Age group prizes?

[Tim]

Has this subject been debated recently?

It was brought to mind after reading another one of Andy Cole's excellent blog posts about WHY we run particular races.

In his post he mentions the incentive that having age category prizes adds to an event for older runners. I know that historically the WHW hasn't awarded age group prizes and I'm curious as to why it doesn't, particularly now that the entry size has grown to fairly respectable numbers.

So, what are the pros & cons of age group prizes and should the WHW race consider changing?

[ian]

I'm completely against them Tim. However you do it, the age groups are arbitrary. Why for example should someone who happens to be 50 have a chance for a prize when someone who is 49 doesn't? And it doesn't seem fair that a 59 year old running (say) 20 hours doesn't get a prize if he is beaten by a 50 year old running 19.59 - in my view the former is a better performance.

In this race everyone who finishes is a winner and gets a prize, including full recognition at the prizegiving. So do the first 3 men and the first 3 women. The guy that won UTMB a few years back was 59, and Jan Albert (2nd this year) is over 50, so it doesn't seem to be the case that older people have too much of a disadvantage.

[Tim]

I'm completely against them Tim. However you do it, the age groups are arbitrary. Why for example should someone who happens to be 50 have a chance for a prize when someone who is 49 doesn't? And it doesn't seem fair that a 59 year old running (say) 20 hours doesn't get a prize if he is beaten by a 50 year old running 19.59 - in my view the former is a better performance.

In this race everyone who finishes is a winner and gets a prize, including full recognition at the prizegiving. So do the first 3 men and the first 3 women. The guy that won UTMB a few years back was 59, and Jan Albert (2nd this year) is over 50, so it doesn't seem to be the case that older people have too much of a disadvantage.

That sounds like an argument for MORE age categories, not fewer.

I take your point Ian but most races DO have age categories and they are, in general, well received by runners. We all know that there are iniquities produced by the system around the age thresholds but mostly we cheerfully look forward to crossing a threshold and suddenly becoming "more competitive" (whether we really are or not).

And of course age categories don't stop older runners taking overall prizes so I don't see that as an argument against.

You are of course correct that in ultra races, older runners sometimes do very well but in general all us are undergoing a decline in performance as the years go by. Consequently, I don't feel that the odd exceptional older runner is a good reason not to have age category prizes.

Anyhow, I don't really mind one way or another although I would quite like them. I just thought that with only 11 months before next year's race it would make sense to debate the issue now rather than just before the race.

[Murdo]

I personally am in favour of age group prizes. It is an added incentive (as Andy Cole says in his blog); plus you are competing against your peer group. The 49 / 59 year olds may be at a disadvantage in a particular year; but next year they will be 50 / 60 ~ an opportunity to bounce back and rejuvenate themselves before some 48 / 58 year old comes snapping at their heels the following year.

Certainly in the hill running circuit guys can get a bit jaded @ the upper 30s, 40s, 50s; but reaching the new decade is a whole new breath of fresh air and challenge; and just about every race has prizes for MV40, MV50, MV60 etc. (And ditto for the more "senior" ladies, of course!)

Marco Olmo winning UTMB outright @ age 59; and Jan Albert finishing 2nd overall @ WHW (and also at Spartathlon 2010, btw!) are fantastic achievements, but very exceptional. @ such ages folk very rarely get onto the overall podium. I think there should be opportunity (not just in the occasional exceptional overall circumstances) for age group prizes as recognition of achievement in ones age category.

It would be good to have lots of opinion on this, though, from folk of all ages; and wherever they might be in the finishing order.

MtM

[jkynaston]

I love a good debate ... well done to Andy and Tim for raising this one.

I am in favour of age group prizes but for me they are an added bonus rather than the main reason for running so if they are not there (like the whw race) it's no big deal but if they are then it's fun to see where I finish in my age group.

I started running ultras in 2007 when I was 48 so I had no chance of winning anything but that was fine because I loved the challenge of seeing how fast I could go and my finishing position was largely irrelevant. For me, my time and performance is the main thing.

When I turned 50 in 2009 it definitely added to the fun. I still didn't win anything but I really enjoyed the challenge of seeing how I compared with those in my age group.

Last year when the SUMS started I enjoyed seeing if I could finish in the top 3 for the Super Seniors. Again it was an added bonus rather than the main reason of running but it did give a focus for the series.

