The hold of the marathon over masters runners is a serious problem.

It's a good thing you posted to let masters know what they should run! Thank you for your service.

I'm the guy who has to listen to 9 out of 10 masters on my team after every NYC and Boston telling me how it just wasn't their day or some such talk.

This is self-preservation.

You've completely failed to explain what exactly the problem is.

I guess it does feel pretty good when you stop hitting yourself on the head with a hammer. Fair point.

Carry on, masters runners. Failure builds character. Reaching your potential in sport is overrated. Better to fail repeatedly and build character that way.

The problem is "big marathon," just like big pharma or big agriculture. I'm only half joking. There's a huge financial incentive for marathon organizers and they've spent the last few decades cultivating the image of the marathon as the ultimate white collar achievement.

My brother in-law doesn't know the first thing about running, he's a lifelong coorporate kind of guy. So many times he's told me, "You need to get a BQ so you can put that on your resume, it'll impress so many people!" He's not wrong, and it's not bad practical advice, but it is very silly how many people have been "tricked."

It’s like golf. Most times it just not your day, but when it all comes together and you break whatever your magic number is - it’s just amazing and keeps you coming back for more.

Not everyone’s interested in ‘maximizing their potential’, sometimes people just do stuff because they like it. It’s called hobbyjogging for a reason.

It’s not just masters, it’s everybody. More people are impressed with a 50-60% age graded marathon than an 80-90% age grade at any other distance. But yes, for almost all masters runners, they really can’t train properly to run the marathon to their potential.

Honestly 100% with you, and this extends to 30 somethings as well. Including elites. Ironically some elite runners like Lauren Fleshman and Molly Huddle SHORTENED their careers rather than extended them by thinking it was just 'time to do the marathon now'. Fraser Pryce is meddling in the 100m at 36, y'all will be fine running 5k/10k in your 30s.

You could really say the same thing about guys between the ages of 23 and 40 as well. So many folks put all their eggs into the marathon basket. Yes, maybe they'll set some nice 10k/half PRs along the way, but so many have these monster build ups just to blow up on marathon day and vow to come back with a vengeance "once I get my fueling right".

Doug Kurtis and many others would spit in your face if they ever read crap like this.

Its these individuals training, not the alure of the marathon that is the problem. If I want to get a graduate degree in the liberal arts, I need to be reading 300 pages a day, if I want to run a marathon I need to be averaging at least 10 miles a day. There are plenty of big 10ks like peach tree and lots of big halfs like brooklyn, nyc, baa, houston etc. for those who would rather train less than around 10 miles a day.

You can complete a marathon without running more than 30-40 miles a week but you have to check your ego and accept your fitness level - you're running to complete it, not race it with that level of endurance and need to go real real slow and accept that your legs will be shot for a month afterwards.

While I agree with you to a certain extent, a big issue is that legitimate shorter distance races for masters athletes in the United States have largely disappeared.

Most masters track meets are a joke. A 50-year-old male works really hard all Spring to race a good 5,000 (sub 17:00) and he signs up for his state's USATF Masters Championships. On race day, he lines up against an age 35 male (technically a master in USATF) that is going to run 15:xx, an 80-year-old guy that is going to shuffle through it in about 32 minutes, and the lone woman distance entrant that day who can run about 24 minutes. She's in the race because the officials saw an opportunity to combine fields and go home early. Doesn't this sound like fun? Sadly, I'm not making this up as it actually happened.

OK, then move to the roads! Lots of 5K, 8K, and 10K choices out there, right? Nope! It's getting harder and harder to find much between 5K and Half Marathon these days. Races have to be longer so that entrants feel like they are getting value for their $89+ entry fee. The shorter stuff is now so geared towards fitness and fun (themed crap, Jog to Cure Something, costumes) that the actual race is a clusterf**k of walkers, costumed joggers, strollers, and dogs trying to clog the primo starting spots near the front right before the gun. The RD isn't going to enforce order because he got his money and this event is all about fun and charity. Calm down, Mr. Serious Old Runner!

I'll spare you my rant about courses lacking accurate measurement, certification, and why RDs find it necessary to add sh** like "Doom Mountain" and "Cardiac Cliff" so that the hobby jogger crowd can brag about how they slayed the toughest 5K in the Tri-State area.

Most masters just gravitate towards marathons and half marathons because those are the last events that still seem to take racing, course accuracy, and respect for real athletes seriously.

good post. no sarcasm. Finding serious races is a problem in many parts of the country and world.

There is no reason most people cannot run more than 50 miles a week in their forties or even fifties. Some can't. But even so, decent marathons have been run on that volume. And no, the marathon is not a normal race and might well be stupid. That's always been a big part of its appeal.

Actually, running fast is often more difficult and more likely to lead to an injury than running far is as you get older. Ed Whitlock never claimed that his very slow two to three hour daily runs were necessarily the best way to train in terms of maximum performance but they were the best way for him to train and stay healthy and able to race. Nor did he limit himself to racing once or twice a year. He raced quite frequently.

I don't really expect you'll answer this, but why did you want to post this? If you don't want to run marathons that's fine. Why do you care if other people want to run them?

Exactly. This is attempted gaslighting.

1. in your 40s yeah you can run big miles. After that many fewer can. So I'm talking 50+ really.

2. Why did I post this? I'm on a team. I'm a bit frustrated that so many of my serious masters runner teammates choose to spend all spring training/racing for Boston and all fall training/racing NYC so they don't want to go racing much in the leadup or recovery phase. Then of course 9/10ths of them have bad marathons.

I think these runners would have a more rewarding experience racing more. And it would certainly make my team stronger. Sure, it's partly selfish. But not all.

citing ed whitlock as an example is more gaslighting than anything else. He's a freak of nature and in the .0001% of runners. Not useful to the argument.

I am 63 and could probably walk a marathon in less than 10 hours, but why bother.

The 5K & 10K races are age appropriate for a runner like me who is simply trying to keep running until I can't do it anymore. I fear an attempt to run over 26 miles could lead to permanent damage that would bring my running days to an end.

10Ks are getting harder to find. I plan to run the BAA 10K in June.