Masters Age Factors

[RichHutchison]

This doesn’t seem to be a very interesting subject, even among
Masters lifters, but I thought I’d post it anyway. In fact, I am going
to post it on both the ADAU and the 100% Raw bulletin boards.
(The AAU doesn’t seem to have an official bulletin board or forum.)
Note that this is relevant only to Men’s Masters Full 3-Lift Powerlifting.

As a geriatric lifter, I’ve always been curious about the Masters
Age Factors sometimes used for Best Lifer awards. I have not
been able to find explanations for the methodologies used
to develop these sets of coefficients. This includes the Old
and New McCullough coefficients, as well as the Schwartz
Masters Formulas. It seems that these coefficients, especially
the Schwartz numbers, overly/unfairly favor older lifters.

I have plotted them, and it’s obvious that Schwartz is way out
of whack because it is unfairly generous to lifters in their 50s
and even more so in their 60s. That’s probably irrelevant,
because it doesn’t seem that anyone is using them now.
The McCullough factors seem reasonable in that the curves
are at least smooth, indicating no spikes or dips in strength
across the age spectrum. The old McCullough factors are
used by the AAU for their MAMs (Masters Age Multipliers).
The newer McCullough factors used, e.g., by the APF, give
slightly lower handicaps to older lifters. I can only speculate
that the coefficients were lowered after older lifters proved
to be stronger than expected.

Using these coefficients, in my 60s, I have blown away
guys in their 40s and 50s who had very impressive record
setting Totals. Although I had gotten respectable Totals,
something didn’t seem right.

So I tried to determine the accuracy of those sets of age factors
by comparing them to real current data from the record books.
I did some simple statistical research which might even have
some value in better understanding the correlation between
aging and strength.

1. I looked at all the American and world record Totals
from the AAU, ADAU, and 100% Raw.
2. I took the best Masters Totals from the combined data.
So now I have the best Totals from all 3 feds combined.
3. I calculated the average Total for each age group across
weight classes.
4. I plotted these averages. The curve is not completely
smooth, presumably because of the lack of participation
in certain areas, but also simply because phenomenons
can pop up occasionally to skew the curve. But overall,
the trend line shows what most of us would expect;
a definite steady decline for lifters in older brackets.
5. I calculated new coefficients that would normalize
results from different age brackets based on age 40.
6. I plotted these new coefficients against the older ones,
and – low and behold – they give a wee bit more credit
to some younger lifters and significantly less to older ones.

OK, if you’re not completely disinterested by now, let me
just add that the coefficients that represent normalization
of existing raw totals, along with supporting charts and graphs,
are available by email to anyone who wants to see them,
as well as even more nauseating details about methodology.
I could post the new coefficients on here, but not the charts
or graphs, which are in Excel.

Is anyone interested? If not:
1. Do you think that things are fine and should be left alone?
2. Would you prefer to make Best Lifter awards subjectively?
3. You’re not interested in the relationship between aging and strength?
4. Other?? ???J

[jesseisrael]

Rich,
I believe that trying to compare people in their 40's to those in their 60's and then 80's is impossible. In a PERFECT WORLD, we would be able to chop up Master's in to some sort of increments. I don't know, 15 or 20 years gaps or something like like. You know 40-54 Masters, 55-69 Grandmasters and 70+ Duckies we are just glad that you made it category ;D.
BTW, I am being calm

[chancey]

I am certainly interested in seeing this from the age-strength factor but really only care about my numbers individually. Because of the lack of competition due to the numerous classes I kind of look more to the classifications as a gauge and don’t even consider things like best lifter and I certainly don’t want to ever win anything based on some factor. I guess going on 41 I look at this different then someone older but when that day comes I will just write best lifter off as a young mans game.

[Deleted]

Chancy::: Your still young!!!! Especially if I am Always strive to be the best. What could it hurt? I like to always see how I match up.

[RichHutchison]

Winning because of a formula isn't any better in PL than in college FB. But that's the way they do it.

I'd rather win unopposed.

