Competitor group's masters runner comped entry standards

I honestly rarely see a master's 5k guy under 15:20, with the exception of Mburak, Meb, Lagat, Castille, Wells. Sub 1:11 in the marathon is fairly uncommon as well. 2:33 was the top American masters at NYC in 2014, and 2:30 was the top male masters at Chicago this past year. Cherry Blossom 10 miler was one in 54:26 this year. Most of those convert to high 80s.

I'm usually in the 85-90 range and there is only 1 guy in my state who would be a mild favorite to beat me, and another whom I'd be a mild favorite to beat. And one of those guys was an Olympic marathoner.

So if you have tons of guys who are smoking you at 85, you live in a very competitive area. Which makes sense given your near a major population center in the most populous state in the country and in a place that's conducive to great training.

outsiderunner wrote:

5k, 75.55

10k, 73.8

marathon, 72.67

sometimes make me question things. Actually, the lowest number is least bothersome to me, as the PLP calculators seem to have an odd statistical calibration in regard to the marathon. Many guys can beat my 5k or 10k time, but yet I am more competitive with them in the longer distances (yet score lower at those distances).

Does it really matter?

5Rings wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

5k, 75.55

10k, 73.8

marathon, 72.67

sometimes make me question things. Actually, the lowest number is least bothersome to me, as the PLP calculators seem to have an odd statistical calibration in regard to the marathon. Many guys can beat my 5k or 10k time, but yet I am more competitive with them in the longer distances (yet score lower at those distances).

Does it really matter?

For a guy who started late in running (40s), and has never won a race in his life, you bet it matters.

outsiderunner wrote:

5k, 75.55

10k, 73.8

marathon, 72.67

sometimes make me question things. Actually, the lowest number is least bothersome to me, as the PLP calculators seem to have an odd statistical calibration in regard to the marathon. Many guys can beat my 5k or 10k time, but yet I am more competitive with them in the longer distances (yet score lower at those distances).

at the risk of sounding ignorant about statistics (which i am from a mathematical standpoint), i've noticed this seeming anomaly as well. is it because the depth of competition (at least with masters) is greater with the marathon, or because there is less depth that may cause this difference?

i remember when lee troop ran a really fast marathon at 40 (can't remember the time--maybe sub 2:20), yet it may have been well under 90% age-graded...

SwixSwenson_The_Real_1 wrote:

I've gotten comped into one race in the past 5 years, a regional championship, and I feel eternally grateful. OP you are giving runners a bad rep.

Fixed it for you.

Green Acres wrote:

An Event Director wrote:

I run a competitive running event with national participation. The top athletes in the event never ask for anything. Their agents make arrangements out of their travel budgets and even pay the entry fee.

You are a liar or simply uninformed. No top tier athletes expect to pay an entry fee. There are enough of us on this board who knows how it works and have been there. The second an elite finds out they have to pay for their own travel and expenses is the second they find another race.

I'm neither lying nor uninformed. We spend almost zero dollars on travel. The top athletes have agents and travel budgets. Their coach says "go run this event" and the agent sets it all up. The sponsored clubs are the same way. They have a budget and they make their own arrangements. It's the unsponsored athlete that needs travel assistance.

Galen Rupp, for example, does not give anyone a call to get a free bib and hotel room. He's probably never filled out an entry form himself. Alberto doesn't even do that. It's te agent.

Getting a comped entry follows the same rule of thumb as buying a luxury item: if you have to ask how much it is you probably can't afford it. If the entry is not being offered you probably haven't earned it.

My advice though remains the same: if you have a compelling reason or hardship then feel free to make your case to the RD.

1) so start your own race that you can organize to fit what you want from a race. It isn't that hard. You'll break even, or maybe make a small amount of money for charity.

2) Competitor isn't a charity and doesn't claim to be. They're a for-profit company. The changes they make are for revenue purposes.

3) None of this has anything to do with the main focus of this thread. Competitor has posted times to be given a comped entry. He was told he had to match the age graded equivalent to be given a master entry. He didn't make that cut. End of thread, why is it still continuing?

socal cush wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

5k, 75.55

10k, 73.8

marathon, 72.67

sometimes make me question things. Actually, the lowest number is least bothersome to me, as the PLP calculators seem to have an odd statistical calibration in regard to the marathon. Many guys can beat my 5k or 10k time, but yet I am more competitive with them in the longer distances (yet score lower at those distances).

at the risk of sounding ignorant about statistics (which i am from a mathematical standpoint), i've noticed this seeming anomaly as well. is it because the depth of competition (at least with masters) is greater with the marathon, or because there is less depth that may cause this difference?

i remember when lee troop ran a really fast marathon at 40 (can't remember the time--maybe sub 2:20), yet it may have been well under 90% age-graded...

