All I know is that point where the leaders almost ran over an edge needs to be barriered off for the men. At mens speeds they might have gone over.
All I know is that point where the leaders almost ran over an edge needs to be barriered off for the men. At mens speeds they might have gone over.
Top Noticer wrote:
What's with all the 180 degree turns?
I know what you mean but there is a course in my home town that is 13 laps of a park.
The real question is why did the NBC announcer think the 90 degree turns were harder than the near 180 cone turns.
Why finish in an empty track stadium? Course seems fine to me.
Why were there no hills? Honestly, what is that all about?
I don't get it, this is 2016, we have progressed so much in training and nutrition etc., yet we only run a final of the 10K, no prelims and the marathon course is as flat as the marathon women's chests.
stadium would not be empty for the finish if the race started at 6 or 7pm when the meet starts for the day
Bettingfool wrote:
Why finish in an empty track stadium? Course seems fine to me.
Not only do I agree, but perhaps many don't realize that is the single most famous stadium in Rio, in Brasil. It's the site of the annual Rio Carnival parade. I was there once for it. I am not sure what is so wonderful about a finish in an empty stadium on a track where losers get to enjoy seeing those ahead of them a half lap or more. Other than tradition. I was so thrilled seeing they chose that site for their finish (only became aware this morning). And, for those watching the main NBC version of the marathon, they learn a bit about Brasil (correct spelling when you are in Brasil, by the way) that they did not prior to the Olympics. I learned so much about the world from the Olympics from 1968 onwards. The impact of altitude in Mexico City. The incredible hill they had to climb to the stadium in Barcelona. Plus the run from the beauty of Rio to the stadium location, not the most lovely parts of that amazing city shall I say. And where else does a city have already existing about 800m of stadium seating for a marathon finish?
Should be run on the track
Consider this.... wrote:
Bob Schul Country wrote:should finish on track
That, too.
Agree. They did the same thing in London. I am not sure what's up with the trend of not finishing in the Olympic stadium. Hopefully, it'll change in Tokyo.
There would if they could've scheduled it to finish up before one of Usain Bolt's qualifying heats in the 100 or 200
Much of what I will write has already been shared.
It has been the goal of the IAAF to highlight the host city as much as possible and have the finish at an iconic place. A stadium finish is great but not if you have to go through less then ideal neighborhoods to get there such as the ones surrounding both London's and Rio Olympic Stadiums.
Then there is the bigger issues of closing roads. This is not as much of a problem if you have a one day a year big time marathon. Here you have other Olympic events going on and trying to move 100,000's of people.
We modified the course after the test event in April because it restricted access to the local airport which is within a mile of the 5k point.
TV plays a major role always looking for the ideal visual. In London we had a 180 degree turn after the first mile just to highlight Big Ben in the back ground.
Even though this may not be optimal for the runners (slowing on turns), it frames our athletes in the most spectacular way.
A stadium finish ties up the stadium track for over an hour. Preparing for the first finisher to the last. Field events can occur. But the lack of events leave the stands empty. No good answer. Especially with tight security
Another. Stupid. Question.
First of all, please consider the weight and meaning of your words when you throw around terms such as "literally." Furthermore, your question will prompt only subjective answers. Who is to say whether the Rio course is any worse or better than some small-town marathon that brings out 56 participants?
Your question cannot be answered objectively and, therefore, is pointless. Please have the character to ask the moderators to delete your thread.
ASQ wrote:
Another. Stupid. Question.
First of all, please consider the weight and meaning of your words when you throw around terms such as "literally." Furthermore, your question will prompt only subjective answers. Who is to say whether the Rio course is any worse or better than some small-town marathon that brings out 56 participants?
Your question cannot be answered objectively and, therefore, is pointless. Please have the character to ask the moderators to delete your thread.
lol
My big problem with the course was that they literally put in a chicane with about 3 or 4 miles to go to run it on a sidewalk next to the beach. Just stupid.
I also worry about those 90 degree turns at the end of the museum peninsula at men's speed on slick concrete. I hope they provide swimmers to fish out the runners there.
That said, one of the most famous non-stadium marathon finishes was Abebe Bikila finish at the Arch of Constantine in the 1960 Rome Olympics. Great stuff.
See:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2012/apr/25/athletics-olympics-2012
LA Trials course was the worst but apparently good preparation for Rio . Weather conditions were almost identical.