New Stadium, new philosophy....
No more Rabbits, Fewer Events.
Are they admitting that the World Records are just so far out there that they don't want to chase them, or are they trying a valid new strategy for Track and Field?
New Stadium, new philosophy....
No more Rabbits, Fewer Events.
Are they admitting that the World Records are just so far out there that they don't want to chase them, or are they trying a valid new strategy for Track and Field?
Jason, I think that you accidentally created your hyperlink "backwards." I imagine that you meant to display the "rabbits are dead" text, and not the IAAF web page itself.
If everyone will simply copy-and-paste the link into their web browser, it will still work.
Excellent news - fewer time trials and more real races. I think it will make things more exciting and less predictable.
To extend on what Jason said and what IAAF is reporting, there will also be NO appearance fees. It will be based solely on performance at that meeting and all events will be equally weighted in $$ prize money.
The prize money purse is increased 50% by eliminating appearance fees and some more events. Great news for the "average" elite runner. Less incentive for the super-elite to run as I am not sure if they even have world-record breaking performance bonuses(?).
This will leave a lot of the usual suspects very vulnerable. With the exception of maybe Bekele who has proven he can win any type of race, it leaves the rest of the field wide, wide open, especially in the 1500m.
Case in point: Daniel Komen from a couple of years ago. He was destroying fields with rabbit-lead races in all of the GP races. But, when push came to shove, he crumbled in the heats of WC 1500m with no rabbit.
Another great example was the Mottram vs. Bekele duel last year. The few times he has been beaten it was off the pace.
Same goes for last year's PRE 2 miler. The rabbits dropped off, Kipchoge and company let the pace dwadle and Goucher/Lincoln almost caught up and beat them. Throw in someone with more speed like Teg or Webb and it's anyone's race.
indiorunner wrote:
Same goes for last year's PRE 2 miler. The rabbits dropped off, Kipchoge and company let the pace dwadle and Goucher/Lincoln almost caught up and beat them. Throw in someone with more speed like Teg or Webb and it's anyone's race.
Tegenkamp was 6th at Pre last year.
He wasnt saying Teg was a threat in last years Pre race. He was just saying that in a race like that, Teg (13:04 Teg,) could do some damage.
Unrated wrote:
He wasnt saying Teg was a threat in last years Pre race. He was just saying that in a race like that, Teg (13:04 Teg,) could do some damage.
Actually he was....
indiorunner wrote:
To extend on what Jason said and what IAAF is reporting, there will also be NO appearance fees. It will be based solely on performance at that meeting and all events will be equally weighted in $$ prize money.
The prize money purse is increased 50% by eliminating appearance fees and some more events. Great news for the "average" elite runner. Less incentive for the super-elite to run as I am not sure if they even have world-record breaking performance bonuses(?).
This will leave a lot of the usual suspects very vulnerable. With the exception of maybe Bekele who has proven he can win any type of race, it leaves the rest of the field wide, wide open, especially in the 1500m.
Case in point: Daniel Komen from a couple of years ago. He was destroying fields with rabbit-lead races in all of the GP races. But, when push came to shove, he crumbled in the heats of WC 1500m with no rabbit.
Another great example was the Mottram vs. Bekele duel last year. The few times he has been beaten it was off the pace.
Same goes for last year's PRE 2 miler. The rabbits dropped off, Kipchoge and company let the pace dwadle and Goucher/Lincoln almost caught up and beat them. Throw in someone with more speed like Teg or Webb and it's anyone's race.
jsut to be specific - that is Daniel Kipchirchir Komen - who last year won the world indoor 1500m title WITHOUT rabbits. seems like he is over the problem...
indiorunner wrote:
Case in point: Daniel Komen from a couple of years ago. He was destroying fields with rabbit-lead races in all of the GP races. But, when push came to shove, he crumbled in the heats of WC 1500m with no rabbit.
Komen's Championship record
One Mile
GWG 1998: 3 3:54.78
5000 m
WC 1997: 1 13:07.38
AfrC 1998: 1 13:35.70
CWG 1998: 1 13:22.57
WC 1999: 5 13:04.71
On the grand, grand scheme of things, an indoor title is lower on the totem pole. Outdoor has always been given more regard. Even in the fictional sense...["Once a Runner"]. There are plenty of good runners who are still putting in mileage and strength-work during this period.
With that said, I was merely giving an example of both Teg and Daniel, the intention wasn't to spark a debate whether these athletes can or cannot achieve certain marks. Rather, my point was simple: Tactical races give the relative-unknown a chance and that makes the event more exciting for the casual-average-joe fan.
If we look at another sport, Nascar, we can see a similar change that has helped popularize their sport. Specifically, their 2 super speedways; Daytona and Talledega(sp?). In the past, cars would rip fast lap times and you wouldn't see much competition, rather groups of cars in single file. Albeit, it was fast, it wasn't exciting for more than 20-30 laps. Imagine watching 400-500 miles of this.
They then instituted restrictor plates (also for safety), which in effect slowed down the cars enough to allow most cars to be competitive to some extent. This keeps millions of rednecks around the country entertained.
Surely, more tightly-bunched-tactical track races can attract more spectators as well. After all, what does a 12:56 5k mean to billy bob? Absolutely nothing.
spoke too soon wrote:
indiorunner wrote:Case in point: Daniel Komen from a couple of years ago. He was destroying fields with rabbit-lead races in all of the GP races. But, when push came to shove, he crumbled in the heats of WC 1500m with no rabbit.
