Proposal for AGM
| Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|
| Tom Blackburn | Nov 10 2019, 9:03am | Hi lads, I am putting forward a proposal to change the age classes for master to bring us in line with AAI and world and European Masters. If you think this is needed please reply and if you disagree pleas respond also. As a master myself the 10 year gaps in imra age classes make it very difficult fo someone who is at the higher end of the class to complete with this peers. If the classes were 5 years apart you could remain more competitive for longer, at the older ages we loose people as they go into the latter part of their class. When we are looking for teams to go to European and world mountain running championships it is then we see how many people we are loosing. |
| Kieran Collins | Nov 10 2019, 10:15am | I think this is a very sensible suggestion - Anything that supports retention of members should always be high on any organisation agenda. People are naturally competitive whether they admit to it or not having a bench mark against people closer their own age could possible keep people interested for longer |
| Jason Dowling | Nov 10 2019, 12:08pm | Hi Tom, Could you give us a bit more information in relation to the additional categories that are within your proposal? Currently, within IMRA, there are 14 age categories (MJ, FJ, M14, F14, M, F, M40, F40, M50, F50, M60, F60, M70, F70). Within the current prize giving structure (as per Dublin/Wicklow) each winner of an age category gets a voucher which represents a small monetary value for winning their category (along with the overall winner prizes for each race per gender). As per https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20794726/age-and-weight-groups-com/, the age groupings are as follows: The USATF standard is 5-year groups: 14 and under, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-24, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, and 90 and over while http://www.dsdac.com/masters-athletics has age groupings of 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70 etc. (with etc. being undefined) I couldn't find the actual age groupings as per AAI so am happy for you to clarify this but based on the information above and using the USAF age categories, there are 15 age categories. Grouped by gender gives us 30 prize categories. Now I know that not all prize categories are going to be represented at every race but on paper, the number of categories at each IMRA race in the prize giving structure, based on the USATF age groups, goes from the current 14 to 30. This is a very significant increase on the potential number of prizes, based on the current prize giving structure, at each race (and the associated cost). Given the fact that there are over 100 races in the IMRA calendar in 2019 (and assuming 2020 is going to have a similar amount), my first concern would be the impact your proposal is going to have on the current prize giving structure at each race? My other concern with this is the impact, given the current prize structure, this could have on the monies available to IMRA athletes (especially the juniors) that are good enough to travel abroad and represent IMRA/Ireland at international events. Lastly, this will also involve a change in the software used for recording the results and the associated web-site changes. Will your proposal address these concerns? On a lighter note, from researching this piece I came across Clydesdale groupings. I'll never have a chance of winning the age categories but the Clydesdale groupings have suddenly given me a metric in which I might have some sort of chance of being competitive among my peers!! There might yet be a proposal from me at the AGM this year :) Kind regards, Jason. |
| Brendan Lawlor | Nov 10 2019, 2:43pm | Hi Tom This was raised at a previous AGM, considered by the following years committee and felt to be too burdensome on the organisation (as per the reasons well explained by Jason Dowling) IMRA needs to be very careful of the law of unintended consequences on this ie in fixing one issue affecting a very small number of individuals (most of whom are more than happy to run and compete in the existing set up in any case) , we create far bigger administrative, cost and other problems with consequences for everyone . So I would caution that IMRA threads very carefully with this proposal and that IMRA members consider the full implications of it before adopting it |
| Shane O'Malley | Nov 10 2019, 3:21pm | I dont think anyone is honesty arguing that we should have category prices for each of the new 5 year age groups. Having an element of competition with a category has been something we have all enjoyed even if it is mid or lower table and we measure ourselves on how we move within that table. As we get older however the fall-off in performance for most seems to accelerate and the 10 year gap seems to expand and a constant fall down the table is not an enjoyable feeling. The proposal is more of a statistical exercise to allow members to see where they fall within a more representative category. I see no reason why the price categories should change and would not support a change that would bring extra costs to IMRA (And for which people would gladly race for no prize) but i do support the little bit of fun that being competitive in a niche brings. Cheers Shane |
| Rachel Cinnsealach | Nov 10 2019, 5:31pm | You can still compare yourself to people the same age/gender etc without having a category for it. Your result will still be the same in the overall . results, depressing and all as it is to be 'moving down the results table'. I'd prefer to move up an age category every 10 years, not every 5 years. For good athelethes the stiffer the competition the harder they will push. Noharm to be racing again people better than you. I am in in favour of adding extra categories, especially when we don't have 1st/2nd/3rd for all the categories at the moment because not enough people race. |