Having said that my foot was sore before my final race of the year, the RAW, and it did keep me going knowing that I needed to finish to get enough points to finish 3rd.

I understand that there are the likes of Jan-Albert who can compete for the top prizes but there are also the likes of the John Kynaston's who can't! Age group prizes, for me, give me something else to aim for if they are there.

I like the idea of moving up a category and having a chance for a few years. I'm looking forward to reaching 60 already!!

So I'm in favour .....

[peter duggan]

And of course age categories don't stop older runners taking overall prizes so I don't see that as an argument against.

While neither strongly pro nor against age category prizes as such, I've always thought it daft that some races give just senior prizes to the vets if the vets do best, then the vets' prizes to the next vets... so, assuming the first six runners were M40s, they'd give them 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st M40, 2nd M40 and 3rd M40 in that order where I'd give the first three both senior and vet prizes!

[ian]

Is it a co-incidence that all the positive views so far are from the over 50? No, thought not...

[karinsmiles]

While neither strongly pro nor against age category prizes as such, I've always thought it daft that some races give just senior prizes to the vets if the vets do best, then the vets' prizes to the next vets... so, assuming the first six runners were M40s, they'd give them 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 1st M40, 2nd M40 and 3rd M40 in that order where I'd give the first three both senior and vet prizes!

That strategy is what got me one of the two trophies I've ever won. 1st V35 Female, Girvan Half Marathon 2001 - there were 4 women in the race, all vets. I'll take what I can get since it happens so seldom (and actually it's a really nice paperweight)

(The other trophy was for being a member of the winning women's team in the GEC Centenary Half Marathon in 1987 - yup, only one women's team entered).

[Andy C]

Just noticed this thread (been out rock climbing all day in this great weather, one of the many benefits of being no longer gainfully employed!) and I seem to have started a debate which I did not necessarily mean to. If you read what I wrote, as part of a much wider bit of my normal blog meanderings, I just said that for me having age group recognition is an added incentive to push on a bit in some races. It takes away the unearned satisfaction of feeling that you're doing "quite well considering your age" when you know that others your age are actually trying to do at least as well and probably better. I made the point that it is always pretty arbitrary - why should a 50 year old deserve recognition that a much more competent 49 year old doesn't? I'm not personally trying to lobby any particular race organisation to change its rules, I was just explaining how it has some slight impact on me (along with many other factors). In the races that I choose to take part in I'm happy with them the way they are, long live diversity!

[Rock Dodger]

I once won a prize as 1st MV40 in an overseas race. There were about 100 entrants and my catergory was ages 40-44 - I was one of 2 in this catergory. In the 45-49 catergory were 8 runners with 4 of them beating me. Several of them commented on this when I picked up my award!

On that occasion I was all in favour on age prizes - the more the merrier.

Even without prizes, I do like to compare myself against peers.

[Tim]

Just noticed this thread (been out rock climbing all day in this great weather, one of the many benefits of being no longer gainfully employed!) and I seem to have started a debate which I did not necessarily mean to. If you read what I wrote, as part of a much wider bit of my normal blog meanderings, I just said that for me having age group recognition is an added incentive to push on a bit in some races.

Indeed. My apologies for any misrepresentation Andy. When I read your blog it just struck me that as most of us (apparently) do like age groups for the reasons you mentioned it seemed like a good idea to raise a bit of discussion here. I was curious as to what other felt about age category prizes, particularly with reference to the WHW race.

I can understand that when a race field is relatively small age category prizes maybe don't make a lot of sense and it wasn't until 2009 that the WHW race had more than 100 finishers (up until 2003 it hadn't had more than 50). Now that the race has well over the hundred finishers, I just wondered if maybe the race was big enough to justify age categories.

[MikeR]

Just to avoid being ageist if ages categories are brought in should there not be arbitrary younger age categories too, M20+ and M30+ since people like Jan-Albert show its not just the younger folk that can be competitive. Richie will always be in my age category anyway so I have no chance of winning anyway


I say leave it as it is, but at the same time the race is part of SUMS now so bringing all the races in line with the championship would make sense.

[Donald]

The Cateran Trail 23miler had an interesting result this year with prizes (wine) for the first 3 male seniors and the first 3 male vets.
Vets, who made up most of the field, were 1st , 2nd and 3rd overall and all received the Vet prizes.
Seniors were 7th, 22nd and 23rd overall and received the male senior prizes.
The remaining vets looked puzzled as the youngsters that they had soundly beaten received their plonk.

