Ramblings

Fauja Singh in 2007

You’ve probably heard of Fauja Singh. He was a British Sikh marathon runner, who took up running at an advanced age. He gave his birth date as 1st April 1911. He ran nine marathons, with a personal best of 5 hours 40 minutes at the Toronto Waterfront Marathon in 2003. By his reckoning he completed the Toronto and London marathons at over 100 years old, becoming the first centenarian to complete a marathon.

At the Ontario Masters Association Fauja Singh Invitational Meet, held in his honour at Birchmount Stadium in Toronto on 13 October 2011, he achieved eight new world age group records in a single day:

• 100m – 23.14 (beating previous record 29.83 by 22.4%)
• 200m – 52.23 (beating previous record 77.59 by 32.7%)
• 400m – 2:13.48 (beating previous record 3:41.00 by 39.6%)
• 800m – 5:32.18 (no previous record)
• 1500m – 11:27.00 (beating previous record 16:46.00 by 31.7%)
• Mile – 11:53.45 (no previous record)
• 3000m – 24:52.47 (no previous record)
• 5000m – 49:57.39 (no previous record)

At four distances there was no previous record, because they had never been attempted by a centenarian. In 2012 he ran a UK parkrun (5k) in 38 minutes 34 seconds, credited by parkrun with a record age grading of 179.04%, smashing the 5k world record for his age by a huge margin. These times are not disputed. Without doubt, Singh was a superb athlete, and these are remarkable performances for a runner of advanced years. He raised large sums of money for charity, and he was clearly a good and kind man.

But we are in the strange and treacherous world of extreme age athletics. Whether these results are astonishingly good or ‘merely’ excellent hinges on Singh’s age at the time. His given birth date of 1st April 1911 has been viewed with scepticism by Guinness World Records. They declined to recognise his claim to be the first centenarian to complete a marathon after his run in Toronto – although Singh produced a British passport listing his date of birth as 1 April 1911, and a letter from the Queen congratulating him on his 100th birthday – because he could not produce his birth certificate to prove his age. This would have been difficult, as no reliable birth records were kept in India in 1911.

On the face of it, Guinness were churlish to cast doubt on the achievements Singh has claimed. But they have a reputation for rigour and accuracy to protect. In a BBC interview, editor-in-chief of Guinness World Records Craig Glenday said: “We would love to give him the record. We’d love to say this is a true Guinness World Record, but the problem is there is just no evidence. We can only accept official birth documents created in the year of the birth. Anything else is really not very useful to us.”

Singh did not speak English, but in his place his trainer Harmandar Singh commented on Guinness World Records’ position, and seemed to accept it with good grace. “I think it’s important to everybody who’s over a certain age, because it inspires them and allows them to think ‘yes, it is possible’. However, the fact remains that the Guinness Book of Records has its rules, and I think they are quite right to have them. However, in the developing countries, their standards simply aren’t up to western standards.”

British Masters Athletics similarly declined to ratify the age records claimed by Singh saying that no proof of Mr Singh’s age was provided. Their scepticism was probably been encouraged by the enormous margins by which Singh’s times improved on the previous records: for example he appeared to have beaten the old 400m record by a staggering 40-odd percent. Of course data for world records is very thin in this age category, but it is hardly surprising that his claimed achievements should be questioned when they were so hugely ahead of the competition.

According to Singh, he would have been 96 in 2007 when the picture above was taken. It certainly shows an old man, but he could easily be, say, ten years younger. What happens if we assume, for a moment, that he was in fact a “mere” 86 years old, and was in fact born in 1921, and then recalculate the age grading scores for his best times?

Event	Year	Time	Age if born 1911	Age Grading (runbundle)	Age if born 1921	Age Grading (runbundle)
100m	2011	23.14	100	151.38%	90	72.17%
200m	2011	52.23	100	137.72%	90	70.25%
400m	2011	2:13.48	100	130.57%	90	71.88
800m*	2011	5:32.18	100	126.93%	90	68.21%
1500m	2011	11:27.81	100	156.97%	90	73.14%
Mile*	2011	11:53.45	100	164.17%	90	75.93%
3000m*	2011	24:52.47	100	158.06	90	66.68%
5k (parkrun)	2012	38:34.00	101†	161.59%	91	75.3%
10k	2004	1:08:00	93	99.83%	83	66.42%
10k	2013	1:32:28	102†	134.61%	92	69.38%
Half marathon	2004	2:33:00	93	100.5%	83	65.62%
Marathon	2003	5:40:00	92	89.99%	82	60.26%
Marathon*	2012	7:49:21	101†	136.2%	91	61.65%

The table shows that knowing Singh’s true age is crucial to assessing his athletic achievements. If his stated birth year of 1911 was correct, his times are indeed astonishing – many are huge improvements over previous age group records. But if he is just ten years younger than he claims, then his times and age gradings – although still an excellent standard, commanding respect for still being able to run these distances at all at his age – are those of an excellent, but not world-beating runner. Note that his age gradings are more consistent when we assume the younger ages: this could, however, be a result of the thin world record data for extreme old age.

If Singh was born in 1911 as he stated, he was certainly worthy of the accolades he has received. If he exaggerated his age, not so much – he would simply have been one of many talented senior athletes, and would not otherwise have become famous or celebrated. If he was right about his age it must have been very frustrating for him that he was unable to provide acceptable proof of it. But if he was not, it was convenient for his claims that his age could not be proved either way.

Singh retired from competitive running in 2013, and died in a road accident while walking in his birth village, Beas Pind, near Jalandhar in India, on 14 July 2025, at a stated age of 114 years and 104 days. Ironically his longevity fuels scepticism about his claimed achievements. If that was his true age, he would have been the ninth oldest person in the world. Which could be true, someone has to be. If so, he was also incredibly fit for his age: when the BBC met Singh in June 2025 in Beas Pind, he was described as agile and active, walking several miles every day.

Singh was undoubtedly a fine athlete, deserving much respect: whether he deserved the fame and accolades he acquired depends on the truth of his claimed age. And I’m sorry Fauja, I have my doubts.

(Updated 15 July 2025 to reflect Fauja Singh’s death. R.I.P. Fauja Singh.)