| John J Barry | Nov 10 2019, 6:29pm | I would agree with Tom. I like the idea of five year gaps especially from 45 years on. Regarding prizes, we can't discrimate from say M50 and M55. Each should be entitled to win a prize. But I do think that a category should be competitive before a prize is awarded. Maybe introduce a min number of athletes in a category before a prize can be awarded. |
| Val Jones | Nov 10 2019, 8:26pm | Good idea, as I will move to M65 next year |
| Stuart Scott | Nov 10 2019, 8:44pm | Hi Tom, Well done on raising this in advance of the AGM. As you know, a lighter version of this was brought up before. I felt there wasn't enough time on the day to tease out the exact workings of the proposal and that was one of the reasons it failed. I think 5 year gaps is a good thing, though with a slight variant - runners should be allowed to run down a category if they want but not up. Orienteering competitions work this way. Runners could self-select their category using MyIMRA so it shouldn't create any extra work. A second rule should be introduced in tandem to allow prizes only if there is reasonable competition. For example, a category with only one entrant should not receive a prize. A category with two or three entrants could receive a prize for first only and maybe the full range for, say ten entrants or more? This limit could be chosen to ensure that prizes are kept at the same level as now and could also be allowed to vary across leagues. I think this would give the best of both worlds. Competition would increase in all categories without increasing the financial and administrative burden on IMRA. If runners specifically want a prize and can compete for it then they can run down a category. Similarly, if they want better head-to-head competition with their peers they can have it. Stuart |
| Miriam Maher | Nov 10 2019, 9:34pm | From all the replies to date - there’s clearly various pro’s and con’s for Tom’s proposal. However I don’t agree with the suggestion of a minimum number of race entrants per age category. In my opinion, those running in the existing age categories should always get an age category recognition. If there’s an agreement to introduce more age categories, the existing norms shouldn’t be affected. I’d agree with Brendan’s comment about the law of unintended consequences. Those running in the more sparsely populated existing age categories shouldn’t end up being penalised by any changes. |
| Tom Blackburn | Nov 11 2019, 9:44am | Thanks for putting your opinions out there, it is good to hear all sides of the debate. I am not looking for extra prizes to be handed out at races. In fact at most races first, second and third are what are handed out.in league I don't believe anybody expects to get a prize if it only costs a fiver to enter. But to see your name on the list on the imra results page is what I would like to see l would consider myself pretty competitive but if you are in a category and doing well three or four years later a really good runner comes into that age group and as Rachel said it motivates you maybe for one year but it can break your confidence. As you get older you become more prone to injury and you race less, this rule change may entice more Masters to keep running. Masters bring home more prizes from international events than any other group. They are also self funded so there is no cost to the organization. That has got to be a win win for imra. As part of the AAI and WMRA, we are affiliated to these organizations so the same rules bind us and maybe now our age classes should be the same. |
| Brendan Lawlor | Nov 11 2019, 11:46am | Hi Tom Thats a helpful clarification. I would think that a proposal for next years committee to relook at these age categories AND the IMRA prizegiving policies would be worthwhile. I don't agree with the well established precedent within IMRA of awarding age category prizes when there has been no race (ie just one competitor turns up). Maybe we should scrap the weekly race category prizes altogether and provide a prize for age category winners in the various leagues However, expect any proposal to be contested by some grouping within our association |
| Patricia Blackburn | Nov 11 2019, 2:04pm | For me, anyone that gets themselves out there on the mountains and trails to race and compete especially at the age of retirement should be encouraged and applauded. I believe they train hard like everyone else and are competitive like everyone else. They deserve to be awarded for their effort like everyone else. A ten year gap is too long in my opinion as it is deflating for the runners who are reaching the higher end of the existing categories. I also believe that they shouldn’t be penalised for being the only one in their category, it’s hardly their fault that there’s no one else running on the day! The existing system of prize giving does not have to be changed to implement this proposal but to clarify were just talking about adding 10 new categories i.e. .35,45,55,65,75 male and female . It could be implemented at some races if pricing allows. Also many of these members will probably have been running imra races for 20/30 years. That would amount to a sizable financial contribution if added up. I think it would be nice to show some form of appreciation at the end of each year. The masters seem to do really well especially in the team events when they compete internationally. This new proposal will also help to clarify these teams in line with these competitions. I believe this proposal will enhance our master athlete’s competition and encourage interested and competitiveness. |
