But EnglandвЂ™s Rugby World Cup winning pack averaged well over 30 and, despite being called вЂDadвЂ™s ArmyвЂ™, still fathered a victory the likes of Neil Back and Martin Johnson were certainly very speedy around the field. Football pundits make jokes about outfield players being вЂa few yards slowerвЂ™ and goalkeepers diving in вЂinstalmentsвЂ™ as soon as the former hit 30 and the latter become David Seaman. This leaves runners with little option other than voting with their entry fees by selecting races that match the award structure that they like the best.Of all the physiological variables, speed seems to get written off most quickly as we age. Plus each age group will inevitably look out after its own interest - the best 40-year-olds (and there are more of them around) will not be too excited about being age graded against the top 70-year-olds. I'm not sure our sport is organized enough to impose a single format on all races. However age graded competition has never gained much traction. For example, he could give awards to the top 5 age-graded performers (potentially runners of any age) for a total of 5 awards instead of offering five prizes in 19 different age groups for a total of 95 awards. Age-grading would be a good solution for the race director who wants to limit the number of awards. This enables the races to rank performances across all of the age groups. Using performance tables, they can compare a 36-minute 10k time for a 42-year-old against a 51-minute 10k time for a 62-year old. There is another small cadre of race directors who use 'age-graded' awards. Advocates of this system like it because it spreads the awardsВ around. Personally, I don't like this scenario because the runner who moves up is not, in fact, the fastest runner in the age group. They prefer to give the 40-year-old who places in the open division the open award and the runner placing second in the age division moves up to first in theДЄge division. The issue gets more complicated over the hot issue of 'double dipping' which means that the top 40-and-over runner receives two awards if he places among the award winners in the open division and wins an age division as well. I'm not sure this was ever very well thought out it just sort of evolved. An smaller number of races use the terms 'Veterans' for ages 50-and-over and 'Seniors' or 'Grandmasters' for ages 60-and-over. This 'Masters' division is then supplemented by either 5 or 10 year age groups starting at age 40. So if, by chance, a 50-year-old is the first runner age 40-and-up across the line, he is declared the 'Masters' champion. Most races have one catch-all division called 'Masters' which covers all runners age 40 and up. The age groups in running have always struck me as a bit odd. If so, perhaps race directors are not getting enough pressure to give awards in the Senior age divisions. One guess on my part is that the Penguin Effect (having the courage to show up and jog the race at the back of the pack) may have diminished interest in competing, and, therefore, quality depth in the upper age groups. He holds an annual meeting of road race directors and offers a newsletter to subscribers so I'm sure that this issue is discussed all the time. I would urge you to address it to the nice people at Road Race Management and *Mr. Good question, but I don't have any real answer. From what I have read and researched on the internet there IS quite a bit said about the 'Masters Division,' even national ratings and championships.Д«ut, for us in our 60's, in most cases it is quite a spread for us to try to be competitive with someone in their middle or later 40's! Any comments? Thanks. Q: I'm wondering why there isn't more consideration for a 'senior' division? I read Bill Rodger's commentВ 'we are in a society that is more interested in the young.

Grand masters running training programs