VF Runner wrote:
Either the distances would have to be fairly close or you would have to weight the scoring somehow. Something like this might work though:
Day 1 - 10mi.
Day 2 - 5k road
Day 3 - 10k
Day 4 - 5mi
Day 5 - 5k XC
Day 6 - 1/2 marathon
Are you suggesting that Rupp, Hall or Solinsky and other elite distance runners would run back to back to back races?
Maybe there was some tongue in cheek involved before in my previous post. But let's get serious for a moment and re-evaluate some of the comments in the original post.
The question is why there are no multi-day running events, like the Tour de France. In fact there are many, and popularity of such events has actually resurged (relatively speaking) since 1980.
The suggestion was that these kind of events would increase the popularity/awareness of the sport. I think it is evident that current multi-day running events have not done that in the slightest. In fact, while these multi-day events have come back, track popularity itself has declined. Maybe it's the "ultra" aspect of the races, and it's a good direction to shorten the races, as you proposed, and inject some kind of mass marketing campaign. But I interpreted the "like the Tour de France" part, to represent longer events like the ultras rather than short races like 5K, 1500m, and 800.
I would argue that Yiannis Kourous dominated multi-day events much more than Lance dominated Tour de France, yet it is clear one is a virtual unknown, even to most running fans, while the other one is a household name, world renowned super hero (or super villain) known to cycling fans and non-cycling fans alike.
While such a multi-day running event could be interesting to a group of running fans, I think it is optimistic to think it will capture the awareness and popularity of the general public, or that it could eventually hope to compare to bigger events like the big cycling tours.
Adding one more thought, it's kind of funny how the big, long tours in cycling are popular, compared to say track cycling, yet for running, the big long ultras are virtually unknown, when compared to running events at the track (which themselves are struggling in popularity).
They could increase the sport's popularity if the top runners did them and they were marketed properly.
Money would have to be involved.
No you wouldn't it's based on overall time. You get as big a lead as you can on any given stage.
VF Runner wrote:
Either the distances would have to be fairly close or you would have to weight the scoring somehow. Something like this might work though:
Day 1 - 10mi.
Day 2 - 5k road
Day 3 - 10k
Day 4 - 5mi
Day 5 - 5k XC
Day 6 - 1/2 marathon
I'm suggesting it would be a pretty interesting thing to watch if they did.
Completely hypothetical, but imagine the following. In it's efforts to up it's standing in the running industry New Balance buys the rights to the New York Diamond league meet. Next years ad campaigns feature the theme of "Making everyone the best all around runner they can be". As a highlight, they add the "Worlds Best Runner" event featuring the 6 day series I suggested (or the shorter 5 event series) with a purse of $5,000,000. $3mil/$2mil/$1mil for the top three.
Maybe not the three you mentioned, but do you think they would get some quality elite interest?
I'm not sure it would. Does the Tour de France increase the popularity of track cycling, BMX, cyclo-cross, or trials? At some point, they are all different sports.No doubt with marketing and money, some kind of interesting event could be formed. Scoring would likely have to be done like decathlons, based on IAAF points or something similar (not on raw time).I'm just wondering if such an event would simply be so different than "our sport", that it would do little to increase the popularity of road racing, track, cross-country, or ultras.
runn wrote:
They could increase the sport's popularity if the top runners did them and they were marketed properly.
Money would have to be involved.
there is in Ontario:
VF Runner wrote:
Either the distances would have to be fairly close or you would have to weight the scoring somehow. Something like this might work though:
Day 1 - 10mi.
Day 2 - 5k road
Day 3 - 10k
Day 4 - 5mi
Day 5 - 5k XC
Day 6 - 1/2 marathon
This would be a really good series of distances! It could be every day for a week, or even one every weekend for six weeks, touring to different cities (on the west or east coast, for example).
VF Runner wrote:
I'm suggesting it would be a pretty interesting thing to watch if they did.
Completely hypothetical, but imagine the following. In it's efforts to up it's standing in the running industry New Balance buys the rights to the New York Diamond league meet.
