RE: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit
Place-grading and time-grading is still most accurate way of measure success. Master Po -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rcjennings Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit I rarely chime in on this type of stuff, but as long as it's not taken seriously I don't mind the age-grading conversions. My feeling is as long as it's referred to a Age-graded then what's the harm? It's a funky masters thing that gives them an opportunity (although, admittedly, not a very accurate opportunity) to compare marks. By the way, why was there a controversy with the winds at Penn, as far as I could tell (and we we're running the anemometers) everything was O.K. Roger (not even a sub-master yet) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit In a message dated 5/4/1 5:13:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a 10.1 on the Age-Graded Tables (for sake of theoretical comparison, and not to make David Honea go ballistic). Ken, David Honea is not the only one that goes ballistic when you publish these age-graded comparisons. In my opinion, you do a disservice to masters athletes when you do this, since most serious track fans laugh at the numbers. Let the performances speak for themselves. I would guess that many of the people on this list can appreciate that a 10.96 for a 45-year old man is pretty darned good. I have no doubt that age-graded performances serve as a valuable tool in masters competition...they just don't belong here. Walt Murphy (Wannabe Masters sprinter--but too lazy to do anything about it)
RE: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit
I thought FAT timing in 10.96 was the most accurate way to measure success? Wouldn't that mean that someone who ran 10.95 would have beaten him and he would have finished ahead of someone who ran 10.97, no matter what their age? Seems like no tables are necessary this way. Phil Murray www.texastrack.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of malmo Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 11:37 AM To: rcjennings; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit Place-grading and time-grading is still most accurate way of measure success. Master Po
t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit
Y ask Y: Phil Felton, a trackside witness to the masters sprints at Penn, reports that the negative wind reading and time for Neville Hodge in the M45 100 was legitimate -- and that paperwork is being filed for a WR in his age group: 10.96. That's a 10.1 on the Age-Graded Tables (for sake of theoretical comparison, and not to make David Honea go ballistic). This makes Neville the oldest man to break 11 in the century. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com
Re: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit
In a message dated 5/4/1 5:13:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a 10.1 on the Age-Graded Tables (for sake of theoretical comparison, and not to make David Honea go ballistic). Ken, David Honea is not the only one that goes ballistic when you publish these age-graded comparisons. In my opinion, you do a disservice to masters athletes when you do this, since most serious track fans laugh at the numbers. Let the performances speak for themselves. I would guess that many of the people on this list can appreciate that a 10.96 for a 45-year old man is pretty darned good. I have no doubt that age-graded performances serve as a valuable tool in masters competition...they just don't belong here. Walt Murphy (Wannabe Masters sprinter--but too lazy to do anything about it)
RE: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit
I rarely chime in on this type of stuff, but as long as it's not taken seriously I don't mind the age-grading conversions. My feeling is as long as it's referred to a Age-graded then what's the harm? It's a funky masters thing that gives them an opportunity (although, admittedly, not a very accurate opportunity) to compare marks. By the way, why was there a controversy with the winds at Penn, as far as I could tell (and we we're running the anemometers) everything was O.K. Roger (not even a sub-master yet) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit In a message dated 5/4/1 5:13:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a 10.1 on the Age-Graded Tables (for sake of theoretical comparison, and not to make David Honea go ballistic). Ken, David Honea is not the only one that goes ballistic when you publish these age-graded comparisons. In my opinion, you do a disservice to masters athletes when you do this, since most serious track fans laugh at the numbers. Let the performances speak for themselves. I would guess that many of the people on this list can appreciate that a 10.96 for a 45-year old man is pretty darned good. I have no doubt that age-graded performances serve as a valuable tool in masters competition...they just don't belong here. Walt Murphy (Wannabe Masters sprinter--but too lazy to do anything about it)
Re: t-and-f: Neville Hodge 10.96 M45 called legit
Walt wrote: Ken, David Honea is not the only one that goes ballistic when you publish these age-graded comparisons. In my opinion, you do a disservice to masters athletes when you do this, since most serious track fans laugh at the numbers. I am as strong a proponent of age grading as anyone - I designed a program that age grades everyone in the USATF/Connecticut grand prix series. But Walt is right that it has NO place in elite track and field, even for masters. It is the nature of the bell curve that represents race performances that the fastest runners will be significantly overrated with formulas like this that are designed for all runners (and the slowest runners will be underrated). The solution is simple - don't use age-graded equivalent times to compare runners - use the age graded percentages. Simply say that 10.96 is considered 97% of the expected age graded performance and that anything over 95% is a world class masters performance. Don't try to compare it to an open performance or Walt is right, it does more harm than good. - Ed Parrot
