Masters racing is pointless if you've trained hard in your youth

I will assume you are younger and simply don't know what it's like to get older, but here goes.

You are right, it can be depressing. In 1983 I ran my PB for 1500 at 3:47.9. I was very proud of this (it was the only time I ever went sub-3:50). In summer 2018 (I've not been on a track since the end of that season) I ran 4:53. You know what's crazy? The effort felt the same. I see many threads with younger people seemingly trying to dissuade older runners from trying, but you simply don't realize that it's all the same. I was depressing when I could no longer break 4 minutes, but I got over it. I still love to run, have great memories and friendships from my younger days, but I still really love it and have no intention to let it go. So what if a sub-5 1500 is the goal now? If I can still do it, I will be happy or I will simply adjust to the changes that life brings us.

Despite the trolling, I'll bite. If you're under 35 and can't run fast enough to qualify for the olympics or world champs or NCAA finals, then why even bother?

Racing is fun, training hard is fun, challenging yourself is fun. It's better than shuffling around mumbling about how good you used to be.

Baloney. I was a 2:19 marathoner 47 years ago and still race as a master. I ran upwards of 175 miles in a week, averaged 110 miles a week for six years. Pointless is the myriad of trolling turds that have nothing better to do with their miserable life.

I've been fast, faster, and fastest during the pandemic, and doing this with nobody watching or caring is fine with me.

I'm much older than the weird guy I hated to run near when I was racing as a 15-year-old, and my race pace is what my long run pace was in the late-80s. I'm stronger, though, and healthier in a lot of ways.

You know what does bother me, though? My "15 minute 5K" from whatever year would win nearly every race I go to now. We were all done by 23-24 minutes back then, nobody walked arm-in-arm across the whole road. We raced.

Why do you all bother now? You're slow.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Baloney. I was a 2:19 marathoner 47 years ago and still race as a master. I ran upwards of 175 miles in a week, averaged 110 miles a week for six years. Pointless is the myriad of trolling turds that have nothing better to do with their miserable life.

Oh the irony. The deep deep irony.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Baloney. I was a 2:19 marathoner 47 years ago and still race as a master. I ran upwards of 175 miles in a week, averaged 110 miles a week for six years. Pointless is the myriad of trolling turds that have nothing better to do with their miserable life.

+1

Well said!

I agree with you in some sense. I ran 14:00 as a 25 year old, but doing up 110 miles/week and when I hit 42 was running 35 miles/week to run 15:40... so maybe you're thinking of it backwards. I've NEVER done super high mileage as a Master, complete opposite, as my body built such a base from 15-35 years old. But yes, it does suck to be hovering around 16:00 most races with the limited opportunities to pop a big one.

Another age bashing troll post. But I'll bite anyways.

I'm basically the guy in your second paragraph that never took running seriously while young. I'm in my late 40's now and the fact that my PRs are all soft, makes running fun as hell. I've setting new PRs at every distance for over a year. Going from a 5K of mid-20s, to low 20s to around 19 (hoping to go sub-19 soon) has been fun. Likewise for the marathon, from 4:00 to 3:47 to 3:13 (first BQ) last month has been really cool (can I go sub 3:10, sub 3:00?) But I'm not exactly setting world records, so I'm sure lots of people would say it's appears 'pointless' (to them).

But I see what you're saying about having super low PRs from earlier years. It would make it harder to enjoy running, but not pointless.

When you're my age, running is great not only for the challenge. It's great because it makes you look good and feel good. Also, for me, it's a time to zone out and listen to music, which means I enjoy the act of doing it. Those are what I'll still be able to take from it when I'm too old to PR anymore.

As you get older, the fork in the road separates further and further apart into "fit" and "f- it" lanes. The difference between a 50 year old running a 20 min 5K and the average 50 year old non-exerciser, becomes HUGE; much bigger than the difference between fit and non-fit 18 year old. With each passing year the separation gets greater.

That's why I'm inspired as hell, when I see a 65 year old run under 8:00 pace for the local 5K. I'm way more inspired by that, than some 18 year old dingus who beat me by 10 seconds without having to try. He doesn't even know what he has. But the 65 year old at 7:59 pace, is DRASTICALLY different than the average 65 year old who can barely get off the couch without a massive grunting effort, a huge BMI and disease rotting away his sedentary body. Fast forward that to an Ed Whitlock running a 2:54 marathon at 73. Damn near impossible!

I'd bet a years salary Kipchogei and Bekele won't be able to do it. Not with 30+ more years of life in the way.

Just wait. As you get older, those 'unimpressive' Masters performances, get more and more impressive as your youth abandons you and takes you further away from feeling young. Already at my age, late 40s, the people who are fit, look and feel 10 years younger. The ones who have said "f- it, why bother" look and feel 10, sometimes 20 years older. And you can tell.

So, it's your choice. Say, "f- it, it's not worth it" and suffer the consequences. Or, find a way to enjoy staying fit as you age, and reap the rewards.

Father time waits for no one, not even you, Prove Me Wrong (OP). So, if you can't stay young, you might as well feel it. And there's no better way than to get out and do a kick a$s run!

