So the other night I was discussing my past running performances with my wife. I say my 5:05 mile at age 44 is better then my 31:48 10k at age 24. She flatly thinks there is no comparison and the age 24 10k is the better of the two. Who is right?
Is there a calculator online that will be able to determine the value of each? Also how can we measure across age and sex performances, is there a running calculator available for that also, she wants to compare her running times to mine?
Your wife is correct!
Actually my 31:48 at age 44 as a husband is better than my 5:05 minutes of sex as a boyfriend.
Take this all with a grain of salt, but the 5:05 at age 44 "converts" to the rough equivalent of an open mile run at 4:39.7 according to the age grading calculator.
Now if you take the 4:39 mile and plugs it into an equivalent race times calculator (like the one at runningtimes), it "equates" to the rough equivalent of a 33:25 10k.
Now I like to treat both these conversions as being very approximate, however, it seems fairly certain the 24 year old you was a much better distance runner, relatively speaking, than the 44 year old you is today.
Hi Pete and anyone else know of other grading calculators that compare age, sex, running performances. For example; 24 year old male vs 39 year old female running performance..?
The one linked earlier does all that.
Just compare the age-performance %. The higher the number, the "better" the performance. Theoretically, 100% should be right around WR level performance, taking age and sex into consideration.
For example, 42 year old female runs 5k in 190, scores 80.
By comparison, 24 year old male runs 10k in 31:48, scores 82.8%. Or 44 yo males runs mile in 5:05, scores 79.6%.
So if your wife is 42 and can run 19 for 5k, she is better than the 44 year old you, but not as good as the 24 year old you.
Comprende?
Pete wrote:...42 year old female runs 5k in 190, scores 80.sorry, 80.3%. End got cut off
'Also how can we measure across age and sex performances'
You had better ask your wife about that!
I reckon the 31:38 is better
Having run 4:50 at age 17 and 4:53 at age 48 and never running under 35 for the 10k at any age, your 31 XX is a far superior achievement than the slow 5:05 mile
31:48 is far superior.
Jersey girl, thanks awesome stuff on that run-down site! ...BUT how does that compare age/sex and assorted distances? It does not compare age or M/F running comparisons. How is the 31.48(24yo) far superior to the 5.05(44yo)..?
Based on my experience with your wife last week, my performance would be better than either of yours. That is what she told me.
Pete, are these simple percentages of the WR for that gender and age?
If so, I think they could be highly misleading. It's apparently much easier to run any given percentage of a WR at shorter distances. When I say "easier" I mean that at shorter distances(e.g. 400m compared to 5K), more people achieve those high percentages, the world records have improved much less proportionally in the past century, and the training required for an individual to achieve them is apparently much less.
So I suspect that running at 80% of WR pace for a 10K is more impressive than running 80% of WR for a mile.
Does this make sense?
Leanermeaner wrote:
Pete, are these simple percentages of the WR for that gender and age?
If so, I think they could be highly misleading. It's apparently much easier to run any given percentage of a WR at shorter distances. When I say "easier" I mean that at shorter distances(e.g. 400m compared to 5K), more people achieve those high percentages, the world records have improved much less proportionally in the past century, and the training required for an individual to achieve them is apparently much less.
So I suspect that running at 80% of WR pace for a 10K is more impressive than running 80% of WR for a mile.
Does this make sense?
No, just because an event requires more training doesn;t mean it should get a handicap for those who aren't willing to put in the training. It is true that the distance world records have advanced more in the past decades and centuries, but that doesn't mean you should compare yourself to how things were in 1885. It just means the competition has gotten better in the distance races, because they are much better trained then they were back then. Just because you work 40 hours a week doesn't mean you get some pat on the back for running a 40 minute 10k.
BESIDES:
5000m
WR=12:37 (2nd best 12:39)
1000th best time ever=13:10
1.0433 times slower (Or 1.041 using 2nd best time)
100m
WR=9.58 (2nd best 9.69)
1000th best time ever=~10.055
1.0496 times slower (Or 1.0377 using 2nd best time)
Marathon
WR=2:03:59 (2nd best 2:04:26)
1000th best time ever=2:09:37
1.0453 times slower (Or 1.0416 using 2nd best time)
As you can see, the 1000th best time for all 3 events is about the same amount slower, 4%).
Yeah, there's no way a 5:05 mile is better than a 10k at roughly the same pace. Besides, 44 isn't THAT far past your prime. For guys like Geb and Lagat, it's really not that far away. Now, if you did that at age 60, I might think that was more impressive. You should probably break 5 at least before you can even think about comparing the two.
24?, 44?
If you are talking about how hard and how quick, then the answer is 24.
If you are talking about for how long and how well, then the answer is 44.
Leanermeaner wrote: Pete, are these simple percentages of the WR for that gender and age?
No, I don't think so, but you'd be best to look for the original publications on the subject of age grading. I believe the objective was to generate a number (the %) that could be compared directly between events, ages and sexes as a more or less consistent basis for comparison.
Still, I try not to make too much of these conversions... fun to spur conversation, and generated on the basis of some kind of scientific statistical comparison, but it doesn't turn an apple into an orange. If you're comparing apples an oranges, you're still comparing apples and oranges. But you're able to imagine "well what if this apple WERE an orange..."
agingrunner wrote:
Jersey girl, thanks awesome stuff on that run-down site! ...BUT how does that compare age/sex and assorted distances? It does not compare age or M/F running comparisons. How is the 31.48(24yo) far superior to the 5.05(44yo)..?
Because I'm a 42 year-old woman and can run a 5:15 mile. I cannot, nor could I ever, run anywhere close to a 31:48 10K. I know many men in the 40-44 age group who can run a 5:05 mile.
Calculator's aside, I just think a 31:48 10K is a much greater accomplishment.
agingrunner wrote:
Jersey girl, thanks awesome stuff on that run-down site! ...BUT how does that compare age/sex and assorted distances? It does not compare age or M/F running comparisons. How is the 31.48(24yo) far superior to the 5.05(44yo)..?
Do you need a road map? Go to the calculator I linked in the post right below your original post. Put in the infomation ie race distance, time, male or female, age etc and click "calculate" or whatever and it will give you the age grade percentage. The one with the highest percentage wins! You can read a hundred posts but until you sit your lazy ass down and plug in the numbers you'll continue asking the same stupid questions from everyone.