Have a question for the masters.

I've just finished my third marathon in 6 months, and am now ready to get back to the middle distances that I prefer.  I work best when I have goals set for myself and am looking at getting close to some age graded PRs.  For clarity purpose, my 10K PR is from my early 30's, and is 35:15.  In looking at age graded calculators, to meet that time at the age of 62 will require a raw time of 43:39.  That's pretty aggresive given that my most recent 10K was 45:15.  So my question to all of you is have you compared your masters (and preferably grand masters) times using an age graded calculators to your overall PRs and have any of you bested those earlier times?

Basically trying to determine if the goals are reasonable.

Thanks for any input.

My current running times when age-graded are much faster than my over-all fastest times back in my 30's. At my fastest, at the age of 33, I was running around 72% age-graded race times. Now at the age of 57/58 I'm running around 82%. I train a lot more and hopefully somewhat smarter now than I did back then.

"Now at the age of 57/58"

 

Happy Birthday, Cecil!!! 

 Thanks!

I've been tracking AG times since the early 90s. The first edition of the AG tables was published in 1990. As long as I kept my training at a high level I was still setting AG bests into my mid-40s and even have a couple AG times from my early 50s in my top 10 for several distances. Having eased back on my training I'm now finding it a lot more difficult to regain that level. It's been 8 years (58) since I was consistently running in the 68-71 AG rating range versus 72-74 and rarely high 70s in my 20s, 30s, and 40s. All of my AG bests except for the marathon are over a rating of 75. My recent races are all in the low 60s.