Honestly, I was happy to win Best Lifter at the 2002 AAU Worlds
because there were over 40 of us Raw Masters at that meet.
That meant something to me and it's one of very few trophies I have kept.
All others were 1st place with zero competition in my age,
weight, height, profession, visual accumen, etc. etc.,
which means that I also came in last.
It's lonely at the top (of the age scale).

[Deleted]

I believe that the MAM's are too high. At one AAU bench press competition there were 18 lifters in the 181 BP division. I applied the MAM to all the benchers and the of the best 3, 2 were in the 60's and 1 in the 50's. I don't believe the MAM's can be made perfect because there will not be sufficient data especially for the older groups. With fewer competitors there will be artificially lower records. I do believe that they can be improved on but will have to be periodically updated as a wave of old farts show that we have more in the tank than expected.

I know that the AAU uses this is some meets to determine the best lifter - good. As you said, in the older age groups there is less competition so the MAM is a good way of letting you compare yourself to the whole group - it just needs to be fairer by lowering the MAMs so that us older guys win fairly when it is used.

[Deleted]

PS

I'd like to see your data and methology

[dbunch]

I don’t think RichHutchison, Chancey, or Blackstone comment on this forum much, if at all anymore. This is a shame because there knowledge of the sport was extensive.

[toolpod]

I'm sure that a lot of these age-factors were derived experimentally from lifter data. That is the fundamental strength (and weakness) of the process. The standard body weight fudge factors in Wilks, et. all are also based on examining historical lifter data which feed into polynomial equations.

The bottom line, is nowdays, with better nutrition in general, and better training; the average age-related dropoff in performance is a less than it used to be, and for guys that have consistently taken care of themselves is is a LOT less than it used to be.

[zekester]

One of the reasons Ive noticed that Masters seem to get a unfair advantage in formulas, is that they get the most out of thier ability garnered from experience...Its that advantage that gives them the carry-over, not a unfair formula...Hers a example to explain...

I work for a large company {over 4,500 employees},that has a fitness center...But there was noone there that really had any knowledge about lifting, by that I mean knowledge gathered through sites such as elitefts, they just lifted like they did in school or maybe saw a M&F magazine etc...

So, thier lifting wasnt impressive...Over time as some saw me lifting in the gym and starting asking questions, I began to work with some of them and they made good improvements...The first 4 guys I worked with had never bench pressed 300 lbs in thier life {ages = 25, 25, 35, 47}, each one of them reached that goal after 8-10 weeks of training with me...So, my point is - they didnt get any older, just gained knowledge, so thier numbers improved - thus thier relative score improved, because of knowledge.

So, I think the formulas are fair to calculate relative strength, you just cant formulate knowledge, and the Masters advantage under the formula is from knowing how to get the best out of what they have, not from a unfair formula to gauge relative strength...

Duckies, I dont know if Im making sense here in trying to explain my opinion???

[RichHutchison]

Seems like most commenters have observed that the age factors are too high. Yes, the only way to develop them is by looking at what lifters of various ages have accomplished. All I did was try to develop new age factors to fit the data. I doubt that even the AAU, which seems to be the only organization that uses age factors, is interested.

[dbunch]

Rick, I’ve been over the post several times and I’ve read and reread you original post because I wasn’t sure what my opinion was on the matter. Until now I choose not comment one way or another because kept flip flopping for so long. But I think I finally landed on an opinion. Mind you this is purely a philosophical decision

I think the best lifter should be drawn strictly from the open category. I think there are too many other factors that go into the aging process to accurately apply a coefficient fairly and efficiently across the board. It’s just my opinion but I think the best lifter award should go to someone who is at the peak of their game not some old coot who is “Strong for his (her) Age” And I’m aloud to say that being an Old coot myself.

That is not to say I’m not interested in how age factors into strength – I just do think best lifter is one of the places it should be applied. I did have a thought though and I’m curious what you opinion of it is.

It been my experience that most master lifter who compete in full meets didn’t start competing until later in life say mid-30s to early 40s. Master lifters who started in their teens full meet, if their still lifting at all, tended to enter single lift categories as masters.

And buy the way I glad to see you still posting I’ve learned a lot for your posts.