[peter duggan]

Exactly my point, Donald, and (with all respect to those above who've been pleased to win prizes this way)...

• I'd personally be more embarrassed than pleased to get a prize I felt rightfully belonged to someone else.
• I'd also be quite miffed if (not that it's going to happen!) 'my' prize was given to someone I'd 'beaten'.

[Lord of the Bridge]

To me, age is just a number; everyone physically 'ages' at a different rate.
All athletes initially improve as they gain skill, experience and fitness, plateau to a greater or lesser extent, then decline as their ability to train, repair and train again diminishes.
Jan is a great example; he's still right there, mixing it with the best and showing that a chronolgical age of 50+ isn't the whole story.
I'm not a fan of using arbitrary numbers that happen to be based on the decimal counting system that we use in our enlightened world. Everyone who finishes this race both deserves and receives a prize of equal merit.

The Tour de France offers a red jersey prize to the rider who has shown the greatest grit or most sporting act. There are many ways to reward and incentivise athletes; I think that the crystal goblet for everyone finishing is quite a good one.

[Tim]

There are many ways to reward and incentivise athletes; I think that the crystal goblet for everyone finishing is quite a good one.

Better than "quite good" Sean I think.

That said, could the WHW race be made even better by perhaps having a few age group prizes? It needn't cost a lot, particularly if the only ongoing cost is a spot of engraving on a plate say.

My only incentive in starting this thread was to test the water of opinion and to find out if the present system exists because it was inherited or because it was a considered judgment.

You know, I think I can hear Dario laughing at me just now. I seemed to spend quite a bit of time being a wee thorn in his flesh sometimes.

[peter duggan]

That said, could the WHW race be made even better by perhaps having a few age group prizes?

Since Sean's saying 'everyone who finishes this race both deserves and receives a prize of equal merit', surely the answer to that question is 'no'?

[Murdo]

Is it a co-incidence that all the positive views so far are from the over 50? No, thought not...

Maybe the youthful racing snakes aren't very interested in whether or not there are oap prizes. After all, in a way it doesn't have much to do with them; and if you're in your 20s or 30s the thought of a prize for the 1st over 50, or whatever, is so far beyond the horizon as to be of no consequence.

But their time will come....... ~ whether it be 5 years hence or 25 years hence.

Maybe those in the relevant age groups who may have ambitions of a possible addition to their mantelpiece decor are the ones who are keen to have age group prizes; but those who "smell the flowers" and take their time over the journey are not bothered by such awards.

Is it a race? Or is it a journey? There's a question, eh!!!

If it is supposed to be a "race" (the West Highland Way Race) then maybe there should be age category "prizes" as folk are racing for them.

But if it is supposed to be a "journey" (the West Highland Way Journey) then maybe there shouldn't be such prizes.

Historically there were prizes for 1st 2nd and 3rd, Men and Ladies. Also, 1st supervet, Men and Ladies.

If one of these first three was a supervet, he would get his prize for finishing 1st or 2nd or 3rd, but would not also get the supervet prize. Dario was of the opinion that it was 'one prize per person'. This happened when the great Wim Epskamp won the race in 2004 when in his 50s; so he got 1st prize, and the MV50 went to the 1st MV50 outwith the first 3 finishers. This, of course, addresses the conundrum voiced by Peter D. above; but is slightly off at a tangent as to whether or not there should be age prizes at all.

Murdo t M

[peter duggan]

This, of course, addresses the conundrum voiced by Peter D. above

Um, no it doesn't, Murdo... because Wim *was* the first MV50 and IMHO should have got the MV50 prize too!

[Tim]

That said, could the WHW race be made even better by perhaps having a few age group prizes?

Since Sean's saying 'everyone who finishes this race both deserves and receives a prize of equal merit', surely the answer to that question is 'no'?

I don't think that rewarding every finisher equally is necessarily completely inconsistent with offering age group prizes. After all, if you wanted to be *really* consistent, you'd need to do away with prizes for first, second and third placed finishers and I don't think that would go down very well. I wonder what impact removing those prizes would have on the race?

So there already is a certain inconsistency in that it's acknowledged that all finisher *aren't* equal. Once you accept that is it such a leap to accept age group prizes?

I'll freely admit to mostly thinking aloud here and just bouncing ideas around.