Is WMA snubbing its nose at road running? Expand beyond track?
St. Louis logo
The commenter continued:
Since the WMA only recognizes the marathon who governs and recognizes the other masters road running distances. Clearly not the WMA.
The masters road running community is thriving without any help from the WMA. The WMA only seem to care about it handful of masters road runners and ignore hundreds of thousands of other master road runners.
Track & field masters individuals should not be governing road running. If the WMA was created to create competition opportunities for masters, they have failed miserably with road running. It is the IAAF that sanctions thousands of road races that cater to masters. My understanding is that the WMA only sanctions two or three road races.
The WMA has yet to reach out, recognize and embrace thousands of masters road runners. If the WMA wants to build its masters road running membership they need to offer some value to masters road runners. I have been asking for a list of masters road running benefits for years and the only honest response I got was from the CMA in Canada that admitted that the CMA/WMA have little if anything to offer to masters road runners. The WMA has to “Put up or shut up” and stop pretending that it actually governs masters road running.
Most master road runners have not even heard of the WMA, as the WMA does so little for road running. If anyone from the WMA can provide the Masters road running community with a list of WMA benefits, please post this list. All of my requests for a list of road running benefits from the WMA have so far been ignored. That is because there are no benefits to be had. Why does the WMA even pretend to care about road running? It all seems to be about egos rather that offering true value. The CMA has even lowered it master age to 30+ in order to increase its memberships.
That is clearly against WMA rules. But then who really seems to care?
9 Responses
I can think of no surer way to kill any enthusiasm for masters road racing than to lower the “masters” entry age to 35. Doing so does not expand the field of masters participants; instead, it simply opens up masters prize money and overall championship titles to open runners at the tail end of their open careers. It won’t inspire these open-now-masters runners to extend their careers; it’ll just be another payday on their way out. And it won’t increase numbers at races, given that we already have 3 million 40+ runners competing in races every year.
I guarantee you that masters road runners are NOT leading any effort to adjust the masters LDR age. And in the past, our USATF LDR leaders have assured me that the USA will not follow the lead of WMA on this issue. If that tune has changed, expect an exodus of USATF masters road racers, as we’ll simply choose races that ignore the USATF/WMA mandate, which would serve no useful purpose for our sport.
On the heels of USATF trying to tell us that we’ll be disqualified if we wear our club singlets at the upcoming USATF Club Cross Country meet (a ruling that was waved for masters and which would have resulted in my and many other clubs simply staying home), I’m beginning to wonder if USATF has any idea whatsoever – or worse, any concern – about what its masters membership actually wants.
In Europe, EVAA runs non-stadia championships too. This year, they were held in Thionville, France. Maybe you guys should think about organising an American version. After all, many of you do think USA = World. 🙂
Sad that this thread should already have been grabbed for more sterile ranting about the entry age for Masters. As if “prize money” is what it’s about, Pete. Masters reading this are probably already saying “what prize money”? Or are you referring to a few events in the USA, and overlooking that the world is really a bit larger tham that?
USATF doesn’t make rules for the rest of the world, Tom. It makes rules for USA track and field – and in this case road racing and cross country.
While you seem to believe your “holier than thou” attitude trumps my “sterile ranting,” the truth is that you’ve distorted my main message about prize money: that lowering the age will encourage open level runners at the tail-end of their careers to move into the masters division for no other reason than to take the prize money, which in turn denies one carrot that gets so many potential top, long-term, masters road racers from hanging onto the sport until age 40 – and then beyond, once the hook is set. And I see that in your effort to paint me as extreme, you completely overlooked the other aspect I mentioned: winning overall masters championships. This latter goal is very important to many top masters runners – and unlike track, where events at championship meets are conducted age group by age group, on the roads and in cross country all masters participants compete at the same time.
Whether you like it or not, Tom, American masters road racers like myself have a right to voice an opinion on an issue that is quite salient – given that the rule comes up for a vote in a little over a week.
