I do too - when there is a legitimate and rare prize on the line (like an Olympic or World title).
I also like seeing everyone in the field running as hard as they can for the ultimate goal - either a medal, a place in a final, a WR/NR/PR. Not saying this won’t happen in GST but there is certainly the danger of the opposite happening in certain event groupings given the format. All will be revealed by the second meet and third meets I suspect.
I definitely think the format is biased/better for sprinters, as people have already said here.
I didn't know that it was a 3-day affair, with each racer running both of the events in their group over the 3 days. That's interesting to me. Originally I thought it was a day or two, and the group would alternate which event they ran (ie the short sprints group runs 100 at meet #1 and #3, 200 at #2 and #4). Definitely more racing this way, also a little harder on the athletes, depending on the order of events. Although there's no prelims so it's not really too much.
I'd like to see certainly the long distance group increased, 8 guys is just rough for a 3k and a 5k, it'll be less interesting. Maybe 12-16 would be better? For the 8/15 group, I think 8 guys is fine, it works for the 800 but is a bit small for the 1500. I wouldn't be opposed to say, 2 more racers, but I also don't think that group needs it as urgently as the 3k/5k group does.
Overall though, I'm excited. I think trying a new idea is a plus, and I want to see how it goes. I haven't seen any promoting for it though, and I'm a pretty serious track fan. I do think they should try to promote it more (or maybe they are and I'm just missing it somehow)
Maybe GST will change one or two of the race weekends for the distance runners to run one race and go all out. That would mean two of the four being an all out effort on win and time.
to your point: it is a completely different ask of a 3,000 and 5,000 double in three days then in the sprints or even mid distance.
These athletes are forfeiting, to a degree, a chance to race at Diamond League where fast is what the meet organizers want - always. Some of the GST distance athletes have the capability to run national or world records. They won’t be able to do that in GST format, if they have to race two races back to back in three days. I think it would be a great opportunity, for the distance athletes, to have one or two of the weekends being a one race distance focus. Think of the challengers that would want to come and the added excitement that would bring.
Maybe GST will say to the distance entrants that the 3,000 m this weekend is the focus and the 5,000 m is secondary.
It was, but it also was an Olympic final. Now go watch 8 individuals (4 of them being the same through every meet) race each other at that pace with no other incentive than to win the prize money. There is no glory or title on winning a GST meet in 3:50. Not now and not in 10 years.
The same applies for the DL meets. It might be fun to see a couple of slow races, because tactical races can definitely be fun. But in the end times are what really matter. Of course we can see fast times with no pacers as well, but the likelihood of someone running crazy fast is much less likely. It is very rare to see someone push the pace at the front all by themselves because more often than not there is no reward from it (just see Cheruiyot's 1500m Olympic final in Tokyo or Ingebrigtsen's 1500m Olympic final in Paris).
You can't pretend to have the same "rules" for sprints and distance races, because they are very different in the way they are run. Sprints don't need pacers and you always need to run all out in order to win. In distance, there should be the possibility to have pacers if someone is interested in running fast.
With Arop, Wanyonyi, and Hoppel in the field, it is unlikely we'll see a 3:50 race in Kingston. The 1500 guys would be foolish to let it come down to a kick against those 800 guys.
Re: pacers, we already have a plethora of meets where pacers help distance runners focus on producing fast times. GST is trying to be different than the norm. I appreciate having variety in the sport.
Yeah, and some of the racers that should be competing on all the 4 meets have already withdrawn from the first one. Wait until the day before, there is still a chance there will be a few more.
On a side note, I also can't wait to see a 13:30 type of race for the 5000m with only 8 racers... Usually those who are not into distance events find it extremely boring to watch a 5k. GST is meant to make it more exciting for the public. Now imagine a pedestrian pace and a kick during the last lap with just 8 athletes. It is going to be the most boring ever. Not even distance fans want to see this.
MJ keeps on criticising fast distance races as he says they are only chasing records. What he never mentions is that all the sprints events are always run all out regardless if they break any record or not, and that is what makes it fun. If you start seeing 3000m races at 8:00 pace or 1500m at 3:40 pace the fun in distance events will disappear.
Pacers and lights are perfectly fine, no one says you should have to follow them but it is good to have them in case someone is interested in running fast and taking advantage from it.
GST is purely for sprints, american based athletes/fans and money.
