Myth: Masters Lose Top End (100m-400m) Speed At A Greater Proportion Than Longer Distance Ability

How about you compute for us the percent difference between the world records and master's records at different distances? That would be informative and interesting.

pennywise de clown wrote:

How about you compute for us the percent difference between the world records and master's records at different distances? That would be informative and interesting.

That's what I expected this thread to be about, and I'd be very surprised if masters sprint records didn't drop off more than masters distance records, as conventional wisdom would say.

Heard through the grapevine wrote:

pennywise de clown wrote:

How about you compute for us the percent difference between the world records and master's records at different distances? That would be informative and interesting.

That's what I expected this thread to be about, and I'd be very surprised if masters sprint records didn't drop off more than masters distance records, as conventional wisdom would say.

Well, Skuj is lazy (but his instincts are good). I already did the leg-work on that awhile ago. Can't find the thread at this moment, but I did compare several age group long distance records vs age group sprint records, and it was true, for the most part, the sprint records DID NOT fall off any more than the distance records, and in many cases fell off less. Let's take 2 quick examples:

100m record Men

65-69

11.99 Paul Edens / 9.58 = 1.2515

Marathon

65-69

2:41:57 Derek Turnbull / 2:04 = 1.30

The same is true for 100 vs marathon in the 70-74 groups (do the math yourself if you'd like:

)

100 record is closer %-wise to all time record than marathon record is to all time record. I found this to be true in several others sprint events vs distance events, and in other age groups (not every event in every age group, but at the very least, the sprint records are generally closer to the all-time records, or as close, as the distance records are).

Skuj is correct, it is a myth that one necessarily loses power/sprinting ability more easily than endurance. Many people stop training sprint/power ability, and that is why they lose it, and yes, it is probably easier to get hurt doing that stuff, so people shy away from it. And of course it easier to jog and do local 5ks when older than to find age group sprint races. Maybe that is why for many people the "myth" is true. (but look at old timers who lift. They are strong as hell and often as strong as they were when younger. One can maintain power and speed if one wants to).

Lancy, I never thought I'd say this, but, THANKS A LOT, Man. :)

In my own club, some veterans finding that they are closer, % wise, to their prime times. I've thought, since I turned 40, that it was pure myth that speed/power goes first. In fact, I think 800m-3000m dropoff would be most extreme, but I don't have time to discuss that right now. Later.

The master's distance records are the province as yet of non African runners (that is, of a group that doesn't own any of the open records), so they are comparatively weaker than the master's sprint records, which are owned, as far as I know, by the same population group as the open sprint records. In other words, as we see Tergat hit 40 (or did he do that already?), we'll see the record plummet, etc.

Those prior calculations are off the mark because the duration factor is neglected.

A fairer comparison would be asking how far could the 65y record holder run in some equal time period as the respective open division record holder? How far for example would Turnbull have run in 2:04.00? Changes the ratios a bit and shows speed and stamina are linked fairly closely across all age-groups.

I don't think comparing masters records of different events with open records addresses the point.

You need to take indivudual lifetime PR's and compare to what they run those distances when they are over 40.

Instead of comparing Willie Gault to Eamon Coghlan compare Tony Young's 100m PR to what he can now run in the 100 and his mile PR to his current PR and so on.

Watching M90 200m champion Ugo Sansonetti in action, just tells me Skuj maybe onto something.

http://mastersathletics.info/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=&task=videodirectlink&id=208

btw, the link is the 100m final. He's doing speedwork all the time)

I would like to know what Tony Young can run in the 100m right now (and what he could have done years ago) also. Sub 12 with a flying start?

jjjjjjj wrote:

The master's distance records are the province as yet of non African runners (that is, of a group that doesn't own any of the open records), so they are comparatively weaker than the master's sprint records, which are owned, as far as I know, by the same population group as the open sprint records. In other words, as we see Tergat hit 40 (or did he do that already?), we'll see the record plummet, etc.

Well, the Men 40-44 record is 2.08,46 so it´s not like Tergat can just put out his shoes on the course and collect the record.

I think you're reaching by using 65-69 AG records to prove your point. I think only the 40+ records would have sufficiently deep performance lists behind the records for the records themselves to be statistically significant.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:100m record Men

65-69

11.99 Paul Edens / 9.58 = 1.2515

Marathon

65-69

2:41:57 Derek Turnbull / 2:04 = 1.30

Also, simply pulling two random records into the discussion hardly proves the point.

Let me dissect this thread.

Skuj goes to the track today.

Skuj observes a couple of dudes (possibly black) in their 40's running 100 meter reps.

Skuj observes that they are way faster than him.

Skuj develops a theory that masters lose top end speed less than stamina.

Without doing any calculations or deep thinking, Skuj posts his theory on Letsrun.

Rock Lobster wrote:

Let me dissect this thread.

1. Skuj goes to the track today.

2. Skuj observes a couple of dudes (possibly black) in their 40's running 100 meter reps.

3. Skuj observes that they are way faster than him.

4. Skuj develops a theory that masters lose top end speed less than stamina.

5. Without doing any calculations or deep thinking, Skuj posts his theory on Letsrun.

1. No.

2. No.

3. No.

4. Yes, but not based on your first 3 points. "Personal Experience" counts for something here.

5. No.

1/5

X Runner wrote:

I don't think comparing masters records of different events with open records addresses the point.

You need to take indivudual lifetime PR's and compare to what they run those distances when they are over 40.

Instead of comparing Willie Gault to Eamon Coghlan compare Tony Young's 100m PR to what he can now run in the 100 and his mile PR to his current PR and so on.

Upon further eflection - yes, indeed, this is much more relevant.

In my case, I am (at 47) about 12-15% slower than my all time PRs at 800m plus, but I'm less than 10% slower at 400m, and less than 5% slower at 100m.

Anecdotally I find this to be true. I am 52 and was really surprised that my 200 speed has dropped off no more percentage-wise than my 5/10K performance.

This really is seemingly a myth busted, or does it depend on how good a sprinter you were to start with (I was not).

Maybe the middle distances drop off more than sprints and distance.

I agree. 800m-3000m is the biggest dropoff, imho.

aussie wrote:

Maybe the middle distances drop off more than sprints and distance.

How about the general lack of events for masters runners to participate?

In my city a maters runner can run in a road race every weekend, but would be hard pressed to find an 800 or 1500.