| Gerard Griffin | Nov 12 2019, 10:25pm | I agree with you Tom and support your proposal 100%. I notice the numbers of competitors in the older categories getting smaller so this would encourage more runners to stay on and run for longer. |
| Hazel stapleton | Nov 13 2019, 9:20am | As a 72 yr old female runner I would welcome 5yr brackets. This would incentifice older runners to keep participating. |
| Warren Swords | Nov 13 2019, 4:24pm | Interesting views. My concern is that it may dilute competition in the most popular age groups. If you take a look at this year's Leinster League. The overall top 10 men consisted of 4 Ms, 3 M40s and 3 M50s. The M50s were 3rd and 6th overall. Top 10 women consisted of 2 Fs, 5 F40s and 3 F50s. So there is fierce competition across a 20-year age gap in three age groups. If we apply the new age groups, we could end with 6 age cats that are all slightly less competitive. I'd also question whether older runners are no longer racing IMRA races because they're the "wrong side" of their age cat. That said, I raced the entire Leinster League this year as M40 despite being 39 due to quirk of age cats coming from Jan 1st. |
| Jason Dowling | Nov 19 2019, 9:46pm | Hi Tom/Patricia, The table below lists the break-down of adult runners (2,852) and their respective categories within IMRA. I have left the 'J' and '14' categories out for the sake of this response as your proposal has no impact on the categories below adult. The data below was sourced as a screen-scrape of the listing at https://www.imra.ie/runners/. F - 323 F40 - 311 F50 - 92 F60 - 14 F70 - 3 M - 841 M40 - 883 M50 - 318 M60 - 57 M70 - 10 This is the current number of runners per category across the three regions Dublin/Wicklow, Munster and South East. As per my earlier e-mail, I feel that additional factors need to be considered along with your proposal as something somewhere has to be impacted as a consequence of this proposal. Currently there are 4 categories and your proposal is for an additional 5 to be added (35,45,55,65,75) to give a total of 9 categories. Unfortunately, I don't have the data available to produce an updated listing which would include the nine new categories but some of the (potential) impacts I see from this proposal are: Impact 1: The costs associated with the new category prize structure Impact 2: The discretionary spend (mainly for raffle prizes) at each race that the RD has Impact 3: Money available to travelling athletes I feel that the three items listed above all need to be considered as there has to be an impact on at least one of them if your proposal was accepted and current practices continued. There may even be others which I'm not aware and am happy for any of persons to clarify this for me. To give some example scenarios (all assuming your proposal was accepted), say: Scenario 1: All category winners still get a small prize (now potentially 18 categories). RD discretionary spend remains unchanged. Outcome: Less money available to travelling athletes. Scenario 2: All category winners still get a small prize. RD discretionary spend is reduced in value to the cost of the additional prizes Outcome: No change in money available to travelling athletes and less raffle prizes at each race Scenario 3: Category prizes are abolished. RD discretionary spend remains unchanged. Outcome: No change in money available to travelling athletes (or potentially more due to cost of 8, as per existing structure, category prizes being abolished). Only top 3 runners in each category now get a prize. There are possibly plenty of other scenarios with additional items not listed above which may need to be considered that I'm simply not aware of. Some existing IMRA function has to be impacted by your proposal and I would like more detail on what function that relates to. I also think the members should be made aware of what current IMRA function will be impacted before casting their vote. One of my concerns would be, say scenario 1 was agreed upon, could the reduced amount of money available to travelling athletes be the difference between an athlete travelling abroad or not? To go back to Brendan's response, it's the unintended consequences that I'm really concerned about here. Some people may be happy with the proposal and not the impact. I would like to see more detail on the various impacts your proposal could have as I feel, that the membership will be voting on your proposal and also the outcome of it. Kind regards, Jason. |
| Richard Nunan | Nov 19 2019, 10:10pm | Hi Folk, We will discuss this at the AGM, this post is for clarification only. The proposal is to have the Category mentioned reflected in the results ONLY not as Race Prizes. The request is to have tabs on the results page for these additional Categories, similar to what we have are currently have for M40, M50 etc. Munster don't have category prizes for many of their races. Thanks Rich |