All in all these fields are pretty sick, especially men’s “short distance.” When I first heard rumblings about Grand Slam Track, I wouldn’t have thought we’d get Hocker, Nuguse, Kerr, Arop, Wanyonyi and Hoppel racing at 800 & 1500 in Jamaica in early April.
I really don't agree with your sentiment. Centro won Olympic gold with a 3:50. Was that not an exciting race to watch?
It was, but it also was an Olympic final. Now go watch 8 individuals (4 of them being the same through every meet) race each other at that pace with no other incentive than to win the prize money. There is no glory or title on winning a GST meet in 3:50. Not now and not in 10 years.
The same applies for the DL meets. It might be fun to see a couple of slow races, because tactical races can definitely be fun. But in the end times are what really matter. Of course we can see fast times with no pacers as well, but the likelihood of someone running crazy fast is much less likely. It is very rare to see someone push the pace at the front all by themselves because more often than not there is no reward from it (just see Cheruiyot's 1500m Olympic final in Tokyo or Ingebrigtsen's 1500m Olympic final in Paris).
You can't pretend to have the same "rules" for sprints and distance races, because they are very different in the way they are run. Sprints don't need pacers and you always need to run all out in order to win. In distance, there should be the possibility to have pacers if someone is interested in running fast.
Yeah, simulations show that if you run optimally behind another runner the air resistance is 70 % lower (24 km/h - 60 s per lap). A pacer levels the playing field even if the pacer isn't running that fast. You could for example have the pacer go 7:45 pace in the 3000 m and the race would be much more "fair" (if the goal is to determine who is the best runner on the given day).
Great callout…Probably there should be an exemption to allow these athletes to single if that’s the sticking point for Kishane let’s say.
Well if by definition (if not in actuality) the racers are the fastest then let challangers chose a tag team format.
I'd like to see Kung Fu Kenny and Fred take on a Kishane in the 100/Andrew de Grasse in the 200m combo and let the boys split the cash if they win.
You could make hay marketing wise. Legion of Doom gear photoshoots.
I don't see why it wouldn't work in the 3k/5k if you had say Ollie Hoare and Morgan McDonald or Abdi Nur/Woody taking on Grant.
Or Femke/Leike Klaver against Sydney.
it wouldn't suit the racers but in unpaced races it would add a tactical dynamic with fresh challangers and make the racers run for their supper a bit.
And if they are that good more power to em and a serious feather in their caps.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You made a lot of great points as to why this is just going to be basically impossible for this league to survive - especially beyond sprints.
At some point times are going to matter. The exact same way they matter in the sprints. Times don’t matter in the OG/WC because of what’s at stake. But there is nothing really at stake here and the times run are a basic marker of the holistic quality of the race - fair or unfair. I really don’t know how these MD/LD races will go - certainly some underground stuff I’ve heard from guys about “training through” these next months and using GST as part of training would massively concern me if I was Johnson.
You run the risk of a massive part of your league with arguably the most potential followers (MD/LD fans) having races that resemble prelim rounds at major events. I also think about the danger of guys mailing in some races if they believe they secured enough points in their favored event - especially in the 8/15 group. The entire value proposition of this league is competition and I don’t think you can afford to have anyone in your race appear to be just going through the motions at any point - but I just can’t see how that doesn’t happen. I guess we are going to find out real soon.
You are ultimately right - it’s a sprint format, created by a former sprinter.
You are way off base on one thing. You can't mail it in.
If you win your primary event and get last in your "off" event you won't win the 100k. People will go hard in both events. The criticism of GST is 1) the winner of each event may not be the overall winner and some of the simplicity of the sport is lost 2) Plus some people aren't good at doubling so they don't want to do the league and 3) the overlap of events prevents premier matchups.
There will be 4 400s at every GST and 4 200s but since there are 200/400 group and 100/200 group people and 400/400h group, some of the matchups you want -Sydney vs the 400 runners for example, Gabby Thomas vs a top 100/200 runner at 200 won't happen.
recall Bolt Powell Blake in their hay day, at a home meet, and the stands were mostly empty
on youtube, the Jamaican champs of 2021 popped up, and there was literally no one in the stands outside the finish line.
where exactly will the fans come from?
if they didn't show for their own superstars?
that is nuts so maybe then Jamaica shouldn't have been picked as a venue if no matter what you can't get fans out. But the plus side is then not having the Jamaican superstars won't impact attendance that much.
