World Marathon Majors For Masters

robinph

Two events listed for the UK, but four events in New Zealand including two in Queesntown one of which is an off-road trail event?!?!

Only just over 60 people in the 40-49 category, so call that 30 per masters age group. That's the event to do if you want to claim some points.

The Bin Man

Murph_D wrote: »

"The date and location of the first AbbottWMM Wanda Age Group World Championships in spring 2020 will be announced in due course."

There is no indication of whether these Championships will be held in conjunction with an existing event. I suspect they are after the mass market here (the 'massters' market?) and if there is sufficient mass interest in a masters-only event, that's what they will probably try to create - why wouldn't they? Which means it will be a new event, probably won't be on an ideal course, and thus may be less attractive to the sharp end - unless there is a substantial prize fund, which also has not been announced. A lot of unknowns here, which only fuels speculation.

They're good points. If they do go for a masters-only event, then that would fit with Testosterscone's posts. In which case, I would agree with you that it wouldn't attract 'the sharp end unless there is a substantial prize fund'. Also, Testosterscone's points would be on the money.

The Bin Man

robinph wrote: »

Two events listed for the UK, but four events in New Zealand including two in Queesntown one of which is an off-road trail event?!?!

Only just over 60 people in the 40-49 category, so call that 30 per masters age group. That's the event to do if you want to claim some points.

But it relates to time too: there's something about having to run certain times if it isn't one of the Majors. Need to look at closer though.

Murph_D

robinph wrote: »

Two events listed for the UK, but four events in New Zealand including two in Queesntown one of which is an off-road trail event?!?!

Only just over 60 people in the 40-49 category, so call that 30 per masters age group. That's the event to do if you want to claim some points.

Right, but those points will be reduced unless the winner manages to run the 'platinum time'. This is starting to look complicated. :pac:

The Bin Man

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Looking at it from a more practical perspective, like many other masters, I just couldn't justify committing to 6 months of training to throw my lot in with a Rock 'n' Roll marathon, so I'd be looking at trying to hit two marathon majors in a year. Just racing two marathons in a year is a gamble that hasn't paid of for me personally in recent years. But assuming one could: Berlin and Boston are already closed for entry, London and Tokyo are lotteries, which leaves New York and Chicago, which are just weeks apart. If they expanded to the IAAF labelled races (59 marathons in total), then it could be a real masters competition (all of the majors are IAAF accredited). But restricting the list of qualifying races to a subset that are targeted at commercial success means that it is not a real masters competition, but more of a race promotion opportunity.

I think it would be slightly more fair it if were restricted to just the marathon majors - at least it would be a level playing field. If all of the majors offered guaranteed entry based on achieving specific age-graded time goals, then at least master athletes would have a choice of the six races, but sadly they do not.

Maybe it's just my anti-rock-n'roll vibe coming to the fore, but it just seems like there's already a set of criteria for establishing the validity of races for the purposes of qualification (IAAF certification), so why not use it rather than make it seem like a maky-uppy competition targeted at making a corporation some extra money? If the Rock 'n' roll races became IAAF-certified, then than would be an even better result. Would be great to see G'OH targeting this when he hits his next age grouping in a couple of years.

Yeah, they're great points, especially as most masters may struggle to recover and go again in the time span. There is somethoing in the release about bringing in more qualifying races; we'll have to wairt and see.

To see GOH racing in these is exactly what i thought when I saw it.

robinph

Murph_D wrote: »

Right, but those points will be reduced unless the winner manages to run the 'platinum time'. This is starting to look complicated. :pac:

On reading it a bit more the number of competitors actually doesn't matter for each race. If they all walked over the line together in 5hrs 41mins at any event then you'd get all get 10 points.

The time of the first person only effects the other peoples scores if they beat the "platinum" time. Just need to finish within 3hrs 20minutes of the age category winner or the "platinum" time to get points, whichever is faster.

Murph_D

robinph wrote: »

The time of the first person only effects the other peoples scores if they beat the "platinum" time. Just need to finish within 3hrs 20minutes of the age category winner or the "platinum" time to get points, whichever is faster.

Not sure you're interpreting that bit correctly.

"If the age group winning time is below the platinum time, then the points awarded to the winner and every subsequent age group runner are reduced by the time the age group winner has missed platinum time for the age and gender of the athlete."

So if the winner is 10 minutes slower than the 'platinum time', everyone's points are reduced (it's not clear what the penalty is - the penalty could be equal to the number of seconds or number of minutes over this 'platinum'.)

But yes, it will be easy for almost any runner to under 5 and a half hours to score points in most cases. Presumably these scales have been designed to ensure big numbers of people score at least some points, which is why I suspect the 'Championships' will be a dedicated mass market event.

robinph

Murph_D wrote: »

Not sure you're interpreting that bit correctly.

"If the age group winning time is below the platinum time, then the points awarded to the winner and every subsequent age group runner are reduced by the time the age group winner has missed platinum time for the age and gender of the athlete."

So if the winner is 10 minutes slower than the 'platinum time', everyone's points are reduced (it's not clear what the penalty is - the penalty could be equal to the number of seconds or number of minutes over this 'platinum'.)

But yes, it will be easy for almost any runner to under 5 and a half hours to score points in most cases. Presumably these scales have been designed to ensure big numbers of people score at least some points, which is why I suspect the 'Championships' will be a dedicated mass market event.

Yeah, the language is a bit ambiguous and still not certain after several re-readings of it.

Run 2:30 in London and be first V40 and you get 4000 points, anyone running under 2:30:29 gets 3990....

Run 2:30 in Rock'n'Roll <somewhere> and be first v40 and you get "possibly" 3994 points, anyone running under 2:30:29 gets 3984...

Run 2:24 in Rock'n'Roll <somewhere> and be first v40 and you get 4000 points, anyone running under 2:24:29 gets 3990...

So it potentially allows for harder courses to get better points if the deduction is based on whole minutes = points. Every minute behind the leader, or 2:26, on a fast course costs you 20 points, but on a slower course as long as the age category winner isn't too far ahead you should get less of a deficit for a slow time.

Run 3:35 in London, NY, Berlin etc and you'll get 2,600 points.
Run 3:35 in the New Zealand trail race and you'll possibly get 3930 points.


All sounds stupidly complicated though.