| Eoin Keith | Nov 19 2019, 10:11pm | Hi Jason, There are indeed other scenarios as you guessed. The key I think is looking at the bigger picture of the current state of IMRA's finances. I remember a few years back a motion was passed at an AGM to try to reduce IMRA's cash in the bank (proposed by Diarmuid IIRC), as there was nothing particularly useful about having a large surplus sitting unused in a bank account. Indeed there was a big potential negative impact outlined at the time. I've yet to see the current surplus, but from what I know it is actually multiples of the surplus at the time that motion was passed.So the situation is even worse now than when that motion was passed. All of which is a round about way of saying that finances shouldn't be a reason to reject this proposal. In fact, if the aim is still to reduce the unnecessary cash pile in the bank, then spending money on a wider distribution of prizes seems like an excellent way to do so (by increasing the prize fund for each race to take account of the increase in potential prizewinners). It should have no side effects to other areas, such as spending money on international competitors, given the bigger picture. I'd take a wild guess that any change would take decades to impact on IMRA's finances to the point that it would become a concern, but I'm open to correction on that. And if so, we can deal with that when the time comes (as we're all running in the 85+ category) |
| Gordon Place | Nov 20 2019, 9:25am | I think Warren made a very good point about competition up to M50. Not sure it's putting people off either as you are always pitting yourself against the same old rivals where ever you are in the field. Jason's numbers make it look like there's quite a few in higher age categories but if you look at individual races, say if the Leinster League is the busiest, and take a very busy race like Bray, you still only have a handful of people, if even, in the categories beyond 60. Adding further categories might mean you have no result at all in some which is fine, but if you do it might be just one person in each. Even for just league prizes for additional categories, you might only have one or two that qualify for the whole league. Given the numbers, and as much as it it would be great to get away from the speedy lads who cross into your category as you pull on, hopefully you'll get the advantage on your next switch? It seems to me only 50-60 might be justified and still have a decent bit of competition, but can't just split one decade. Just my thoughts on it |
| Stuart Scott | Nov 20 2019, 10:07am | I think this proposal has been seriously side-tracked by the issue of money. Tom and Richard have clarified that there will be no impact on race prizes; therefore there will be no impact on money. If it's just a website change, then I'm all for it! Warren's analysis is very interesting though and in some leagues, it does look like competition will be reduced. However, this could easily be solved by letting runners choose whether or not to run in a 'competitive' category. This works very well in orienteering where the 'M/F21' category is essentially an 'open' category that anyone can run in - if they can keep up! This could be implemented easily through MyIMRA by letting runners choose which category to run under provided it's either their current age or below. |
| Conor O'Farrell | Nov 20 2019, 10:44am | My understanding of the proposal would be that there is no financial impact in day-to-day races as is it not being proposed that new categories would be eligible for prizes, only our traditional "10 year" categories. I suppose my biggest concern, as the current R&R incumbent, would be how we present these results. Some significant work would need to be done on the website to accommodate this. For example, for our existing single M40 category, we would have also have the New M40 (M40-44), the new M45(M45-49), while still have our old M40(M40-49). So essentially 3 categories where there was once one category. I expect some considerable work and time required of the webmaster for this to be achieved. @Stuart, that choice option is not a bad one, but could only be presented when purchasing your annual membership. We don't want people changing their age category halfway through the year. On the other hand, I'm looking forward to finishing further up the category table due to entering the M45 category next year. :-) Con |
| Luke McMullan | Nov 20 2019, 1:56pm | All this talk of money redistribution makes me question why all of us pay to come to IMRA races. It's phenomenal value for money at only 7euro per race. Compare that to any road race or triathlon in the country. Or more generally for any goods or services, if anyone knows anything of better value for money anywhere, let me know. And although there has been 90%+ comments here saying that money redistribution shouldn't be impacted - why any people actually look for money back from this association through results really surprises me. Anything back is an unnecessary bonus. Having taken a few wins this year - I can honestly say my experience and memory (and motivation to) race the Leinster League / Irish Championship races has no recollection of the value of any voucher in an envelope after the race. The World Series in Adventure Racing has strictly no cash prizes and keeps the motivation for participating pure. Maybe a solution is to remove all cash prizes from races and "if money has to be spent" instead increase subsidy to any Elite athletes from the cost of their travel and accommodation when representing this association at international events - in event they are out of pocket by doing so. Other possibilities could be training camps for Junior athletes (home or abroad) to try and increase participation and their positive experiences (/getting to meet and know similar minded peers). A little bit off topic but thought it was possibly worth saying and putting some perspective on this conversation. Everyone hates a Devil's Advocate, but these are just my views. ;-) |