I didn't know that it was a 3-day affair, with each racer running both of the events in their group over the 3 days. That's interesting to me. Originally I thought it was a day or two, and the group would alternate which event they ran (ie the short sprints group runs 100 at meet #1 and #3, 200 at #2 and #4). Definitely more racing this way, also a little harder on the athletes, depending on the order of events. Although there's no prelims so it's not really too much.
that might have been the better way to do it but then getting 3 days is a lot harder.
But I'd rather have a superstar matchup at 200 with everyone in it than 200 women in the 200/400 group and others in the 100/200 group.
For the men MJ was great at 200/400 but I feel most people not are really 100/200 and 400/200 is a rarity so if you look at the men's long sprints it is pretty much a bunch of 400 runners doing a 400/200 double right?
Why do we care who is best in the off event? Look at the 200/400 men:
Quincy Hall (Racer) Muzala Samukonga (Racer) Matthew Hudson-Smith (Racer) Jereem Richards (Racer) Busang Collen Kebinatshipi (Challenger) Vernon Norwood (Challenger) Chris Bailey (Challenger) Deandre Watkin (Challenger)
That is all 400 runners being forced to run a 2 right?
Why not make it a 400/800 group:) That would be interesting 1 time!
You are way off base on one thing. You can't mail it in.
If you win your primary event and get last in your "off" event you won't win the 100k. People will go hard in both events. The criticism of GST is 1) the winner of each event may not be the overall winner and some of the simplicity of the sport is lost 2) Plus some people aren't good at doubling so they don't want to do the league and 3) the overlap of events prevents premier matchups.
There will be 4 400s at every GST and 4 200s but since there are 200/400 group and 100/200 group people and 400/400h group, some of the matchups you want -Sydney vs the 400 runners for example, Gabby Thomas vs a top 100/200 runner at 200 won't happen.
Am I? Let's watch some races and check back in...
Why does this have to involve winning a primary event? Why is this just about winning 100k? You are way off because you are only thinking surface level...
The structure is 100, 50, 30, 25, 20, 15, 12.5 and 10k 1 through 8 right? So yes there is a massive drop off between first and second and even second and third, but after that there is very little difference between the rest of the prize money. Let's look at a simple hypothetical here involving the first "short distance" on the mens side.
1500m is Saturday, 800m is Sunday. Obviously the 1500m suits Hocker, Nuguse, Kerr, Gourley with Hoppel, Arop, Wanyoni and Attaoui unknowns. The 800m is clearly where those guys are going to make their "money" so to speak. Wanyoni, Arop and Attaoui have some history over 1500m at some level of performance having all run at least 3.36 and/or well under 4 for the mile (Wanyoni). Hoppel has a PR of 3.42 which I am sure is not a full reflection of his ability but we never know - maybe he's a 3.38 guy at best in a proper, even paced race.
However he has a legit shot to win the 800m or at least get the bulk of his points in that event (obviously) - why would he run himself into the ground in the 1500 and compromise the chance to win the 800? Let's say he maxes out to maybe beat MA or Wanyoni on Saturday and get's a 6th place. Let's also say that effort compromises him for Sunday and he can only get 4th in the 800. That is 8 combined points. Let's say he mails in the 1500m and doesn't really care about the result and comes in last but because of that he is much fresher for the 800 and wins it or gets second - that is 11 combined points for the last + first combo and 9 for the last + second combo. See my point here?
Now I don't know what it will take to actually win one of these - I feel like 14 or 15 points would be a big number, but if 8 or 9 points is a difference of only $5000 in your prize money which after tax and your agents 15% is $2200, what's the incentive for Hoppel to max himself out in the 1500m again when realistically he needs a miracle to finish 6th or better? And the same could work in reverse for Yared who has a chance of winning the 1500m but at a 1.46.30 PR with (probably) a best case 1.45.5 potential, is likely going to be fighting with Neil Gourley to not finish dead last in that 800m and the difference between 7th or 8th is only one point.
Numbers Weldon, numbers.
You can absolutely mail it in if you realistically don't have a chance of winning the 100k and especially for the "racers" that are on what appears to be substantial signing "salaries" anyway, the incentive to blow the doors off themselves in early April is unlikely to be there.
But happy to check in after the first meet and see what happened.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.