Age-Grading for Masters Swimmers

Hi Jim - Very interesting metric. It took me a long time to wade through it, so you might want to tighten it up by removing info that is interesting, but not essential. I will respond to the questions at the end when I spend more time thinking about it. When I was discussing my comments with Mary Beth, I realized that I did not fully understand how the metric works. I do think there has to be strong consideration for using the median time of the Top 10 or Top 50 in each event and each course. The reason is because, for the most part, the records are set by elite swimmers. Since I believe elite swimmers are genetically different than the rest of us, they will always have an advantage over the rest of us. Yes, there are exceptions. BUT, in general, it holds true. Maybe we have to create a Grand Masters category like Synchronized Swimming has. :) More to come. Paul Windrath

From age 49-62 I had only a very slow decease in times. From 63 on I have been getting slower faster and faster.

For fun this year, I played around with the age-grading factors from this article: www.usms.org/.../articledisplay.php for my Postal Swimtathlon League. Our quarterly RESULTS show: 1. Overall Results 2. Results by Gender 3. Results by Gender and Age Group 4. "Age Graded" results It's been interesting, and I've gotten good feedback from the participants.

I do think there has to be strong consideration for using the median time of the Top 10 or Top 50 in each event and each course. The reason is because, for the most part, the records are set by elite swimmers. Since I believe elite swimmers are genetically different than the rest of us, they will always have an advantage over the rest of us. Yes, there are exceptions. BUT, in general, it holds true. Paul Windrath As a swimmer in the age group dominated by the magnificent Rick Colella, I have no doubt you are correct about the nature of the elite! Nevertheless, Alan Rowson, the British fellow who does the age-rating for the British Decathalon, addressed this exact question regarding using WRs vs median Top 10 time: I started to look at age adjustment formulae as a result of feedback about the accuracy of the Finnish formulae. I explained it to a friend of mine who was a lecturer in Maths at Cambridge University. He said it would make a good maths challenge for the local schools to see who would come up with the best solution. Anyhow that failed to come to fruition. What he did say was it might be better to use median of top ten masters times rather than masters world records. I did derive formulae using both. The use of median was much more labour intensive to derive formulae and decisions as what to do in older age groups when there are not ten times recorded was an issue. The formulae produced by median and record only were not hugely different, so I took pragmatic view of using world records as easier in time effort to produce. As Alan says, the curves produced by WRs vs. median Top 10 times were not terribly different. Even when somebody like Rick smashes a WR (in the 400 SCM free, for instance, Rick's recent 4:27.91 destroyed Jim McConica's 4:45.88), such an "outlier point" is just one of many that the fitting function takes into account. Perhaps the best way to combine pragmatism with a nod to the fact that most of us aren't swimming gods would be to take the middle time each year in the FINA ALL Time Top 10 ranking. This hasn't yet been updated to reflect Rick's super swim, but if you check out this, archives.fina.org/.../tabs_SC_all.pdf you will find that the 400 SCM free for 65-69 year old men is as follows: 400 M. FREE 4:45.88 JIM MC CONICA USA 2015 4:52.89 RICK WALKER USA 2015 4:53.03 DAN KIRKLAND USA 2015 4:54.45 GLENN GRUBER USA 2014 4:54.84 J.CHATARD FRA 2016 4:55.56 TOM LANDIS USA 2007 4:55.97 DAVID QUIGGIN USA 2009 4:59.03 VITTORIO ERMIRIO ITA 2007 4:59.42 JIM CLEMMONS USA 2015 5:00.26 DON DAVIS USA 2009 When this year's SCM times are added in, Don Davis will be bumped off the Top10 and conceivably one or two others depending on who else in the age group might swim faster. If you use the 5th place time for the fitting function, even with Rick smashing the old record by nearly 20 seconds, the data point would not change much (i.e., right now J. Chatard is in 5th; after Rick's time is posted, Glenn Gruber will be in 5th. The difference between Chatard and Gruber is only .39 seconds.) Anyhow, this could be one way to ensure a more moderate change over the years. By picking the person in the 5th place spot, you wouldn't have to do any tedious averaging, etc. And with the exception of the very oldest age groups, odds are that there will be at least five swimmers in every All Time Top 10 tabulation. What do you think?

