Ed Parrot made the case for age-graded tables: "Remember, the purpose of the age
graded tables is to come up with equivalent performances for one age, sex, and event
vs another age, sex, and event...As a tool to compare a large number of runners of all
ages and sexes at all distances, it is extremely valuable, if not perfect."
Now let me explain why I think they're a waste of time. Call me old-fashioned, but I
thought the best way to compare two performances is to compare them straight up.
Ottey's 10.99 is 0.5 slower than Flo-Jo's WR. We can come up with a lot of things to
try to understand why: talent, wind, altitude, weather, and yes, the athletes' ages.
But the last is probably the trickiest, and least understood. A 2.5 headwind affects
athletes very similarly, but two peoples' bodies do not age the same way or at the
same rate. I gather the tables are based on reams of data, but the sport is changing
so fast, with so many more top athletes competing for longer, that I have to imagine
yesterday's data aren't that helpful.
We all age, and the fact is, we tend to get slower/weaker as we do. Why go through
these statistical gymnastics to mask that fact? If equivalency is so critical, let's
find a way to correct for talent, too. Maybe my 2-minute 800m is really equal to a
1:43 when you account for my lousy genes. After all, isn't age grading just about
correcting for the inevitable loss of talent?
I see the point in organizing competition around age groups, though even that's
frought with problems (40 vs. 49 yrs old is a big difference for many). But let's not
lose sight of the fact that a 10.99 will never "equal" a 10.49. Had Flo-Jo and Merlene
been racing side by side, Flo would have blown M's doors off, and that's the bottom
line. I see no value in comparing the two based on the athlete's ages, other than to
assuage the older athlete's ego.
-Jay
----------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by
the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
