Instead of an overall winner in the 3k/5k races, award prize money for each race ($50k each in place of $100k for two).
One of the boys on the Letsrun review of the meet suggested this.
Makes sense to me
yes, this. or just don't make the distance groups double.
the fundamental problem is that we're trying to force competition between two races, but we want each individual race to be exciting as a stand alone event.
just decouple the two races. or just run one distance race.
Another possibility is don’t double the 5000-m racers. However, do double the payout, with $20k removed from the purse every 10 seconds over a winning time of 13:30. That would at least guarantee a reasonably fast tactical race, at a minimum. 3000-m races could alternate with the 5s, every other meet, under the above format with 7:40 being the cutoff for the full purse in the 3000. The rest of the events could be doubled. But maybe don’t always run the same distances for the shorter events; e.g., throw in some 1500/1000s and 800/1000s.
It's obvious to me: just have one distance race. Even without the perverse incentives that Fisher exploited, it's stupid to have these guys run 3K and 5K in 3 days.
It's obvious to me: just have one distance race. Even without the perverse incentives that Fisher exploited, it's stupid to have these guys run 3K and 5K in 3 days.
The format wasn't the problem; the problem was Cooper Teare and Dylan Jacobs. As the guys who finished 2nd and 3rd in the first race, the onus was on them to try to win the second race and put the pressure on Fisher. They chose to play it safe, evidently content to finish 3rd or lower in the standings rather than go for the $100k.
In the women's long distance group, the format worked as intended. Ngetich finished 2nd in the first race and then took the lead in the second race and went for the win. She gave a valiant effort against Taye.
The format worked well in the men's long distance group as it pertains to the Ethiopians. Gebrhiwet only finished 4th in the first race, yet he gave an honest effort in the second race because he knew winning that race would elevate him in the standings and get him a big payday. Bekele only finished 7th in the first race, and he was motivated enough to finish higher in the second race to rise in the standings too.
If Teare and Jacobs had gone for the win in the second race like Ngetich and Gebrhiwet, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The solution is not invite Teare and Jacobs back to any of the other Slams this year. That will send a message to other athletes that if they want to be able to earn the best prize money in the sport, they need to put forth an honest effort to winning their event group.
To avoid the situation of people hammering the longer race, you could just take a weighted average based on distance. Although that would probably be too complicated to explain to the general public.
I think the Tour da France has the solution in a time bonus for 1st (10 seconds), 2nd (5 seconds), etc. And have the times combined between the two races to determine the winner.
Personally, I think the problem is the distances. Make it a 5k/1500 double. Can't just runaway with the race over the 1500 like yesterday with the 3k. And if the 1500 is first, then they will make it tactical to save themselves for the 5k.
It's obvious to me: just have one distance race. Even without the perverse incentives that Fisher exploited, it's stupid to have these guys run 3K and 5K in 3 days.
The format wasn't the problem; the problem was Cooper Teare and Dylan Jacobs. As the guys who finished 2nd and 3rd in the first race, the onus was on them to try to win the second race and put the pressure on Fisher. They chose to play it safe, evidently content to finish 3rd or lower in the standings rather than go for the $100k.
In the women's long distance group, the format worked as intended. Ngetich finished 2nd in the first race and then took the lead in the second race and went for the win. She gave a valiant effort against Taye.
The format worked well in the men's long distance group as it pertains to the Ethiopians. Gebrhiwet only finished 4th in the first race, yet he gave an honest effort in the second race because he knew winning that race would elevate him in the standings and get him a big payday. Bekele only finished 7th in the first race, and he was motivated enough to finish higher in the second race to rise in the standings too.
If Teare and Jacobs had gone for the win in the second race like Ngetich and Gebrhiwet, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The solution is not invite Teare and Jacobs back to any of the other Slams this year. That will send a message to other athletes that if they want to be able to earn the best prize money in the sport, they need to put forth an honest effort to winning their event group.
You can’t blame Teare and Jacobs. They did a sober assessment of their prospects and decided to protect their mid range prize money rather than going for the win and blowing up. Neither is good enough yet to win this race off a faster pace under those conditions. Athletes play it safe all of the time. People frequently don’t run for the win, they run for their best possible place on that day.
You can’t blame Teare and Jacobs. They did a sober assessment of their prospects and decided to protect their mid range prize money rather than going for the win and blowing up. Neither is good enough yet to win this race off a faster pace under those conditions. Athletes play it safe all of the time. People frequently don’t run for the win, they run for their best possible place on that day.
I see what you're saying, but it's not like the Ethiopians went out at a blazing pace. Bekele covered the first 200m in only 32 and there was already a gap. Even in the hot and windy conditions, it would have been nice to see Teare and Jacobs try to maintain contact for at least the first 2-3 laps and then adjust from there if they felt the pace was too hot to handle. After all, they shouldn't have been too fatigued from their 14:39 5k run. They even had an opportunity when Gebrhiwet passed by them to try to stick with him and close the gap to Bekele. They just weren't interested in trying.
Michael Johnson admitted the distance format didn't exactly work as planned but ONE of Letsrun poster offered the perfect solution. Keep the same format but in everything over 400m the two races times are combined (WAIT that could even go for the whole meet). It would encourage athletes not to play it safe in their 2nd event because the places high in the first.
Think about it Grant Fisher would have had to follow Hagos G if they were going off combined times. It would force competition especially if someone decide to make a bold move or run extremely fast. Do you cover it or risk the running away and handing them a BIG PAYDAY?
I don't remember who the poster was that mentioned this but it's the ANSWER Michael Johnson is looking for....🤔
It was me.
I suggested a point system correlating to how fast they run. This way you now have an incentive to run fast.
I think doubling is probably going to prove to not be a great format for the long distance races. In general I'd like to see Grand Slam mix up the events rather than have the exact same events at each of the 4 slams. With that format you could have just one distance race at each slam, but do a different distance each time so you're not just watching the same people race a 5k 4 meets in a row. You could even make one of the slams a 1500 / 3k double so the long distance runners do double once.