Validity of 400 m Dash National Class Records Called into Question as AGE ADVANTAGE not addressed

you completely ignored my points about how grouping by age alone has plenty of reasons to be considered unfair. you are simply restating the same thing over and over again without acknowledging that it isn't that simple.

it will never be a perfect solution but since these are high school records the cleanest way to keep them is by grouping them by high school class. if you want age records look at the junior olympic and aau age records since those exist in that setting.

The present system is unfair. It allows freshman who start the academic year at age 14 to be grouped with those "freshman" who start academic year up to 16 yrs 364 days. Again, I think that even you can see that this isn't fair.

Wendyard wrote:

The Validity of the 400 meter dash High School National Class Records has been called into question as AGE ADVANTAGE of athletes who start the academic freshman year at 15 yrs and older, when all of the previous National Class record holders started the academic freshman year at age 14, is not being addressed by the record keepers.

The only person calling it into question is you. Chances are that has something to do with the make believe issue not being addressed.

I think you are ignoring plenty of ways that, even with your vision of only freshmen who start the academic year at 14 competing against each other is still unfair.

you are also overlooking that their is a lot more going on in life than track and field. I'm fairly certain that none of those athletes who are starting high school at 16 instead of 14 are sitting there saying 'man I definitely want to stay in middle school a extra year or make sure my mom holds me out of school a extra year in kindergarten so that I can break that freshmen 400 national record'. people have a lot of things going on in their lives and sometimes issues come up that prevent them from following the traditional pace of schooling.

you have tunnel vision on this issue for whatever reason and clearly are not going to listen to any other points of view or bits of information

You do realize that age group records are not connected to the beginning of the academic year, don't you? But they should be. I think you can see that this is not about a particular athlete, but about what is fair and just. The playing field should be level, and it is not. I am sure you can see the current system isn't fair. Student Athletes who starts the academic year at age 14 should be grouped together for record purposes. Student Athletes who starts the academic year at age 15 should be grouped together for record purposes. Student Athletes who starts the academic year at age 16 should be grouped together for record purposes. Allowing students athletes who start the academic year at age 15 and 16 to be grouped with student athletes who start the academic year at age 14 for record purposes is not fair.

Wendy,

How are you? Do you like pizza or hamburgers better? Who is going to with the NCAA basketball tournament?

If it's Santucci’s Pizza, count me in.

Are you a bot? You're very repetitive.

We get it.

The amusing thing is that if you had come here complaining about Grandpa Tyrese and linking him to Grandpa Chest and Grandpa Lukas, half the posters would have been with you!

All records are age related in UK and at world level.

American system makes no sense especially when extended through to college where ages vary more.

Note I used the word college to differentiate between school and college which is another thing you could do with changing over there!

Wendyard wrote:

You do realize that age group records are not connected to the beginning of the academic year, don't you? But they should be. I think you can see that this is not about a particular athlete, but about what is fair and just. The playing field should be level, and it is not. I am sure you can see the current system isn't fair. Student Athletes who starts the academic year at age 14 should be grouped together for record purposes. Student Athletes who starts the academic year at age 15 should be grouped together for record purposes. Student Athletes who starts the academic year at age 16 should be grouped together for record purposes. Allowing students athletes who start the academic year at age 15 and 16 to be grouped with student athletes who start the academic year at age 14 for record purposes is not fair.

So somebody like German Fernandez, who graduated high school and started his Freshman year at Oklahoma State at 17 years old, he should have been eligible for senior class records during his first year of college running.

That seems fair.

No one 17 should be considered for soph records (it was silly with Verzbickas and ever worse with old man Cheserek racing as sophs when they were 17 and 19 respectively - although Cheserek would only cop to being "17"). It's reminiscent of Houston McTear being almost 18-1/2 years old as an 11th grader equaling the WR in the 100 yard dash.

Flip side is Cooper will likely peak early and then get dusted by some of the guys he's easily beating right now.

Jimjamesrunner wrote:

It is also upsetting to me that modern recordkeepers do not hold specific records to a carefully selected, well-informed set of criteria.

It may be time to determine class records by a specific age range.

As a matter of fact, they do hold specific records to a carefully selected, well-informed set of criteria.

There are lots of different record keepers. They all have their own criteria.

Generally class records are meant to denote students in a particular academic class.

Age records are meant to denote people of a certain age.

If you want a different set of criteria, you are free to set up and keep your own records using your own criteria.

Wendyard wrote:

September 1st is the cutoff for the academic year in every state in the USA. This cut off that is used by every school system in the USA should by used as the the cut off age for athletes.

This is completely false. Sept. 1 is the most common age, but it is different across the states. The earliest date is July 31 (Hawaii, Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri) and the latest is Jan 1 (Connecticut) with a lot of states allowing local school boards to make the decision.

Wendyard wrote:

You do realize that age group records are not connected to the beginning of the academic year, don't you?

Age Group records are tied to age.

Class records are related to academic progress and standing.

Wendyard wrote:

You do realize that age group records are not connected to the beginning of the academic year, don't you? But they should be. I think you can see that this is not about a particular athlete, but about what is fair and just.

Now that convinced me. Thanks.

The first 23,467 times you said the same thing, I didn't see what the problem was, but now I'm enlightened. I'm going to publicly set myself on fire to protest this injustice. My life is a small price to pay to see this travesty exposed and changed.

I understand where the OP is coming from, although he could have made his point just as effectively in 2 paragraphs. Should we make adjustments for 14 year old freshman born on Jan 1st versus kids born on Dec 31st. At the end of the day, life isn't always fair. There is a difference between CLASS and AGE GROUP records. CLASS records only denote grade, not age. Btw, about 8% of incoming freshman are 15, that quite a few.

Just checking back in again to see if you will admit that age group records already exist, thereby addressing your concern that you've posted over 100 times on various mediums now.

Are there any high school age group track and field records that coincide with the age of student athlete on the first day of the academic year(Sept 1st), grouping student athletes who start the academic year at age of 14 for record purposes, grouping student athletes who start the academic year at age 15 for record purposes, grouping student athletes who start the academic year at age 16 for record purposes, and grouping student athletes who are the of 17 at the start of the academic year for record purposes?

I totally agree with you.