Rich Burns M55 Mile World Record 4:36.94 - Congrats Rich!

I see about ten runners, going under 4:30 in about ten years easy.

Congratulations to a fine American runner on a fine new WR.The old record lasted from 1977 and I predict another Aussie runner will take it back in the next six months.I love this USA v Ausie friendly rivalry.

There's skepticism because age-grading is massively (understatement) flawed. Age is not the sole factor in why people get slower. There is the fact that running is less of a priority as one ages. Factors such as added stress and responsibility in other areas (work, home, etc) increase. Training is not likely to be as good as when one was in college (and likely there would be large gaps of time without training).

Do you see any masters world records that are held by anyone that was close to a world record in their prime? Until a Bekele or a El Gerrouj type decides to focus 100% on training into their 60's, we won't really know what the body is ACTUALLY capable of. I bring this up because age-group records are the basis of age-grading:

WR for 5000m (50-55) - 14:53 = 893 seconds

WR for 5000m - 12:37 = 757 seconds (.84 of 50-55 WR)

Say a 50 year old runs 16:00 for a 5k (960 seconds). That means his time is converted to 960*.84 = 13:34

Except that his "grade" isn't based on a world-record holding athlete. It's based on a time by someone that happens to be the fastest person in that age group. I'm not trying to be down on master's athletes. I think it's great to stay competitive, but the current system of age-grading is disgraceful to T&F and a broken concept.

How broken is it? Well, when Tony Young runs 3:46 at 40 years of age, his time is graded to 3:32. Tony was a 3:42 guy in his prime. If the concept of age-grading is to see how you would stack up if you were in your prime, how is it possible to have dropped such an incredible amount off of your (theoretical) time? The answer is simple. Tony Young was more dedicated and worked harder/smarter than anyone else in that age group. My point is not to take anything away from his accomplishments, quite the opposite. Rather, I say that any other 40 year old that doesn't run within 4 seconds of their 1500 PR simply hasn't put together enough dedication and hard work and don't deserve an arbitrary multiplier to reduce their time.

I'm not interested in age grading. A record is a record so well done to Rich Burns

It seems like a lot of these masters WRs are set by Americans. Is masters competition very popular around the rest of the world?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

I'm not interested in age grading. A record is a record so well done to Rich Burns

Yeah same here. Congrats to Rich. That's damn impressive.

Wow, he is a decade from retirement age and 20 years from the average American lifespan.

I wonder what kind of runner he was in his prime? Was he a nationally ranked miler, or one of those master runners that only gains fame in old age. One thing I have noticed about these master stars was they were not A list runners in their prime. For some reason while superior runners fade these guys rebuild.

Take a look at what Jim Sorensen did back in his prime and compare to what he's doing now. Or even the 40-year old Russian Shibunin.

For Example... Jim just ran 4:18 and he's 43. His 4:18 effort age-grades to 3:58.4 - Jim's PR back in the day is 3:59.70 ---

A big congtats to Jim too... 4:18 is pretty awesome! Nice kick in the end... you really hauled it those last two laps!

Radical Ron. wrote:

Take a look at what Jim Sorensen did back in his prime and compare to what he's doing now. Or even the 40-year old Russian Shibunin.

For Example... Jim just ran 4:18 and he's 43. His 4:18 effort age-grades to 3:58.4 - Jim's PR back in the day is 3:59.70 -

Didn't Jim run like 4:02 when he was 40?

Rather than worrying about age-grading % too much, I'll just say (or think) "I run XX+Y for this event; FYI the WR for my age-group is XX." This compares apples more to apples.

I think the AG % is helpful in big mixed-age results to highlight some of the impressive results for older athletes that might otherwise get buried in the results. I mean, looking at marathon results, I might no look past the top 10 normally, but if a 70-year old goes sub-3:00, AG % shows that up front.

We all age differently. Some have a slower genetic decline then others. Certainly it can’t be the same for every race, ethnicity, etc. Athletes who were faster in their prime may have a greater rate of decline but still set records. Example: 800 PR at age 30-1:44, age 45- 1:54. -10 sec. Take an athlete who runs 2 minutes at age 30 and still manages to run 2 flat for 800 meters at age 45 through hard work and dedication, would we just say, well they must have had more potential and just didn't train hard enough in their "prime" or would we give them credit for actually staying so consistent? For all we know they didn’t have the potential to run faster than 1:55. There isn’t a graded score table out there that exists that compares runners all time PR’s and grades them equally against what they are running in later decades. I tend to agree with you but not many look at it the way you suggest "Rather, I say that any other 40 year old that doesn't run within 4 seconds of their 1500 PR simply hasn't put together enough dedication and hard work and don't deserve an arbitrary multiplier to reduce their time." I do doubt Tony was only a 3:42 guy in his prime. I bet he would have been capable of some faster times, not 3:32 perhaps, but certainly a few seconds faster then his PR. Regardless, it is amazing that he stayed so close to his PR. How about a 10.72 100 at age 45 by Gault- if he runs 10.72 this year at age 50,(10.84 this year)- there would be a 0% decline, yet I'm not sure I would want to tell him he should have been running faster 5 years ago.

I also agree with you that world record holders such as Bekele and El G, IF they had enough incentive to train into their 60's and stayed healthy should be able to set age group records. (Rono has had a tough time of it though) Of course this is still not what the human body is CAPABLE of, because it assumes they were the greatest runners that exist within the human population. There are a thousand such talented runners throughout the world who have the potential to break their records, but for one reason or another did not take up the sport. I can imagine the possibility that one of those individuals who stayed relatively healthy through age 50, let’s say they were playing soccer, or some other sport, and then decided to take up masters track. They may start breaking age group records. (sort of like an Earl Fee) For all we know they would run better times in their 50's then Bekele or El G would. Who knows? There are so many factors. All we really have is the current age group records and then we have new athletes every few years that take a shot at setting new ones. I don’t like the age graded calculator for looking back, it really makes no sense. But you can compare your own performances going forward and if you have a slower rate of decline then the average master runner, then you are doing well and it doesn't matter if you are running a 4:30 mile or a 5:30 mile.

With his kick, his 3:58 1500 this year would be about a 4:15 mile equiv.and he has had injuries this year and is not quite in top shape yet. It is not hard to imagine Jim running at least 4 seconds faster then the current 45+ Mile WR of 4:16 in two years time. Ten years after that 4:28-29?

You only need a 2:05 ~ 800 to run under a 4:30 mile. The US have five, 40 to 45 year old runners will do that.

haha, I know a few people that would have WR's if we started Weight-grading times. Chris Solinsky has basically run a 25:58 for 10k if you consider his weight.

Maybe we could start Money-grading times. When you consider that all the people at Oregon have all the financial resources that they need, it makes someone who only makes $15k a year but also runs a 14:30 for 5k seem much more impressive (like maybe a 12:25 poverty equivilent).

It even works for me! I ran 4:25 for the mile in high school taking 3 AP classes and making straight A's. But if you course-load-grade my 4:25, it's probably equivalent to a 3:59 under ideal training conditions, and that doesn't even factor in the sleep that I missed! If you calculated that, it's probably like 3:54!!!!

Funny. Exactly, all the grading stuff is a bit out of hand. Run the best you can in each age group and enjoy. Give credit where credit is due, and certainly Rich deserves credit.

Track your own PR's and always remember the alternative; it is better to be out there running at age 65 then sitting on the couch overweight with high BP, cholesterol, etc. waiting for the inevitable.

All I'm gonna say is good thing for rich the average life spans in east Africa are under 55 years of age.

Only 20 years till lagat destroys this record..

Keith Bateman

INSANE