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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
London and Tokyo are lotteries
The Bin Man wrote: » What's wrong with recognising the top masters at the Majors?
OOnegative wrote: » Perfected time travel have you..........
The Bin Man wrote: » Also, I'm too young to enter. .
Testosterscone wrote: » Have they gotten rid? There was a full back in 2016?
RayCun wrote: » Has anyone said there is something wrong with that? As far as I know, all the majors report on the runners in each category, and there are prizes for the top masters. Isn't that recognising the top masters? The thing that people are sceptical of is a new proposal, and the fact that you are trying to pretend they are the same thing shows how credible it is. Yeah, again, "people are interested in [this thing] so therefore they must be interested in [this other thing]" is weak soup. Are you trying to ramp up interest in this thing because you have decided you are going to be the winner of the first world championships in 2020?
Testosterscone wrote: » No problem with people benefitting from there hard work but when the majority of full time athletes in the sport are living below the poverty line I think money should be invested in the sport as opposed to diluted and diverted from the sport. While they have made a decent living for themselves how much has actually been contributed to the sport by the likes of the Gerry Duffy's, the Sinead Kane's, Mimi Andersons or the Rob Young's (this is no a cricitism of them but rather the current state of the sports) Similarly the number of poor coaches and Personal trainers offering running coaching packages and charging in a sport which only has one paid coach within the AAI set up. Everyone is taking their piece from this sport and we then complain for underperformances or lack of development. It's more important for people to get kudo s and work outside the sport than actually be a positive member of the running/track and field community. Haha your grand J I'll stick to supporting and developing the sport as I have always done and will leave those Grand Master Champions away in their quest for eternal glory
The Bin Man wrote: » What's wrong with recogniing the top masters at the Majors?
The Bin Man wrote: » Sure, isn't there a thread on Boards every year explaining how to cheat your way into London (a Major) and deprive honest Brits of their rightful places? It seems to me that their is huge demand for the Majors, even to the extent that people are prepared to be duplicitous to gain entry. But yeah, if you have no interest in it then maybe you shouldn't post anymore on here and let the thread die...
RayCun wrote: » Or maybe we could just ignore them? The more people repeat press releases about how this is a brilliant thing for masters athletes and will raise standards etc etc blah blah blah, the more successful they will be. The more people see it as just another way to part fools from their money, the less credibility it will have, and the more likely it is to go away.
The Bin Man wrote: » You might be right but I don't think so. I think we'll see much more competition at the sharper end of masters' races. Also, I think the kudos will appeal. And, if by winning the World Major Marathon Champs (or whatever it is called) a runner is able to benefit from trimmings (speaking roles, sponsorship etc) this a good thing, don't you think? Or do you have a problem with somebody benefiting from their hard work and success? I take on board your points: you seem to have some issues with the whole set up-that's fair enough. Maybe you should write to the organisers or get some sort of movement going to speak up against the corporate machines ruining athletics.
The Bin Man wrote: » Maybe you should write to the organisers or get some sort of movement going to speak up against the corporate machines ruining athletics.
Testosterscone wrote: » The only problem with people voting with their feet is that top masters will enter top senior races which are also the marathon majors so the addition of the masters won't actually have much of an impact on the standard of masters running in these events outside giving a few more bragging rights similar to those ultra records (ala the 777 records people use to garner motivational speaking roles etc) or the IM Kona crowd
The Bin Man wrote: » Yeah, I read that on Letsrun a while back. Still, a million bucks is a pretty decent prize. It's a shame they are lowering the prize money but that's the world we live in. People will vote with their feet: if they don't like it, they'll enter other races. I suspect though, their feet will be in these races and they'll prove successful.
Testosterscone wrote: » Actually since the Wanda group have taken over that pricing structure has been changed. They now offer winners 280,000 (previously 500,000) and 2nd and 3rd also receive prizes to the tune of 325,000 total down 175,000 from both the men's and women's side each. There is a charitable donation (280,000 so still short of the 350,000 saved) included to offset the perception of cutting prize money and make it look like they money is just being moved elsewhere but in reality this will just change number of charity entries allocation I would imagine to offset this They have also cut the elite purse and entries in many of the RnR races over the last few years. Prize money is only going one way with this company.
RayCun wrote: » Why should we get excited about someone's attempt to make more money?
RayCun wrote: » Didn't someone from this forum, way back when, compete in some triathlon championship in England? Representing Ireland! Except you had to pay for everything yourself, and none of the top people were interested, so they basically went through the list until they found people who were willing to pay...
The Bin Man wrote: » Not saying this group will match the million dollar payout they give to the younger guys: "Athletes score points for their finishing place in each race with the top male and female marathon runners at the end of each cycle receiving an equal share of the US$1 million." (Decent prize ?) I'm saying, this may well open the door for similar events with more trimmings - for masters... Yes, of course the top masters will continue to compete, but I think you'll find the top masters jumping in on this one. But only time will tell.
The Bin Man wrote: » And what's wrong with trying to make more money?
RayCun wrote: » Yeah, sounds like they're trying to have a marathon equivalent of Kona, and here's a bunch of races that you're supposed to do in hopes of qualifying for that. As Krusty said, the idea here is not athletic excellence, it's selling stuff to people old enough to have money.
