Marathon Majors: Comparable To Tennis & Golf Majors?

El Keniano wrote:

Wouldn't most Tennis players or golf ears prefer to win Wimbledon or the Masters over Olympic gold?

Wimbledon and The Masters are more significant victories. The historic aspects of Olympics medals in either of those sports is far less important than the majors.

Keep in mined that the list of actual major marathons that are recognized today are not the same as the so-called present 'Marathon Majors' association. Also the Olympic Marathon is NOT as important as the major marathons.

I speak only for mankind wrote:

Also the Olympic Marathon is NOT as important as the major marathons.

So Meb winning Boston more than makes up for his lack of Olympic gold? Sort of like Tennis players Federer and Golfers like Tiger with their majors or even cyclists aspiring to win the Tour de France over an Olympic medal? I think this is an interesting development in the sport. The Olympics used to be the be-all and end-all for running, and the Marathon is one of the showpiece events.

running on empty wrote:

Winner of US Open Golf Tourney $1,500,000

Golf major is 10 times bigger.

Leisure sports are not athletics.

One major difference with tennis and golf majors vs. marathon majors - every top competitor is in each of the tennis and golf majors if healthy.

The top marathoners often don't face each other the entire year.

Bekele, Kipsang and Meb each won a big race but didn't face each other.

That doesn't happen in majors of other sports.

El Keniano wrote:

Have they become as big as (or bigger even) and as important as the Olympics and Worlds? Wouldn't most Tennis players or golf ears prefer to win Wimbledon or the Masters over Olympic gold?

I think world wide, yes. In the US, no.

I think one problem is the top runners can only run tqo a year.

If they could run 4 or 5 it would keep them in the public eye more.

I thought including 1/2 marathons in the series would help do that.

Run a couple marathons and 2 or 3 halfs and they're in the public eye for most of the year.

For T&F the Olys are #1.

For marathons, golf, judo, tennis, basketball, etc. the Olys are a nice accessory.

The Olympic marathon should be bigger than the majors because in theory all of the top runners will be there instead of split up between competing events. But in practice, the inept E. African athletic associations make sure that the best runners are left at home. Also, the Olympic marathon is usually a very hot weather race, making it more of a survival test with lots of runners dropping out. Not very interesting compared with Boston where five women were in it at 30k running blazing fast and the mens race came down to the wire.

The marathon majors need to have a single championship race once every four years where the top 50 marathon runners in the world compete for a huge prize purse. That would be pretty amazing to see.

Star wrote:

One major difference with tennis and golf majors vs. marathon majors - every top competitor is in each of the tennis and golf majors if healthy.

The top marathoners often don't face each other the entire year.

Bekele, Kipsang and Meb each won a big race but didn't face each other.

That doesn't happen in majors of other sports.

This is the big thing. If you win a major and don't have the other top at the sport competing in the same event, it doesn't feel like it is as big of a victory.

That is why Worlds and Olympics are always going to be much bigger in track than the other events in most people's eyes. The top at each event avoid each other for the most part in any race that is not Olympics or Worlds. There are exceptions but it is generally true.

bad times ahead wrote:

Golf is a real sport. Running is just something that some sports require.

Golf is barely a sport, as it stretches the definition of athletic activity. Running, along with track and field in general, is the purest form of sport there is.

runn wrote:

I thought including 1/2 marathons in the series would help do that.

Run a couple marathons and 2 or 3 halfs and they're in the public eye for most of the year.

I think this is the kernel of a great idea. The World Marathon Majors could serve as the backbone of the World Road Racing Circuit. Every year four 5ks, four 10ks, four half marathons, and four "off-distance" races, plus the WMMs, could form a PGA-, WTA-, or NASCAR-like circuit.

Points are scored for placing in the top-10 at each event. Double-points are scored at a designated "major" at each distance, and triple points are scored at each WMM race. Add the points up from each runner's top X finishes (somewhere in the 6-8 range seems right), with each runner allowed no more than two scoring races at each distance, and you've got an annual World Road Running Champion.

Add in a sub-series for specialists where you add the points from each runner's top three finishes at a specific distance and you've got an annual World 5k Champion, World 10k Champion, and World HM Champion (like the KoM or points winners in the TdF).

An annual structure like this is a lot easier to follow than the current two-year WMM cycle, and the off-distance "majors" structure would at least incentivize the top athletes to compete against each other in meaningful non-marathon races.

Of course, this whole may undermine the purpose of the WMMs, as their goal is to distinguish their races from others, and including others in their series might diminish that distinction. But maybe this or something like this is something that the IAAF could pull off, pulling from it's current "permit" races. It seems unlikely, but it's nice to think about and dream of . . .

An Olympic marathon is more important than any of the so-called majors. You'd all be thinking that if Americans were still winning marathon golds

As it stands any of the listed major marathon races (not the mis-titled "Marathon Majors") are more coveted than the Olympics Marathon.

Agreed that the majors are a bigger deal than the Olympics or Worlds for marathons but neither the Majors nor Olympics or Worlds are comparable to Tennis or Golf Majors because you can never get all of the top guys at any one major.

I think it was Wittenberg's idea and we all know she's useless.

Obviously, achieving a "grand slam" in marathon would not be realistic. Also the Olympics, as an event, are only rivalled by the World Cup; so winning Olympic gold should remain the holy grail for running. It still is for track.

As a former tennis player, I can as much as guarantee you that the Olympics are joke compared to Wimbledon or the U.S. Open.

I know some tennis professionals have said the Olympics are a big deal. But its really not. They say it just to help promote Olympic tennis.

Of course there is good money to be made winning a marathon. Arguably more than winning gold on the track. In that context it is more like how an NBA player would rather win an NBA Championship rather than an Olympic gold. The NBA is where the money is.

ryan foreman wrote:

I know some tennis professionals have said the Olympics are a big deal. But its really not. They say it just to help promote Olympic tennis.

Nobody important in tennis regards the Olympics as a big deal, perhaps a few obscure nobodies like Federer, Nadal, Murray, Williams perhaps.

You're right it's not as big a deal as Wimbledon or the US Open, but it's still important. Just because something isn't the most important, doesn't mean it still can't be important.

But I guess you know better because you 'play tennis' whatever that means.

Every sport that is NOT bigger outside the olympics is impoverished and marginal. That's why there is no money in track. People get all caught up in the 4-year thing and then wonder why the sport is dead, dead, dead the rest of the time. Track needs to get rid of the olympics and return to its county-fair roots.

The reason marathons and road racing thrive outside the olympics is because of all the millions of joggers who are foolish enough to think finishing a marathon is a great athletic achievement and are willing to pony up 100 or 200 dollars for the privilege of trying.