I am glad someone else has noticed this...I have no answer, but I feel better that someone else has noticed.

had more time to check: lee troop ran 2:17:52 for a 92% age-grade, yet a 92% age-grade at any shorter distance won't get you anywhere near qualifying for the olympic trials...

outsiderunner wrote:

socal cush wrote:

at the risk of sounding ignorant about statistics (which i am from a mathematical standpoint), i've noticed this seeming anomaly as well. is it because the depth of competition (at least with masters) is greater with the marathon, or because there is less depth that may cause this difference?

i remember when lee troop ran a really fast marathon at 40 (can't remember the time--maybe sub 2:20), yet it may have been well under 90% age-graded...

I am glad someone else has noticed this...I have no answer, but I feel better that someone else has noticed.

It's because the age 40 world record for the marathon is 2:08 and the age grade times are based off of that. Tough standard, because indeed very few age 40+ runners go under 2:20.

socal cush wrote:

had more time to check: lee troop ran 2:17:52 for a 92% age-grade, yet a 92% age-grade at any shorter distance won't get you anywhere near qualifying for the olympic trials...

Thanks for checking...

The age-grade fall-off toward the marathon is strange. There are locals here who literally do not come within 20 minutes of my marathon time, yet beat me almost evey time in a 5k or 10k.

Bizarre...

William Wonkish wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

I am glad someone else has noticed this...I have no answer, but I feel better that someone else has noticed.

It's because the age 40 world record for the marathon is 2:08 and the age grade times are based off of that. Tough standard, because indeed very few age 40+ runners go under 2:20.

This makes sense for a 40-year-old competitor, but what about guys who are older? I can see a guy on the cusp of being a master's runner putting up a 2:08 and then throwing off the curve for all other guys who are 40, but this trend seems to continue upward in the master's category.

There is a lag time in the curve because masters running is still relatively new, mostly in just the last 35 or 40 years. In the 80s there were a few ground breakers (Kjell Erik Stahl, John Campbell, Derek Turnbull, and a few Americans like Alex Ratelle) and they were the pioneers. As good as they were in their prime and when they were setting masters records. even they were not at the level of those that are breaking records now. Whitlock is an amazing anomaly today, but in 20 or 30 years there will be many runners going much faster in their 60s and 70s. And women's masters records a couple decades at least behind the men's.

Is everyone from Philly a complete douche bag?

Every time I read about someone from Philly on this forum, they are a complete tool.

socal cush wrote:

had more time to check: lee troop ran 2:17:52 for a 92% age-grade, yet a 92% age-grade at any shorter distance won't get you anywhere near qualifying for the olympic trials...

That is because the olympic trials standard is massively looser in the marathon than any of the events on the track. There is a reason that almost 200 men qualify any given year. They set the standard loose like this because it makes no sense to organize a 24 person marathon.

sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

socal cush wrote:

had more time to check: lee troop ran 2:17:52 for a 92% age-grade, yet a 92% age-grade at any shorter distance won't get you anywhere near qualifying for the olympic trials...

That is because the olympic trials standard is massively looser in the marathon than any of the events on the track. There is a reason that almost 200 men qualify any given year. They set the standard loose like this because it makes no sense to organize a 24 person marathon.

Super embarrassing that this actually had to be explained.

mildlyfastmaster wrote:

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.

And rude.

And pathetic.

On the bright side, in ten to twenty years, you will become eligible to receive senior discounts on many goods and services.

Edgar Summersby wrote:

sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

That is because the olympic trials standard is massively looser in the marathon than any of the events on the track. There is a reason that almost 200 men qualify any given year. They set the standard loose like this because it makes no sense to organize a 24 person marathon.

Super embarrassing that this actually had to be explained.

Agreed. Would think a masters runner would be wiser.

You all realize I hope the "glitch" in the age-grading is the fact that the 2:08 record is doped heavily relative to the shorter distances? Bernard Lagat, one of the best runners in history, just ran 27:49 on the track, which is comparable in performance to the no-name Mexican who *13 years* ago had a last grasp (via PEDs) at some sort of legacy. That epitomizes PED use in masters athletics.

Once Lagat resets the shorter distance records, the adjustments should actually be more even overall (although harder by several percentages)