I apologize for my tendency to go on and on and on and on.... However, the easiest way that individual swimmers can get an idea about how age grading works is to visit Ed Gendreau's very useful site that he does for the New England LMSC. Just click here: www.egswim.com/.../RatingTimeOut.php To see how you are holding up as you age, just take two of your times from a favorite event swum at different ages. Enter the info as requested and it will crank out your respective ratings for both. Here, by way of example, is a comparison of my 100 LCM butterfly swum at age 65 vs. the same event at age 50. I am nearly 3 seconds slower than I used to be, but despite this, my rating has gotten a lot better. For me, at least, this is motivating to keep on trying my best--if not to get a lifetime PR, then maybe to get a lifetime high rating. EVENT: Men 100 Fly COURSE: LCM (long course meters) AGE: 50 TIME: 1:07.68 RATING: 84.99 EVENT: Men 100 Fly COURSE: LCM (long course meters) AGE: 65 TIME: 1:10.63 RATING: 97.74

the easiest way that individual swimmers can get an idea about how age grading works is to visit Ed Gendreau's very useful site that he does for the New England LMSC. Just click here: www.egswim.com/.../RatingTimeOut.php For me, at least, this is motivating to keep on trying my best--if not to get a lifetime PR, then maybe to get a lifetime high rating. Yes, I discovered the "eg swim rating" page link in a Total Immersion forum post, of all places. Love having another way to evaluate my performances, as, at some point, swimming personal bests becomes an unrealistic expectation. As the old sports saying goes, "Father Time is undefeated."

