felt, yeah that's where I belong.

Hi. I'm the creator of the duncanSCORE and Smoove is correct. The SCORES are based on 5 year age groups. In fact, though, I am currently working on single year SCORES and have calculated some. But the "samples" obviously get smaller as the ages get larger, so it is unlikely I will produce anything for ages greater than 79. And my SCORES are calculated on track yearly bests by individuala (not on "all' performances during the year). And fundamentally a track performance usually is faster than a road performance for several reasons.

80% should be regional. 85% national. 70% is just plain weak and slow. I hit that I am a slow barely hobby jogger.

I like this site:

I'm not a fan of the calculators for a few reasons. One is that there are multiple models and I like the idea of each single age group record being rated at 100% and then simply dividing the WR by your own time to get your own age-group %.

Additionally, I make a further adjustment that takes into account the post above. In my case, I'm 55, so when I'm looking at the world records, I'll use the fastest time for any age 55 and up, not just age 55.

Just not a big fan of the curve being fitted for times that have never ever been run for a particular age. Why stop there? Why not just theorize someone is eventually going to run 1:58:xx in the marathon at some point in the future and give the 2:02:57 a 98 or whatever it would be right now?

I also found that the age group progressions worked very well for the 5K, 10K, Half and Full but not for any of the distances in-between due to those being contested less frequently. In other words, the pace for the Half would actually be faster than that of the 20K. So, if I were to run a 20K, I'd just extrapolate a time on a straight-line between the 10K and Half WR times.

But that's just me - I understand the rationale behind the calculators; I just don't prefer them.