Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Masters" category should now be 50 and up

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Masters" category should now be 50 and up

    40 is too young. From road race results I see, there is little difference between the results of the 20-24 category and the 40-44. IMO you're really not a "master" until you're 50. And a ton of 50-year-old guys used to beat me -- even when I was in my "prime." ;-)

  • #2
    Re: Masters

    Yeah, I hate when those young whippersnappers beat me . . . but there is a real physiological change by 40 and those who have fended it off well (strength training) deserve to be head & shoulders above their peers, i.e. masters competition. You will kill off a large enthusiastic population if you push it to 50. 99% of 40's athletes cannot compete with the 20 and 30-somethings, and will get too discouraged to continue. I worked harder at 39 in anticipation than I did at 21. [but now that I'm 50-something - yeah - you're right - get rid of those hotshot 40-year-olds]

    Comment


    • #3
      Re:

      >40 is too young. From road race results I see,
      >there is little difference between the results of
      >the 20-24 category and the 40-44.

      That is a comment on the 20-24 year-olds not the 40-44 year-olds.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Masters

        http://www.chattanoogatrackclub.org/Kar ... 997-4m.htm

        Guys, take the results of this random road race from the Chattanooga Track Club site. Actually, it's not really random, since ol' BV is listed amongst the finishers. :-) But is there any significant difference b/t ages under 24 through 50? At 50, it starts to slow down a bit, although there are some pretty good guys out there.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re:

          "40 is too young. From road race results I see, there is little difference between the results of the 20-24 category and the 40-44."

          I think your sample is too small. If it wasn't, then we ought to be seeing about as many 20-24 yr olds at the World and Olympic level as we do 40-44 yr olds. btw - how many over 40s have set world records, compared to 20-24s? Not much of a comparison is it?

          Comment


          • #6
            Probably digging myself into a hole here...

            painting myself into a corner...

            But isn't the term "masters" used for road races only? It's not used at the Olympics, is it?

            If this is the case, then what happens at the worlds or Olympics doesn't matter when it comes to the term "masters."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Probably digging myself into a hole here...

              Suspect the results are skewed because people in the 24-35 range are just recreational types. When you get to 35 and sub-masters, then 40 and masters, you've got people with a goal in life, so they ramp back up and train much harder than those younger. Just a thought.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Re:

                Am I missing something? The best 40-year-old time is quite a bit behind the 20 and 30 age categories -- this isn't a close deal. I don't accept your premise at all that there's no difference in the times in your race. Plus it is a small sample -- and I must say, the times really aren't that good at all for the 20 and 30 year olds, in comparison to what we have here.
                Of course there are always a couple unusual 40-year-olds (in our area we even have a 50-year-old who reguarly finishes in the top 3 or top 10 in many races, running sub 17-minute 5Ks and equivalents at other distances), but gemerally our finishers show a distinct difference in the ages. And from 40 to 50 is quite a jump.
                Why even focus on "masters"? Everyone age groups finishes these days, so this isn't even an issue.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Re:

                  Where are you from, mm?

                  BTW I was in that race and the conditions were terrible. It was about 35 degrees and pouring rain. The race is on New Year's Eve at around 8 o'clock. It's a two-loop course with the same tough hill on each loop.

                  Perhaps you're from a bigger city, too. Chattanooga is just a small town.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Re:

                    Yes, I'm from a larger city, and our courses are flatter. I thought perhaps your Chatanooga courses are hillier.
                    But do you really think a more than two-minute difference between your 40-year-old winner and the other age groups is insignificant? That's 30 seconds a mile in a 4-mile race; it's not like they're racing each other at similar paces. And going to 50 is even more of a difference.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Re:

                      I was looking at each age group as a whole. I was thinking if you averaged out those times, they'd be pretty close. But of course two minutes is significant. I need to point out that somebody is about to turn 40 and is not looking forward to being referred to as a "master." Could you play along, man? ;-)

                      Chattanooga is a small town but it has a good running community. The Chattanooga Track Club is old by Southern standards. Way back when they had the first Peachtree Road Race in 1970, a good chunk of the 150 or so runners was from the Chattanooga Track Club. The CTC puts on some good races and is very good for my old hometown.

                      Yes, some of the hills are ridiculous. The most famous one in town is part of the oldest of road race in Chattanooga: The Chattanooga Chase. The 8K race (it's actually a little shorter than 8K) has an ungodly hill about a half mile long that goes straight up -- the worst hill in any race I've ever run. Once you're up it, it's a nice coast to the finish, but getting up it is the problem! ;-)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Re:

                        BillVol - lets put the best 20-24 year olds on the track or roads with the best 40 year olds and see what the results are.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Re:

                          Dutra, wow, you really got me, man!

                          Again, road races aren't the Olympics! Road races are road races. You don't have the best of anybody out there.

                          By your logic, then, masters should start at 35. Put the best 20-year-olds against the best 35-year-olds and see who wins! Why not start masters at 35?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Re:

                            >Dutra, wow, you really got me, man!

                            Again,
                            >road races aren't the Olympics! Road races are
                            >road races. You don't have the best of anybody
                            >out there.

                            By your logic, then, masters
                            >should start at 35. Put the best 20-year-olds
                            >against the best 35-year-olds and see who wins!
                            >Why not start masters at 35?

                            Masters swimming starts at 25 I think.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Re:

                              Masters gymnasts start at 14 I think.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X