The great *** stroking psychiatrist Allen Stark sent me a private message regarding age grading. He a'feared it sounded too lugubrious to post in the forum itself. I replied to him why I think age grading could eliminate a lot of his unnecessary misery about slowing down. He agreed to let me post our exchange given how serendipitously PERFECT his most recent 200 LCM *** at age 68 lines up to his "life time best swim" 200 LCM *** at age 62. Check it out! I will put Allen's words in underlined italics. This was not such a big deal for me in 60-64, but the piano has fallen in 65-69. In 2011, at 62, I broke the WR in the 200 BR in the best swim of my life in 2:50.44.I barely broke the WR and was ecstatic. It was my best time in 13 yr, but I had been mostly in the 2:52 during that 13 yr with very little slowdown. In 2014 I broke the 200 BR by over a second in 2:56.96 at age 65. I knew I could go faster, but the next year I went 3:00 and Rick Walker said to me after the race "I bet you never thought you'd be happy with a 3:00" and the damnable part was that I was happy with it. At 68 I went 3:03, really not happy with that, sure I can go faster, afraid soon I'll think that was fast. I am making his a PM as I feel I am kind of whining, but I am very frustrated with getting slower so fast. Hi, Allen, I actually tried to contact you when I was researching both this article and the piece on aging and performance I did for Swimmer. A post you made on your frustrations (which, by the way, I share, along with Rich Abrahams and many others) is what actually rekindled my interest in starting a new metric to supplement the times-only approach by which we swimmers (often overly harshly) judge ourselves! The switch from the relatively modest linear decline to a more severe quadratic drop-off does seem to happen somewhere between the late 60s to the mid 70s. David Guthrie actually suggested to me that by age 75 or at the very latest 80, they should have World Records every two years instead of every five, given how dramatic these declines can become. I was also a little surprised to learn that endurance goes faster than speed. To me the 200 *** is clearly an endurance event, the 200 LCM *** is (to my way of thinking!) practically unswimmable by mortal men! I just took the liberty of checking out your 50, 100, and 200 LCM breaststroke times dating back to 2009--i.e., during the years when you went from 60 to 68. Interestingly, in none of these 9 year periods has your average yearly decline exceeded 1 percent, though your 100 *** did come close. 68 to 60 37.14 (slowed down by 4.8 percent over 9 years = .52 percent per year) 36.16 35.99 35.78 36.26 35.10 35.28 35.37 1:24.09 (slowed down by 8.6 percent over 9 years = .96 percent per year) 1:20.87 1:21.75 1:19.88 1:20.89 1:17.99 1:17.50 1:16.83 3:03.39 (slowed down by 5.9 percent over 9 years = .66 percent per year) 3:00.01 3:00.21 2:56.96 2:59.47 2:50.44 2:52.74 2:52.54 the 9 year average isn't the same as each year to year change. From this year compared to last year (i.e., 67 to 68), for instance: your 50 speed declined by 2.6 percent your 100 declined by 3.22 percent and your 200 declined by 1.8 percent Numbers are peculiar, and it's hard to know what to make of this. I encourage you to check out Ed Gendreau's age rating site. www.egswim.com/.../RatingTimeOut.php EVENT: Men 200 *** COURSE: LCM (long course meters) AGE: 68 TIME: 3:03.39 RATING: 96.53 EVENT: Men 200 *** COURSE: LCM (long course meters) AGE: 67 TIME: 3:00.21 RATING: 96.99 EVENT: Men 200 *** COURSE: LCM (long course meters) AGE: 66 TIME: 3:00.21 RATING: 95.78 .... Your best time of your life: EVENT: Men 200 *** COURSE: LCM (long course meters) AGE: 62 TIME: 2:50.44 RATING: 96.53 Please note that the rating for your 2:50.44 at age 62 is IDENTICAL to your rating for a 3:03.39 at age 68. When I just ran these numbers, I had no idea what I would find. But it seems to me that this is very strong validation for why age-grading could help lots of swimmers better cope with their changing swim times. As a psychiatrist, you've no doubt encouraged more than a few of your patients over the years to "cognitively reframe" ideas that are unnecessarily making them miserable! I know it's hard to see your times getting slower, but I strongly urge you to take at least a little consolation from the fact that this past summer's 200 LCM *** -- on an age adjusted basis that takes into account the realities of human performance physiology -- is every bit as good as the swim you did at age 62. Moreover, you maintain that you know you can go faster. I have no doubt this is true. But wouldn't it be motivating to also tell yourself: Absolute time notwithstanding, I know I can improve my rating next year? PS I don't think your private message was at all whiney! I think you expressed something that many, many swimmers are feeling. If you agree, I would love to post your PM and my reply on the forum itself. I think people would find it illuminating. In any event, keep on the great swimming! Times notwithstanding, you are still swimming GREAT! Thank you so much.If you don't think my PM too whiny feel free to use it. Since my last meet I have been lifting weights more regularly in an attempt to turn back the clock.i know you are not pro-lifting, but i think I swim better when i lift regularly. I also gave up grains and have lost 8 lb while retaining muscle. The proof will be in the times. i had great hopes for my SCM meet, but hurt my shoulder( not swimming related injury) 3 wk ago which though off my training. We will see this weekend by how much. Thanks Allen

From age 49-62 I had only a very slow decease in times. From 63 on I have been getting slower faster and faster. We need a thread from Ande on getting slower slower.

We need a thread from Ande on getting slower slower. :lmao: Yeah, that's for sure. I'm only 55; however, I am feeling King Frog's pain already. :cane: Hey, King Frog, I hope Jim's messages make you feel A LOT better about slowing down. Relatively speaking, you haven't slowed down at all! :banana:

I have a theory about those of us older/aging swimmers who aren't swimming top ten times, but use them for comparison, and as I understand it, USMS uses top 10 times to set NQTs. Here goes: as we age the number of swimmers in our age group is decreasing resulting in a smaller sample size and the top 10 become a bigger and bigger portion of the AG sample size.The swimmers who are still at it, tend to be the better/faster swimmers, as many of the slower swimmers have fallen by the wayside. So, reaching a NQT becomes tougher and tougher. At this point in my 65-69 AG there is a preponderance of really good swimmers still standing and competing. I'd have to look at the math behind age-grading more closely to understand the impact this winnowing has on computed age-grading, but it seems to me that the impact on NQTs is to make them harder and harder to achieve as you get older if you aren't a really good swimmer. Combined with the increased injuries and ailments, muscle loss, and life getting in the way that accompanies aging, I've really lost any thought of improving, but who knows. Think I started back at it to late too. At one point I had some goal times in my head, but now its just hang on and get slower, slower.