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

Oh lord, it seems like there's at least one of these threads every week. Usually started by someone younger. Let me ask you this: Why do older people still have sex, when they can't pull off quite the same multiple times a night feats as in their younger years? Maybe they should just stop, using your logic.

A: Because it's still fun as hell. All the aspects surrounding it too. In fact the other stuff is even more appreciated. Also with a more mature attitude, there seems to be more satisfaction among the participants :).

Well, since i'm now amongst the older population, I can say that I still get a huge thrill out of racing. . The rush of training and then running better than expected is still real, even if the actual times are slower. Also, it's the whole atmosphere--the camaraderie and understanding amongst fellow runners at this age is pretty cool. Sure there's still some jerks but most people that I hang with who are older seem genuinely satisfied and helpful.

prove me wrong wrote:

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

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

Training hard and not getting close to your PRs doesn't sound like fun to me!

Training hard is fun, regardless of time. To think otherwise is short-sighted.

Another good one for the Masters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skC2GToR1uY

Dude, are you even reading these post responses from older runners??? The answers have been given now many times over, and they are damn compelling.

DumbOPQuestions wrote:

You are either new to the sport or don't know anything about running. A 24:30 for a 70 year old is more impressive than a 16:30 in your 20's. The All-American standard for a 70 year old is 27:40!

You just made it obvious you may be more clueless than the OP.

A 24:30 for a 70 year old is only 71% on the Age Grade, whereas a 16:30 for a twenty-something is 78%.

And who knows what you are referring to by "All-American standard for a 70 year old"? A 27:40 is only worth 46% for a 70 year old.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

It's not about time but winning. Age categories are no different to male and female categories. You are competing against someone on the same level.

It's all about the AGE GRADED times; they typically determine who age-group podiums in a road-race.

When I was young, 70's & 80's, running came naturally. I will not say easy. I improved by leap & bounds every year. As long as I put in the time results came. I used to think the hills of Fitchburg Ma. were a challenge or running in humidity. I had dreams about dueling against a rival who beat me in the past. I fantasized in runs about duking it out with Billy Rodgers & Frank Shorter. Now I duel with the toughest force in the universe, Mother Nature. I know I will lose, but I will not down down without a fight! A couple of days ago, at the age of 61, I was on a run & I passed a couple of 30 year old guys! I'll put that up there with any race I ever won. In the words on President Kennedy, "We don it, not because it's easy but because it is hard."

This is a top tier point you make.

No, it's a lot different than male and female categories.

Males and females almost always compete in different heats (unless there are so few participants that they run a "mixed 3200" to save time). So a female can cross the finish line first as long as she beats all other females in the race. The same is not true for age groups. If the local all-comers meet did that, track meets might last a whole week! They're already long enough at the college level.

As far as road races and XC goes, it's pretty common to see something like this:

Women's 8K - 8:00

Men's 10K - 8:30

while it's almost unheard of to see something like this:

Men's open - 8:00

Men's 35-39 - 8:30

Men's 40-44 - 9:00

Men's 45-49 - 9:30

Men's 50-54 - 10 AM

... and so on.

My point becomes even stronger if you throw out all the times and PRs.

At the HS, college, and pro levels, you have rival teams to beat, home teams to score points for, relays to run, teammates to train and travel with, and so on. A 60 year old runner will have trouble finding anything that resembles the experience of being on a HS or college team.

If anyone is interested in a race, they'll ask "who won", and not "who won the men's 50-54 age group". It's the 26 year old winner who gets the glory, not the 46 year old guy who finishes a few steps behind him.

prove me wrong wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

That was quite inspiring.

Perhaps more fitting to say, is very inspiring.

Curious that from such a misguided initial assertion by the OP, so much of real value ensues.

My point becomes even stronger if you throw out all the times and PRs.

At the HS, college, and pro levels, you have rival teams to beat, home teams to score points for, relays to run, teammates to train and travel with, and so on. A 60 year old runner will have trouble finding anything that resembles the experience of being on a HS or college team.

If anyone is interested in a race, they'll ask "who won", and not "who won the men's 50-54 age group". It's the 26 year old winner who gets the glory, not the 46 year old guy who finishes a few steps behind him.

Yes, the experience of the 60 year old runner is probably vastly different than a runner on a high school runner. Emphasis on the word different.

But you just got pages and pages of posts from runners telling us how that difference is still important and meaningful to them.

It's not the same, but it has a different significance.

Is that so hard to understand or are you simply trolling us to the bitter end?

Don't bother to answer, please. I lost interest in your posts and find those of the other posters much more worthy of my time.

Prove Me Wrong - listen youngster, this is a good troll post subject. Your post is perfect for getting old f*cks like me to post replies.

All I can say is try posting on the subject again when you are 45.

Oh, and yes I did run a 17 minute 5K when I was 45, but it was on 15 mpw, not 70.