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)
>
>