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

If you're under 35 and can't run fast enough to qualify for the olympics or world champs or NCAA finals, then why even bother?

Because setting PRs is fun. If you're over 35 and think you have a realistic chance of PRing, go for it! But it's completely irrational to put in a similar amount of work for a much slower time (relative to your lifetime best).

I am also the guy in your second paragraph that was a sprinter/jumper who is finding enjoyment in taking distance running more seriously in my mid to late 30s. To turn this around, I actually really regret wasting my best year as a distance runner doing other stuff and pretty much guarantee you I would be running now even if my previous PRs were unattainable at this point.

I think what it boils down to is that some people run because they love the sport whereas others run seeking external praise, financial renumeration (scholarships, prize money, sponsorships) and some people do both. I feel partly bad for people who spent a lot of time doing something they didn't find sufficient joy in to continue much like I feel bad for people who despise their jobs.

prove me wrong wrote:

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

If you're under 35 and can't run fast enough to qualify for the olympics or world champs or NCAA finals, then why even bother?

Because setting PRs is fun. If you're over 35 and think you have a realistic chance of PRing, go for it! But it's completely irrational to put in a similar amount of work for a much slower time (relative to your lifetime best).

You have a choice: A) Work hard to stay fit, or, B) Say f- it, get fat, lazy, out of shape and old. It's your choice buddy. Choose B. See if any of us care.

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

You know what does bother me, though? My "15 minute 5K" from whatever year would win nearly every race I go to now. We were all done by 23-24 minutes back then, nobody walked arm-in-arm across the whole road. We raced.

Why do you all bother now? You're slow.

I know plenty of people who can run a 23-24 minute 5K off of no running-specific training.

But if a no talent guy trains his ass off to run his 23:00 5K PR, good for him! He's achieving his lifetime potential. But a 60 year old training his ass off now to run a 23:00 5K when his PR is sub 17 from 1985? That's a depressing waste of time.

See, hear is the thing: when one shows up to race locally, the AGE GRADE is the metric by which one is going to be judged in terms of 'the pecking order'. There is no escaping that. It is, what it is.

prove me wrong wrote:

But if a no talent guy trains his ass off to run his 23:00 5K PR, good for him! He's achieving his lifetime potential. But a 60 year old training his ass off now to run a 23:00 5K when his PR is sub 17 from 1985? That's a depressing waste of time.

But if that 'guy' is actually a 'gal', then her 23min 5k on the roads at age 60 is NATIONAL CLASS, which takes some talent.

it's all about the AGE GRADE wrote:

prove me wrong wrote:

But if a no talent guy trains his ass off to run his 23:00 5K PR, good for him! He's achieving his lifetime potential. But a 60 year old training his ass off now to run a 23:00 5K when his PR is sub 17 from 1985? That's a depressing waste of time.

But if that 'guy' is actually a 'gal', then her 23min 5k on the roads at age 60 is NATIONAL CLASS, which takes some talent.

However, a 60-yr old male running 23min on the roads at age 60 is not even REGIONAL CLASS. It would be comparable to a 30 yr-old running 18:38.

I didn't argue that it was rational, I said it was fun.

prove me wrong wrote:

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

If you're under 35 and can't run fast enough to qualify for the olympics or world champs or NCAA finals, then why even bother?

Because setting PRs is fun. If you're over 35 and think you have a realistic chance of PRing, go for it! But it's completely irrational to put in a similar amount of work for a much slower time (relative to your lifetime best).

You certainly have a point, there's a lot of insecurity driving individuals in masters competition, a need to continually prove themselves against their peers to find a pecking order. That's also for people chasing marks or PBs in any endeavor, just because you can no longer PB in running doesn't mean your self worth is in question if you don't go set PBs in some other activity. PBs are nice but they aren't the entire or main point of doing something unless you're fragilely insecure.

However, there's plenty who do it because they still find the activity fun and they like seeing how good they can be right now, given the challenges of human ageing, career, family, etc. Many enjoy the comradery of training and racing with their peers, the social benefits. Something tells me you're not exactly the social type, however.

prove me wrong wrote:

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

You know what does bother me, though? My "15 minute 5K" from whatever year would win nearly every race I go to now. We were all done by 23-24 minutes back then, nobody walked arm-in-arm across the whole road. We raced.

Why do you all bother now? You're slow.

I know plenty of people who can run a 23-24 minute 5K off of no running-specific training.

But if a no talent guy trains his ass off to run his 23:00 5K PR, good for him! He's achieving his lifetime potential. But a 60 year old training his ass off now to run a 23:00 5K when his PR is sub 17 from 1985? That's a depressing waste of time.

By this logic, working your ass off when your young is a waste of time too... Why train hard to run Sub 17 in 1985, when you could have saved your PR till you were 60?

One can argue that setting lifetime PRs is as pointless as a masters runner as racing and not coming close to your youth PRs. Lifetime PRs at any level are fairly pointless unless you are breaking records. I wouldn't trade say a win in a conference championship race for another half second off my PR.