Komen's Championship record
One Mile
GWG 1998: 3 3:54.78
5000 m
WC 1997: 1 13:07.38
AfrC 1998: 1 13:35.70
CWG 1998: 1 13:22.57
WC 1999: 5 13:04.71
The miler komen, not the 7:20 komen.
cash for books wrote:
jsut to be specific - that is Daniel Kipchirchir Komen - who last year won the world indoor 1500m title WITHOUT rabbits. seems like he is over the problem...
Official Results - 1500 Metres - Men - Final
Official Report
Last Updated: 07:19:10 CET 21/10/2006
Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 19:10
Pos Bib Athlete Country Mark
1 442 Heshko Ivan UKR 3:42.08
2 252 Komen Daniel Kipchirchir KEN 3:42.55
3 249 Angwenyi Elkanah Onkware KEN 3:42.98
4 436 Akkas Halil TUR 3:43.61
5 112 Gallardo Sergio ESP 3:43.77
6 212 Nolan James IRL 3:43.98
7 466 Lukezic Christopher USA 3:45.09
8 277 Bensghir Yassine MAR 3:47.20
9 275 Baba Youssef MAR 3:49.25
Looks like you got some bad books.
The way I read the article it says there will be less appearance fees but not None.
But all the agents must be rolling over right now. If there appearance fees are less, I think this will be better for the average runner, less for the stars (but then the stars could decide they won't run Zurich and see what happens).
If we want the sport to garner attention in the media and flourish with fans, this is the way to go. Appearance fees are the amateur mentality that needs to die. Put all the money out front for people to see and the sport will be attractive. Now it looks like people compete for peanuts, when that isn't the case (for the winners anyway). Unless the athlete(s) are doing more than "appearing", then they should earn the money in competition. If they do other work for the meet, give them extra money, but get rid of the sham, under the table fees forever.
MAYEROFF wrote:
Are they admitting that the World Records are just so far out there that they don't want to chase them, or are they trying a valid new strategy for Track and Field?
They had records in the old days without 'rabbits' running 11 of 12, or a 1200 (think of Coe and Scott pulling away from the field in a race in Oslo in '79 or Coe himself taking off at 800 to go for a WR at Zurich that year).
The WRs might be up against a wall so to speak. Many think the 'limits' or close to the limits were hit faster due to EPO and a few other things along with some crooked 'handlers' taking over in '87 or so. Maybe they're right.
Itz good news wrote:
MAYEROFF wrote:Are they admitting that the World Records are just so far out there that they don't want to chase them, or are they trying a valid new strategy for Track and Field?
They had records in the old days without 'rabbits' running 11 of 12, or a 1200 (think of Coe and Scott pulling away from the field in a race in Oslo in '79 or Coe himself taking off at 800 to go for a WR at Zurich that year).
The WRs might be up against a wall so to speak. Many think the 'limits' or close to the limits were hit faster due to EPO and a few other things along with some crooked 'handlers' taking over in '87 or so. Maybe they're right.
So the records were set because of PED such as EPO and the drugs are getting more potent and harder to detect, wouldn't that make for an increase in WR's? I'm finding your logic to be faulty.
mjr, appearance fees are not paid "under the table" They are open, legal and taxable so I don't know what you are insinuating.
The men's 400m will not be run-what is that all about? Jeremy Wariner is one of the most popular runners on the European circuit.
isn't it the same guy? he moved down to the 1500/mile.
Professional athletes have bonuses in their contracts for achieving certain times. Paced races help athletes achieve these times. For athletes on the European track circuit running is their livelihood. I think if you asked, the majority of athletes would tell you they would rather come 8th at Zurich and run 3:31 than win and run 3:35. Oftentimes the difference between 3:31 and 3:34 is having the means to travel to altitude/sea level, get physio, eat properly, etc. - in short do all the things that help them reach their potential as athletes. Running 3:34 might mean not getting that bonus and consequentially having to cut corners, skipping massages, not getting an MRI when you really need one because you are trying to save money, etc. - things that are extremely detrimental to the development and performance of an athlete.
This isn't an issue with Zurich, as it's the top track meet in the world, but paced races at smaller meets allow athletes to run fast enough to gain entry to larger meets. For instance, a 13:20 athlete sits behind pacemakers for 3K at Heusden and goes on to run 13:12 which allows him to get into a race like Stockholm where he can run even faster.
For people in the stands that are just fans and don't have the insight into the realities of being a professional athlete I can see how unrabbited free-for-all type races might be appealing to watch. However, for athletes, taking out the pacemakers is an extremely bad development. Championship races are for tactics and winning; races like Monaco, Stockholm, Heusden, Zurich, Crystal Palace, etc. are for running fast.
Sean Middleton wrote:
Professional athletes have bonuses in their contracts for achieving certain times. Paced races help athletes achieve these times...
Athletes have to learn to run fast on their own. Ryan Hall is maybe my favorite runner, because he won't think twice about running as he sees best. He also doesn't see leading as a barrier, but as the opportunity it should be for some.
Leading a fast race should be the strategy for many who have a top PR in a given field. If it's darned windy, then there's a problem. But otherwise, the "psychological frame of mind to getting pulled along" is a weak excuse for a professional athlete to alter their strategy. The U.S.'s best and fastest races the last 2-3 years have come when leading and running away from everyone else. It can't be done in every race, but in many it can.