Back in High School my coach had a cartoon on his wall. The Caption was "THE FIRST AND LAST EVER STEEPLECHASE MARATHON" and the cartoon depicted runners crawling over "Barrier #107" and crawling out of the water pit on their hands and knees. I think that sums it up just about right.
You could always lessen the number of barriers per lap. that way you jump over the same number of barriers but spread out over 10k.
i still dont think its a good idea, just giving my 2 cents
Ok, I'll bite. The answer is because it's not practical. One cannot simply slow their pace down and do 10,000 meters worth of steepling. Eventually, it would cease to be a race and "racers" would literally come to a stop at every hurdle and step over it. Over the course of a 3k steeple, even the best steeplers undergo some degree of degradation in their hurdling form, albeit very minor in elite steeplers. The only runners who could even complete such an event would be the most elite runners would be able to finish still hurdling every barrier. At that level, what incentive would meet directors have to add such an insane event which would surely take upwards of 30 minutes into meet schedules they are already trying to keep at a minimum? Without a financial incentive, those capable of completing such an event well would never do one. Now, anybody is welcome to set up barriers and go for a 10k steeple whenever they please, but it's practicality as a contested event at a competitive track meet is nonexistent. You could really say the same thing about the marathon, "Why is the marathon only 26 miles, why don't they have longer marathons." The answer, of course, is that they do, but that they're not taken very seriously among the mainstream running community.
Also, I appreciate your questioning of my credentials. Though I don't feel adequately incentivised to lay out my resume for you, but rest assured, I do know a few things about racing on the track and in the marathon.
This thread is the reason why you candy-assed Americans are getting your asses handed to you in the steeple. "Oh, if I run further than 3K my legs will fall off."
Wow this is true, for the women as well the 10,000 meter WR (or look at the second best time by Meselech Melkamu if we throw out Wang Junxia's time) is right about the pace of the 3k steeple record.
David Essig wrote:
That's even less of a valid argument. "If you have to ask the question then you CANNOT understand the answer." I take it, then, that you have extensive personal experience of elite-level steeplechase and marathoning. Please, make an effort to shed even a little light on the original question by using the valuable insight you have gained. Those of us who have not been as fortunate as yourself would be deeply grateful. As a particular request I would be obliged if you could try to offer some suggestion of the specific ways in which a 3k steeple is more demanding than a 10k. If the world record pace for the two is virtually the same it would suggest to me, someone who has not raced a steeplechase, that the two are equally demanding. The fact that people race longer distances than 10km at a slower pace therefore suggests to me, again someone without steeplechase experience, that people could do the same in that event. Why do you, as someone with extensive experience of both professional-level steeplechase running and marathon running, believe that such longer events are not held?
It's stupid to believe that I can get you to understand what a steeple is like through this message board. And you are stupid for expecting that.
Let's pretend you both run and swim at the same competetive level. Try explaining to someone who just swims the difference in fatigue between the two sports. Better yet, explain it on a message board. Yes, they may have the same fatigue levels. But they're different. It's simple.
And I don't consider anybody who races exclusively over marathons as a pro runner. Don't pretend that if they attached $100,000+ purses on these races that you'd ever hear of the current "pros" again.
gringo wrote:
This thread is the reason why you candy-assed Americans are getting your asses handed to you in the steeple. "Oh, if I run further than 3K my legs will fall off."
Your reading comprehension is top notch, chief.
Abbie Norml wrote:
I'll answer the question if you promise to be the second leg on my javelin relay team.
ROFL
David Essig wrote:
I don't think the OP was belittling the steeple and I think his/her question is a fair one. I'm sure 10k steeple would be hellishly harder than the 3k, but the marathon is hellishly harder than the 10k and people still do it.
The marathon is the easiest of all races. The problem with the marathon is the fuel and hydration variables that come into play at the end of it.
As for a 10,000 steeplechase. I can't imagine you'd get anyone to run one.
It is not suppose to simulate NCAA cross country racing english cross country racing where people raced to the the nearest church 'steeple' the length varied but was often 2-3 miles.
malmo wrote:
The marathon is the easiest of all races.
lol
An argument could be made for replacing both the the 3000SC and the 10K with just one 10K SC race. It would perhaps give those 'XC specialists' a better look-in too.
tagurit wrote:
I'm trying to imagine a guy jumping over a three immovable barrier after 5K, 6K, 7K........not to mention the water jump. OP, you're sadistic!
FOUR barriers and a water jump.
Thank you, Milo, for making at least a stab at a serious answer. I think most of your arguments could also be applied to the 10k, but then again that is why it is largely disappearing from meets on the European circuit. Your point about "Why isn't the marathon longer?" is a straw man, though, as the marathon is already the longer version of a shorter event. I agree that a 10k steeple is beyond reason, but would a 5k steeple really be unthinkable? Has there ever been one?
As for <3 Irony, well, there's just no helping some people. No need to lash out when you're backed into a corner, kid.
Dorando wrote:
An argument could be made for replacing both the the 3000SC and the 10K with just one 10K SC race. It would perhaps give those 'XC specialists' a better look-in too.
If there was an argument that could be made, you would have wouldn't you?
David Essig wrote:
As a particular request I would be obliged if you could try to offer some suggestion of the specific ways in which a 3k steeple is more demanding than a 10k.
i thought i already told you that the steeplechase involves JUMPING.
INAUGURAL LET'S RUN 10,000 METER STEEPLECHASE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP INVITATIONAL
Other events at this special meet:
* Beer Mile
* McDonald's Dollar Menu Challenge
* 100 Beers/100 Miles Epic
Coming soon.
malmo wrote:
tagurit wrote:I'm trying to imagine a guy jumping over a three immovable barrier after 5K, 6K, 7K........not to mention the water jump. OP, you're sadistic!
FOUR barriers and a water jump.
I think his mistake was leaving out the word "foot" rather than a miscounting of the number of barriers.
The steeplechase was never meant to be a "cross country race on the track".
http://trackandfield.about.com/od/steeplechase/ss/illusteeple.htm
"The sport began as a race between towns - from one church steeple to another - with natural obstacles along the way. It entered the Olympics as a 3000-meter event in 1920. Finns dominated early, winning four consecutive Olympic gold medals from 1924-36, including consecutive golds by Volmari Iso-Hollo in 1932 and '36."
Jumping over barriers requires activation of fast twitch fibers which I don't think would be very much available at the end of a 10k race.
10k Steeplechase would be fun to watch. Just keep the EMT's nearby.
Alan
Who on earth would want to watch a 10K steeple on the track? Imagine the 23rd lap of that event. That's probably why they don't have a 10,000m steeple.