1 reply to this topic

[SoLucky]

The new listing of CR Rankings with Age Graded times over 5k, 10k and half marathon distances is a very good feature and makes interesting reading. However the associated embedded calculator appears to be utilising the 1994 performance factors that Howard Grubb first used in his early WAVA Age-grading calculator.
In 2007 Grubb published a new WMA edition of his calculator using data collected up to 2006.
To illustrate the difference, the 2004 edition using 1994 data, factored in an Open Standard 5k time of 12:58, the inclusion of data to 2006 yielded an Open Standard time for 5k of 12:37. Similarly the OS time for 10k reduced from 26:58 to 26:20. As a result of the changes to OS times the Age Graded times have also decreased.
Fossil, who is at the top of the 5k ladder, with an Age Graded time of 14:15, would have 17 seconds shaved off by the 2006 WMA calculator and would list at 13:58. All the other results, 5k, 10k and 21k, would show improvement in AG time, but Age Performance percentage results would decline.
Provided that everyone uses the same calculator, new or old,
relative location on the performance ladder will remain unchanged.      
However, there is a possibility that runners who are using more up to date calculators, could unwittingly distort the results.

I don’t know what the ramifications would be if Howard Grubb’s WMA 2006 calculator was to be imbedded for continuing use on this site, as it is marked Copyright.
2006WMA

[sook54]

Thanks for pointing this out. I don't think we break copyright by linking to a site, so we could just replace the existing link with this one.

I guess it would make sense for this to be updated but we'd have to recalculate everyone's time. What do others think?