It is an interesting idea to tie it into a meet - if the series is in the west it could be Pre, and if the series is on the east coast it could be the Adidas Grand Prix Diamond League stop in NYC.
It would be pretty cool to have a meet open up with the "Tour de US" or whatever finishing in the stadium - kind of like the marathon at the Olympics, etc...
Part of the issue is that running can never really be a team sport the way cycling is because of the lower speeds and the way the air resistance goes with the square of speed.
The difference between an individual runner and a runner with a team helping him is small compared with the same situation for a cyclist.
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe there was some tongue in cheek involved before in my previous post.
One of your better attempts at it methinks? At least I got the joke.
I vote forDay 1 - 100mDay 2 - 200mDay 3 - 400mDay 4 - 800mDay 5 - 1500mDay 6 - marathonObviously it would be scored on overall time.Track really needs better events. Here are the ones I can think of400m (must have run sub 13:00 5k to enter)400m (must have run sub 10 100m to enter)800m (must have run either sub 45 400m or sub 13:00 5k)Make it a million dollar first prize to encourage participation and it would be a lot of fun.
Letssee wrote:
No you wouldn't it's based on overall time. You get as big a lead as you can on any given stage.
VF Runner wrote:Either the distances would have to be fairly close or you would have to weight the scoring somehow. Something like this might work though:
Day 1 - 10mi.
Day 2 - 5k road
Day 3 - 10k
Day 4 - 5mi
Day 5 - 5k XC
Day 6 - 1/2 marathon
dasfsd wrote:
I vote for
Day 1 - 100m
Day 2 - 200m
Day 3 - 400m
Day 4 - 800m
Day 5 - 1500m
Day 6 - marathon
Obviously it would be scored on overall time.
I'll give an extreme example of why that wouldn't work using pure overall time.
Someone arranges this in the US and they actually get 4 (healthy) elites to compete.
Tyson Gay
Jeremy Wariner
Nick Symmonds
Kara Goucher
Who wins based on pure time?
People, get rid of imperical distances and have something more consistent. I would say stages of 5-20km, but you can have stages that are, say, 7 km or 12 (and change) etc... this is not about running personal bests, this is about completing a tour in the least amount of time. You can have prologues (1-2 miles), with people starting in reverse order of personal bests close to the distance in question. No-no for track races: this should be either on the road or country.
Example:
Prologue: 1.5 mile time trial
Stage 1: 13 km
Stage 2: 8 km
Stage 3: 18 km
Stage 4: 10 km
Stage 5: 9 km
Stage 6: 5 km time trial
Stage 7: 8 km
The only part I disgree with is the "No-no for track races". This discussion evolved from increasing popularity and the track is certainly more spectator friendly. Road/XC may be more ideal in the long run, but track may be a better starting point.
Middle of the week: EXTREME DOWNHILL MILE
Bill it as one of the world's fatsest miles.
The best runner who happens to be kara. Also note that Dean Kamazes would beat those other so called elite runners.
VF Runner wrote:
dasfsd wrote:I vote for
Day 1 - 100m
Day 2 - 200m
Day 3 - 400m
Day 4 - 800m
Day 5 - 1500m
Day 6 - marathon
Obviously it would be scored on overall time.
I'll give an extreme example of why that wouldn't work using pure overall time.
Someone arranges this in the US and they actually get 4 (healthy) elites to compete.
Tyson Gay
Jeremy Wariner
Nick Symmonds
Kara Goucher
Who wins based on pure time?
runn wrote:
There is (or was) I in England. I think it was called the Tour of Thames or something like that. One of the running mags had an article on it some years ago.
Tour of Tameside. Actually, there were a couple of different articles about it in RW. Six stages in seven days, totalling 52.4 miles:
11 miles, last 3 uphill
6 mile fell run
8 mile hilly run
rest day
half-marathon
6.3 mile XC
8 miles on canal tow paths
Fun stuff!
Cycling uses PEDs. Not a good example.
Because EPO is expensive.