Yes, we are chopped liver — if we swallow the myths
So Mark Cleary and others insist that their hands are tied — that meet directors of the USA open nationals allow only running events from 100 to the mile in the masters exhibitions. No field events. Mark and others insist that they’re under orders to “present fields that please meet directors.” OK, fine. But I can answer both objections with two words: Willie Banks. Or Bud Held. Or any of a couple dozen high-profile former elites in the jumps and throws.
Willie turns 50 on March 11, and the triple-jump world records in his age group are toast the first time he bounds down the runway. Too late for Indoor Nationals but not for the Outdoor Nationals at Indianapolis. And Bud Held — one of only two trackfolk in both the National T&F Hall of Fame and the Masters Hall of Fame — could get quite a reception as the lead name of a pole vault field. How many kids know about the existence of vaulters in their 80s? (Bud turns 80 late next year.) How about bringing out W80 vaulter Johnnye Valien for a mixed-sex field that sets another record?
So much for that.
What really peeves me is the notion that Masters T&F — that weakling girlieman of USA Track & Field — has to subserviently go along with whatever USATF “meet directors” dictate. They throw us a gnarly old bone, and we’re supposed to be grateful. Kiss butt. Yes, we are chopped liver if we accept that arrangement. We don’t have to.
We have leverage that we never use. We have, at the moment, a seat on the USATF Board of Directors. We have a large share of USATF membership with high education and income. We even have a potential stealth ally in Dwight Stones, a former masters star who broadcasts USATF events. He did a field event, remember? We also have evidence of the growing media clout of masters in Geezerjock magazine.
And yet we have a mind-set that dictates submission.
Why don’t we assert ourselves, use our muscle and tell USATF that two measly masters events at nationals should be under OUR control? In recent years, youth events and handicap events have been almost more high-profile than our events. We’re not even getting financial subsidies — no travel aid or lodging help.
Youth isn’t the only future of track in this country. Masters track — where athletic careers are extended 60 or 70 years — is the future. And so why not put our M80s and M90s (and W80s) on the track? You don’t think Everett Hosack wasn’t the hit of the Penn Relays a few years back as an M100 100-meter dashman?
BTW, Everett took last in his race. That means he wasn’t “competitive.” That means Mark Cleary wouldn’t have given him a thought. What a shame!
Mark is a master of the nuts and bolts of “putting on a show.” He puts a lot of work into his gig as head of the Masters Invitational Program. But his vision is puny. And it’s he — not me — who does masters a disservice. He needs to think outside the cookie-cutter fields that USATF thinks are best.
The Drake Relays and other non-USATF meets are a different matter. They run their shows as they see fit, and we have to be content with the scraps thrown our way. But if USA nationals can be shown to have dramatic events (including jumps and throws) in the masters component, maybe the Drake Relays and similar events will give greater consideration to non-miles (or 800s)
I know the meet director at Drake. His name is Mark Kostek. He was a track teammate of mine in the early 1970s at Kansas. Mark threw the javelin. With many world-class spearchuckers moving into middle age in recent years, maybe Mark can be moved to include a masters javelin exhibition at Drake.
Just a thought.
We could use a few more of them.
2 Responses
It would be enlightening to know how much of the USATF revenue is generated by masters membership and activities. Knowing what capital leverage exists would be valuable in understanding how much influence we really do or do not own. If it is a matter of fact that the revenue is substantial it may be possible to use our influence to create more masters acknowledgment. Until those facts are known it is difficult to know what power really exists in the masters’s hands.
Corporate ad campaigns have been placing more emphasis on the ‘baby boomer’ population recently.
Maybe a large corporation would be interested in forming an alliance with a separate masters track organization. Of course then we might be beholding to the corporations.
The two ideas might also be combined where a corporation provides masters support under the USATF umbrella.
Ken-
Yes, Ken– we are indeed chopped liver! Seeing has how, among other things, that masters seat on the USATF Board of Directors is in jeopardy of being axed (according to George Mathews’ report in the January National Masters News).
But about the masters invitational events… I don’t think it’s in the spirit of the program to showcase indvidual masters superstars, as you suggest. I think our best showcase consists of an entire field of talented athletes going head to head in riveting, breath-taking, heart-stopping, gut-wrenching, eye-popping, competition, demonstrating just how exciting and competitive our sport can be. Mark has accomplished that objective many, many times. But it is not accomplished by showcasing one sensational athlete who can beat the pants off everyone else in his/her age group. Sure, I’d love to see a meet director invite a Bud Held or a Willie Banks to perform an exhibition feat at a major track meet. But that is not really what the masters invitational program is all about.
Mark continues in his quest to lure competitive fields of athletes in a variety of events. In a perfect world, we’d have a surplus of talent ready and willing to participate in every age group and all events. In which case, some kind of systematic rotation of events and age groups would make sense. But when the rubber hits the road and athletes must actually commit to the time and expense required to participate in these meets– interest tends to vaporize. This is true despite the fact that Mark regularly monitors event ideas via a user friendly suggestion form posted on the masters invitational web page. In reality, despite the din of advice Mark gets about what he should or shouldn’t be doing, scant few specific and viable suggestions materialize.
Let’s face it, Mark can not please everyone. It is to be expected that different people have different ideas of what best serves the masters program. People who feel very strongly about this should present their views to the Masters Committee (which meets annually every December) in a campaign to redirect the priorities that Mark operates under. Which means, of course, that you must persuade some 60 or 70 masters representatives that your way is the best way. Meanwhile, Mark manages these events as best he can by balancing the goals and objectives of the program with the reality of what is feasible and realistic to accomplish, all things considered. I happen to think Mark does an excellent job of it.
Leave a Reply