Masters Age lowering to 35

Thanks Mandingo, if my wife can't work something out, I'll maybe drop you a line. Good luck at the Zoo!

Good luck at the Fort!

This is the same as in cycling now. The first masters catagory is 35+, and those guys will typically go faster than Cat 3 racers, if not Cat 4.

However, I wonder if local races will catch on to this, or if they will just stay at 40. For the races I've directed, I'd be more willing to just leave it at 40.

I will never line up in a masters only race. Sure there are masters who can beat me now. I'm not denying the good competition. But still, overall it's a weaker race and a handicapped one. I'd rather finish last in an open heat, then line up with the "favor" of easier competition. Basically it's admitting that I'm not good enough to compete in the open race.

ttc wrote:(1) I will never line up in a masters only race.

...

(2) Basically it's admitting that I'm not good enough to compete in the open race.

(1) Never say never. You will eat those words soon enough.

(2) True. But when you hit 40, that will simply be the truth - you WON'T be good enough to compete in the open race. At least not at the highest levels.

You perspective on this will change over time, believe me.

Is there anywhere we can verify this? Sounds fishy to me.

Pete wrote:

ttc wrote:(1) I will never line up in a masters only race.

...

(2) Basically it's admitting that I'm not good enough to compete in the open race.

(1) Never say never. You will eat those words soon enough.

(2) True. But when you hit 40, that will simply be the truth - you WON'T be good enough to compete in the open race. At least not at the highest levels.

You perspective on this will change over time, believe me.

Guess I should mention, that if I'm looking to race when I'm say 50-55 and am running a 6:00 mile, then sure, I belong in the masters heat. But if I just turn 40, and am running fast enough to beat even a few open runners, then I'm not going to forgo the stronger competition, to place high in a race forbidding most top runners. As long as I'm training hard and doing the work, while able to beat some open runners, that's how I'll think. When these change, then my view will change too.

This issue arises periodically on this message board, then usually devolves into name-calling between those who support the age change and those who do not.

So here's where we're at: internationally, masters competition has already instituted age 35 as its entry level. Nationally, LDR is fighting the age change for road-racing, track is accepting it, and I have no idea what x-country thinks at all.

Personally, I think it's good for track - where athletes compete in heats limited to their own age groups. And horrible for road-racing, because it eliminates the incentive that keeps many distance runners training hard until they actually hit middle-age (it becomes a last hurrah for open runners rather than a new beginning for those past their prime).

I can't think of a single masters distance runner who actually attends road or x-country championships who supports the change (quite a few masters on these threads who argue in favor of the change never actually compete themselves - they just know what's best for the rest of us).

In track, the consensus is split, though I've been won over to those who argue inclusion over the obvious argument against lowering the age - that age 35 runners haven't slowed down much at all ... yet.

Quite honestly, having suffered through all the arguments pro and con before, I think the only thing we can state unequivocably is this: Since masters is an arbitrary designation anyway, we should really just decide this on a raise of hands.

That said, the illustrious temporary bureaucrats who govern the sport will ignore any raise of hands and just do whatever the hell they want anyway.

The vets group has been set at 35 for a number of decades. Unfortunately, the reasoning behind this is ancient as well. Rather than have the us adopt international standards, the international standards should be changed to reflect the current state of track and field as well as road running.

For the record, I am a master, I hit my best times between the ages of 34-38. Things went downhill quickly after 42.

ttc wrote:Guess I should mention, that if I'm looking to race when I'm say 50-55 and am running a 6:00 mile, then sure, I belong in the masters heat. But if I just turn 40, and am running fast enough to beat even a few open runners, then I'm not going to forgo the stronger competition, to place high in a race forbidding most top runners. As long as I'm training hard and doing the work, while able to beat some open runners, that's how I'll think. When these change, then my view will change too.

That's fair enough, I suppose. But I think you need to remember there are precious few "masters only" races, and I don't know ANY masters athletes who only run in those type of events. But there's a time and place for both.

I think I've only ever run one "masters only" race, and it was a mile on a dirt track. It was a pretty good field for a masters race. I got beat pretty good, but I beat some guys too. I couldn't have carried the jockstraps of the guys in the elite open race (nor will you be able to when you hit 40, nor could any masters runner in Canada, imho, challenge the guys that won that race), but I had a helluva good time and ran a good race against some real good competition.

And that's as satisfying as placing well an open road race, as far as I'm concerned.

Time and a place for everything. Don't forget, you'll be an old bastard some day too.

Here's the link to the USATF Rules Amendments (see the last two items specifically):

http://www.usatf.org/about/AnnualMeeting/2005/2005RulesAmendments_approved.pdf

After 20 years of hard competition, I was looking forward to a few years off before revving it up again and returning to masters competition at 40.

Thanks for the link benini.

Looks like I'll be a Master in just 5 more years. Hopefully I'll be peaking at 35.