When I first started racing as a runner - age groups were barely a thing. There was juniors (18 and under), seniors (19-39), and masters (40 and over). Pro’s were determined for the most part by your placing in races (because you made money). Now five year age-groups are pretty standard across sports but I still think they are ridiculous for men and women under 40. When I was early 20’s I was one of those BOP pros that got a pro licences because I qualified based on the criteria at the time and I would rather miss out on a AG podium and compare myself to the top people in the race. I think if you consistently are topping your AG podium and want to have a go at racing the top people in the sport - go for it and get your pro card!! Its a ton of fun (even if you dont really make much money from earnings). I did my last pro race when I was 41 at IM Florida at the time. My goal was to not be the last male pro and thanks to a few guys who blew up in the heat I succeeded lol.
Care to identify reputable sports that divide the competition into “five year age-groups” between 21 and 40 years of age? We agree that “they are ridiculous” ? To do so is so artificial. I might be swayed by the ‘over 35’ argument, but would resist.
Any that do, or there are events which do, are just a money making effort to pull more people in and create more “winners”.
Amateur athletes over 23 and under 40, like the pros, should race one another, in one big ‘open’ division, and compete for KQs and the like on the same basis. Maybe give the first 3 or four in that race KQs and the rest can take their chance in the performance pool.
Does the type of athlete matter when looking at who would benefit from jumping up to the pro field? For example, a good swim-biker would be able to make a pack in the swim, ride with others, and stay closer to the front. A weaker swimmer would be off the back from the beginning and essentially be doing their own individual time trial like they would in an age group race.
I totally agree - a lot of running races now have 5 yr age groups, and some 10yr age groups and a sub master category. I really did not feel my performances decline much until after 42 or so. I do know that its different for everyone. My friends and I joke that they should skip the age groups and have categories based on how many kids you have. I wonder if winning age grouping for younger men and women is a real motivator? Not sure. It isnt for me. I still try to compare myself and my times to the overall winner and be as close as possible over the years.
But why? What difference does it make? An athlete still starts when they start and finishes when they finish. Cui bono?
Once you get to 40, having the first ‘masters’ category makes a little more sense as the chances are you’ll not be ‘in’ the main race.
Though I remember a race ( I was going well) where entering otd at the desk they ticked the 40 box. I checked specifically that ‘vets’ were still able to win the main race, and after some humming and harring that was confirmed. #1 and £ - only time my children ever saw me race, I think. Perhaps that inspired them to race themselves, or most likely they would have done anyway. [Flex and proud dad complete.]
This seems like its reserved for a different discussion, but it is worth noting that Ironman’s two sets of coefficients do seem to imply that there’s a meaningful difference between 5 year cohorts under 40 years old, and that this is also reasonably different between men and women.
Now whether or not the 3.02% difference between M18 and M30 is enough (or 4.6% between F18 and F30!) is enough to warrant distinct age groups, Ironman does seem to think that there’s enough of a difference to warrant specific coefficients for each age group.
(Or at least, there’s a meaningful difference in performance amongst the top 20% of each age group at Kona, as per how its currently defined)
The number does grow to 5% at the 70.3 distance between M18 and M35
First, I think for developmental reasons, there should be a ‘espoir’ type class for U23s (as I described).
So the relevant % differential is the spread from 25-39. Ironman: for men that’s 1.05% and for women the spread is 1.23%. Peanuts. They should race all together. This is nearly always less than the difference between #1 and #3 from the 15 year cohort 25-39.
Next you want to take participation medals away …
As per Lionel’s latest video we could have seen him at Oceanside instead of Brian Folts.
Because the customer asked for it. Guess we all want to be the tallest midget with an amateur age group award. They take your photo for you and you end up on the race organizer’s socials.
I guess that’s fair - and it is asking different questions than we’re talking about in this thread. Though FWIW the 70.3 coefficients are wider, and it is the 18-24 group which is the fastest.
Whether Podium, KQ, or median athlete is the better metric for “should everyone under 40 be lumped into the same category” is a discussion in and of itself.
and FWIW, I do think that “25-40” or just “under 40” or even “Under 45” is fine as an age group. Pay no attention to the fact I just moved into M45 this year 
This topic made the GTN video, and they gave credit to ST.
Technically no one gets a participation medal. It’s an important distinction as there are quite a few broken hearts out there who never make it across that finish line.