| Aidan Coffey | Nov 20 2019, 4:47pm | Agree with the sentiments expressed by Luke in that monetary gains are't a motivational factor for dogging it out on the hills. The discussion has moved in a few different directions from the original post and one of these that was touched on by Luke is well made in relation to a training fund for our international representatives. Currently a trail is held and places are allocated on the basis of where individuals finish. Thereafter there is little or no support in terms of training plans etc. We have struggled to achieve any meaningful results at international meets, particularly at Junior level where the numbers attending the trials for these events are surprisingly low. Perhaps it might be more advantageous to run an initial trial and select a panel of runners from the different categories, pay a professional coach to provide individual tailored plans to each one of these athletes and then run a number of subsequent trials closer to the race date to pick your final squad. In addition some funds should be allocated to try and attract more Juniors into the sport, not an easy task but achievable if there is a real desire. Anyways as I alluded earlier this is aside to the main theme of original thread so apologies but just thought that the point made by Luke deserved some commentary. |
| Patsy McCreanor | Nov 21 2019, 10:13pm | I agree with Luke McMullen’s comments. I say abolish the cash prizes for all races and age categories or maybe give the race winners an extra raffle ticket for the raffle prize in recognition for their effort and achievements as winner of their race. This should release more finance for our runners who wish to take part in the World Mountain Running Championship Series or other races. |
| Brendan Lawlor | Nov 22 2019, 9:05am | An idea worth considering by next years committee should the age categories proposal be adopted, would be to switch back to the situation where age category winners were awarded a spot prize. It will mean Race Director’s having to source a lot more spot prizes but will allow category winners to have their moment in the sun at the prizegiving and end the practice of having to try pass vouchers onto people who don’t attend at the pub I do think this change has a lot of implications and the AGM may not be the best arena to tease all those out I also do wonder if the very small number of people being lost to our sport ( and we have no real data on this at all) as a result of the current system warrants such a fundamental change in the association’s operations |
| Brendan Lawlor | Nov 22 2019, 9:05am | An idea worth considering by next years committee should the age categories proposal be adopted, would be to switch back to the situation where age category winners were awarded a spot prize. It will mean Race Director’s having to source a lot more spot prizes but will allow category winners to have their moment in the sun at the prizegiving and end the practice of having to try pass vouchers onto people who don’t attend at the pub I do think this change has a lot of implications and the AGM may not be the best arena to tease all those out I also do wonder if the very small number of people being lost to our sport ( and we have no real data on this at all) as a result of the current system warrants such a fundamental change in the association’s operations |
| Robbie Williams | Nov 22 2019, 1:11pm | Hi Lads Just in relation to this category increase proposal.. Can I add this.; In the Junior ages (10-16) the scale is far too big) I try to encourage my son to do most but it is hard to have him feeling that he is working his way up if he is up against 16 year olds I would like to see a 10-13 age (cadets ) and a 13-16 (youths) These are just ideas on names, but it should be reflective in the international scene. When we are running youth trial for instance it should be the case that we are very familiar with the age. Grouping associated with that . At the moment we say junior in regard to imra races, but as we know that is only up to 16, whereas in international, the junior is up to 18 We should just categorize and name the slots: Eg: Up to 10 : Kiddies - always accompanied 10-13 : pre Teens 14-17 youths 17-18 juniors Something like this will help us align imra runners & races with international categories Thanks Lads. |
| Alan Ayling | Nov 22 2019, 6:19pm | The IMRA Constitution, section 22, explicitly states "The Executive Committee is responsible for formulating the competition rules". As such, the attending membership at the AGM is NOT responsible for deciding on rule changes. It follows that Motion 3, as published in Richard's IMRA AGM 2019 thread - "To amend the competition rules to -“The master’s categories begin at the age of 35, you are in the O35 category on the year you reach the age of 35. The classes are as follows: O35, O40, O45, O50, O55, O60, O65, O70, O75 and over.” Proposed by Tom Blackburn and seconded by Trica Blackburn" - is NOT a competent motion for the AGM. The AGM simply doesn't have the power to insist on such a change. That said, it's an important topic and deserves discussion. Can I therefore propose an amendment to the motion : "To request the committee review the Competition Rules, with a view to amending the age categories as follows, if the committee deems it suitable: "The master’s categories begin at the age of 35, you are in the O35 category on the year you reach the age of 35. The classes are as follows: O35, O40, O45, O50, O55, O60, O65, O70, O75 and over.” The committee will be asked to reach their decision on the matter and advise the membership of the decision and key changes resulting (such as guidelines on prizes) via the IMRA website News page & Forum by an agreed date (e.g. 31st Jan 2020). On that, I think, we can legitimately vote. If passed, it places the decision making in the hands of those genuinely best placed to do it, with a well-informed understanding of the pros, cons & implications. Some time allowed for discussion at the AGM would be useful, so the committee can take on board the views expressed. |
