Having read through some of my recent posts without the aid of a bottle of wine, I realise that I have turned into Victor Meldrewchrisity said:i agree with you. master implies being an expert whereas we are just older and in my case not wiser. master smacks of superiority and smugness. i prefer the term that we tend to use amongst our local vet community of "old git."
I agree with you.The push to change from the original European/Southern hemisphere VETERAN label to the American MASTER label came mainly from two sources.There seems to be a lot more use of the americanism 'masters' these days over 'veterans'. I'm not keen on being old but think veterans is a much clearer definition of the category.
Pleased to hear that. 35 is far too young to be considered a Masters/vet (being a 35 year old myself), considering 35 year olds can still win many races outright and break records on the roads.kinda related... i noticed in Athletics weekly that the IAAF have raised the age for masters at non stadium events from 35 to 40
their reasoning was something to do with the number of elites aged 35+
I know a couple of Vets in the 45 + category that run 10k in 32/33 minutes, so that's the kind of time you need to be hitting to get a V40 winner's spotIf I ran a local 10k in 35 minutes or thereabouts and got the prize for first male 40+ then they can call me anything they want as long as it begins with 'fastest' or 'winner'.