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)
