The Nonathlon is very definitely open to criticism (it's also open to analysis - I explain on the site how it's calculated, though I do need to publish the most recent spreadsheet - I can mail it if you'd like), and I can name a range of ways in which it's flawed. That doesn't, of course make your system any more or less valid.John Rupp wrote:Is the Perathlon also over inflated? Let's take a realistic look and find out.
Dean Smith's time of 7:29.3 at age 79 is 80.70% of Elia Luini's men's lightweight record. Dividing this by the age 79 PWR of 80.70 gives him a PERathlon score of 100.00. This is right on the mark, and neither other inflated nor under. You can't get any closer than this! And it is certainly closer than a 7 percent difference.
In reference to your remark above - You appear to have used Dean Smith's times (and in an earlier example, Lyle Parker's) to define what '100%' means, and then entirely separately used those same times to test your model. Sure enough, those times fit your model perfectly!
I'm very interested, however, to learn how you're creating these curves; are they polynomial curves, and if so what order? Simple straight lines, Power curves? Log curves?
