I've always disliked the phrase "and that's a lifetime best performance!" used by so many commentators.
When I started athletics, if you ran, jumped or threw further, higher or faster than you'd ever done before it was a 'personal best', or PB, for short.
When I heard "and that's a lifetime best performance!" on the TV, I always thought "It's the same thing!" and would get infuriated at the sensationalism used by the commentator.
I still think that it is sensationalism - when used in relation to the sporting elite who are in their prime - but am coming to the conclusion that there can be a difference.
The time I ran for the 800m in 1996 at the age of 19 is the fastest that I've ever run it, and is highly likely that it always will be. Is it right though that I call it my 'personal best'? I don't think so.
Every 5 years after the age of 35, athletes enter a new age category. The reason is that, in general, a 40 year old (say) wouldn't be able to compete with someone 5 years their junior. Following that logic, its highly likely that a 40 year old runner will be slower than they were when they were 35.
Going further, 35 year olds become masters because it is recognised that they will broadly be slower than (say)19 year olds, and consequently I'm not going to try and compete with my 19 year old self.
I will take my lifetime best performance from 1996, but I'm resetting my personal best.
As of now, I'm a non-runner and I don't have a personal best.
When I started athletics, if you ran, jumped or threw further, higher or faster than you'd ever done before it was a 'personal best', or PB, for short.
When I heard "and that's a lifetime best performance!" on the TV, I always thought "It's the same thing!" and would get infuriated at the sensationalism used by the commentator.
I still think that it is sensationalism - when used in relation to the sporting elite who are in their prime - but am coming to the conclusion that there can be a difference.
The time I ran for the 800m in 1996 at the age of 19 is the fastest that I've ever run it, and is highly likely that it always will be. Is it right though that I call it my 'personal best'? I don't think so.
Every 5 years after the age of 35, athletes enter a new age category. The reason is that, in general, a 40 year old (say) wouldn't be able to compete with someone 5 years their junior. Following that logic, its highly likely that a 40 year old runner will be slower than they were when they were 35.
Going further, 35 year olds become masters because it is recognised that they will broadly be slower than (say)19 year olds, and consequently I'm not going to try and compete with my 19 year old self.
I will take my lifetime best performance from 1996, but I'm resetting my personal best.
As of now, I'm a non-runner and I don't have a personal best.
No comments:
Post a Comment