And of course, the world is larger than the USA. But what on earth does that have to do with how the USA votes on an issue concerning only USA races? Or do you believe that your opinion – and those of the “larger world” – should trump the interests of those (like myself, my club, and my road racing peers) who actually compete in USA LDR events?
I agree with Pete, that the mid thirties are still very competitive with the open level athletes. I don’t agree that it should have anything to do with the money. I believe that 40+ is a good number because it allows elite athletes well out their prime to compete with very good never elite athletes who have taken good care of themselves and maintained a high level of ability. Further, I believe that we should get rid of divisions. Especially at championship masters meets that never seem to come to an end, we should eliminate the 5’s (45, 55, 65, 75, 85…). Larger groupings (full heats) allow for more competitive racing and shorter meets that are better for athletes and spectators. At the end of the day athletes just want better performances regardless of place. There are those athletes who will enter 10 events at a meet because they can get a load of medals running alone. Limit athletes to 3 events at championship meets + relays.
But we know 35+ is about making money as is unlimited events and not about the quality of the competition. Really, 10 days for worlds, 4 days for indoor nats! Give me masters Xross nats any day, but just 1 day. Road/track keep it 40+ Mando…OUT.
I certainly agree the starting age for masters should be 40 (frankly on the track also, but that is a different story I feel less strongly about). Drop the age limit even to 35 and I think you miss the whole concept behind why there is a masters division. A masters division in a road race should be for people who are too old to reasonably compete in the open division. There are exceptions both ways, but 40 is a good round number by which age has a significant impact for most people.
USATF decided today at the annual meeting that Masters LDR (road racing, XC) in the US will stay at 40 years old and above.
This is where it should and where it will remain.
Pete, allow me to add some clarification with regard to Club Nationals XC. My understanding from the USATF meeting (where I was a Men’s LDR delegate) is that this race is the sole qualifier for the selection of the US teams for the BUPA Great Edinburgh Cross Country – International Challenge (Jan, 7, 2012), an IAAF permit meet. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the IAAF, at least as far as Open runners go. Because of that, USATF HAD to follow the IAAF regulations on logos. Initially, the logo requirement was applied across the board to all age groups at Club Nationals XC (a very bad idea). The requirement was later dropped for Masters.
As I commented earlier, USATF vigorously rejected IAAF’s rule to begin Masters LDR at 35. In the US Masters Road Racing and XC will begin at age 40.
In regards to Pete Magill’s quote, “I can think of no surer way to kill any enthusiasm for masters road racing than to lower the “masters” entry age to 35,” let me provide another perspective: that of a 33-year old competitive runner.
Lowering the entry age for “masters” to 35 will absolutely invigorate the “masters” category. For those of you that competed at a high level in these years, you know that 30-35 are the “dead years” where one is past their “prime”, old enough to be embarking on a career and family full of obligations and not able to compete with the youngsters in their primes, 23-28 years old.
That’s why the 30-34 year old age group is dead in America. A no-man’s land. However, lowering Masters to 35 will get those guys back into the sport, not out of the sport. Basically a 34-year old can rationalize, “well, I can quit now and save my legs for 40 and make a comeback.” But most lose the passion with the time take off.
Check the results and note the first 34+ year old at USATF Cross Country Nationals… not until past the 32:00 mark, with positions filled with 20-30 year olds.
Just some perspective from a 33-year old managing a family, career, and a competitive spirit. So, instead of competing here at home in the USA, I will travel to Europe where there is more understanding on the demands of a 35-year old adult.
Complete nonsense!
He said “for masters road racing”.
There is absolutely no shortage of opportunity for athletes to compete at any age and particularly not for the under-aged masters. Far from being dead the 30-34 year olds are an extremely active group. Thirty-five year old athletes have all the opportunity they can handle as well as they wait to become real masters.
Enjoy yourself in Europe!
Leave a Reply