I like the format the way it is because you really aren't taking away any doubles.
I would like to see a road 10K championship that includes a team race with 5 scoring runners.
Have an open race along with it. Maybe a Master's Championship, too and you'll have a nice little package for race day.
They did have some open races with the championships. I only included the elite race timetable.
I am not sure what you mean by "really aren't taking away any doubles." It is hard to double at the championships the way it is. Do you think by spreading it over two days there might be people doubling? My thought would be to have the 5k and 10k on the first day and road mile and half marathon on the second day.
I'm just thinking a 5k/10k double two days back to back is a little difficult.
There's nothing wrong with your proposal- I liked the road championship last year and am considering going to San Diego to compete and watch.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Every elite athlete I’ve spoken to about racing says that they love it. They’re used to it. They grew up racing twice a week throughout the season.
The problem is the race directors and sponsors. Flying in 5 fast runners is no big deal but they don’t view this as value added. Races in the US are for the couch to 1/2 marathon crew. In Europe there is prestige in having a record broken on your course—here it’s just an annoyance.
Fix the races, the American elites will come and times will drop.
You're right, that is a problem here. I think one reason is that the average Hobby Jogger doesn't know who any elites are.
By comparison, the average golf duffer knows the top pros.
Guys how play in the pick up basketball league or softball league know the NBA, MLB stars.
Running has to reach the grass roots and educate them.
Saw the news about the Barcelona half marathon. 28-year-old Swedish runner Andreas Almgren ran 59:23 to finish second to Kibiwott Kandie by one second. This was his debut half marathon race. He has a 5000 track PR of 13:01 and a recent road 10k of 27:20 at Valencia. Never heard of this guy until I read the news about the Barcelona half. American runners have beaten these times in recent years, indicating they have the ability to beat the American half marathon record if they take a serious attempt at it.
So why not go for it? What do they have to lose? Wouldn't it be nice for Grant Fisher to have another American record to his name or a different runner get their first American record? Do their contracts not have an American record bonus? What's with their hesitance here? Why are the US women runners unafraid to go for the American half marathon record while the men don't even give it a try?
Mu opinion, after about 50 years of observing this sport, is that the problem with most American runners now is that they don't race enough and they see too many races as building up to the "target" race at the end of the build up.
They run the wrong races- they should be running these fast, European races being pulled along by faster runners and yes they should go for it more often.
If they want to stay domestic because of the cost of traveling to Europe, the various groups should get together and set up races with a larger number of faster runners on a flat course somewhere.
That marathon they did in NY to get trials qualifiers was a step in the right direction.
There are places in the US where the weather is typically decent in the different seasons and there are places that are flat. Loop courses whether in a city or park could attract a crowd.
By racing more often they could go for it and risk "failure" more often.
I don't think it's to do with the cost or time needed to travel. I think I it's more about US distance runners turning inwards in the face of competition that they don't think they can compete against. US sprinters travel to race all the time, even the second tier sprinters, so it's not a cost issue. But US distance runners are, with obvious exceptions like Fisher and Monson (and it's notable that they do travel to race), not competitive in races with international fields so they stay in the US where they can have more of a competitive race against a domestic field. The attitude seems to be "we're going to get our asses kicked, so why bother travelling 6-8 hours to race?"
They did have some open races with the championships. I only included the elite race timetable.
I am not sure what you mean by "really aren't taking away any doubles." It is hard to double at the championships the way it is. Do you think by spreading it over two days there might be people doubling? My thought would be to have the 5k and 10k on the first day and road mile and half marathon on the second day.
I'm just thinking a 5k/10k double two days back to back is a little difficult.
There's nothing wrong with your proposal- I liked the road championship last year and am considering going to San Diego to compete and watch.
Yea, my thought would be to have runners only competing in one race each and not even thinking about doubling. Simple way to resolve that is to limit each athlete to one race. Although I could see somebody attempt a 5k/half marathon double on back-to-back days. It's doable if the 5k ends up being a sit and kick affair.
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
Mu opinion, after about 50 years of observing this sport, is that the problem with most American runners now is that they don't race enough and they see too many races as building up to the "target" race at the end of the build up.
They run the wrong races- they should be running these fast, European races being pulled along by faster runners and yes they should go for it more often.
If they want to stay domestic because of the cost of traveling to Europe, the various groups should get together and set up races with a larger number of faster runners on a flat course somewhere.
That marathon they did in NY to get trials qualifiers was a step in the right direction.
There are places in the US where the weather is typically decent in the different seasons and there are places that are flat. Loop courses whether in a city or park could attract a crowd.
By racing more often they could go for it and risk "failure" more often.
I don't think it's to do with the cost or time needed to travel. I think I it's more about US distance runners turning inwards in the face of competition that they don't think they can compete against. US sprinters travel to race all the time, even the second tier sprinters, so it's not a cost issue. But US distance runners are, with obvious exceptions like Fisher and Monson (and it's notable that they do travel to race), not competitive in races with international fields so they stay in the US where they can have more of a competitive race against a domestic field. The attitude seems to be "we're going to get our asses kicked, so why bother travelling 6-8 hours to race?"
This is something I didn't consider because every large European country seems to have 2-3 big, fast races a year that give multiple opportunities one's own country and in the next country over. Just off the top of my head, thinking of Valencia, Barcelona, and Sevilla in Spain; Berlin, Frankfurt, and Hamburg in Germany; Amsterdam and Rotterdam in the Netherlands; there are more examples. Whereas, only 1 of 3 US Majors is a fast course and all the other secondary marathons don't attract fast elites due a variety of factors (with Houston perhaps being the one exception, but falls at a weird time of year for most people).
Seeing as how we have probably about 100 sub-4 runners already this winter, Europe isn't blowing past us. We also have at the upper levels, numerous sub-13 guys, a 12:57 collegian, a 13:03 collegian, Grant's run 26:33/12:46/8:03/7:25, Woody's run 12:51i, Yared Nuguse's run 3:43/7:28i/13:02i, Hocker and Kessler are primed to go sub-3:30 this year, Adam Fogg's run 3:49. There are plenty of Americans there even if our marathon and half marathon results represent major underachievement.
I know that clubs will pay to send some of their runners to races. This was true even before the sport became professional. But once it did there was a time when there was decent money to be won at the races themselves. When Dunham was winning that weekly $1,000-$1,500 it was prize money from the races themselves. A mutual friend told me that for a time in the 90s Keith Brantley (he got the story from Brantley) was making a very nice living mostly winning 10k road races in maybe upper 28:00s or so, again with money won at races. And then one day that time was only good for 9th or 10th. I saw a quote from Steve Spence somewhere to the effect that it's infinitely harder for distance runners today to make a living from the sport than it was for him because there's not nearly the prize money available now than was there in his prime.
To your point, at least sort of, I don't know why shoe companies don't spend some money getting their athletes to a lot more half marathons and down. Have them schmooze a bit at those expos and after. New Balance wanted Kim Smith running for them because she did that, ran a fair few road races and enjoyed hanging around and schmoozing afterward. But I guess the companies know what they want and don't value that sort of thing as much now.
America has what - 300 million people? Sweden has 10 and the only sports that really count are soccer and ice hockey. If you count running participation on all levels: from fitness joggers to world class America is the biggest running nation on the planet. You really should dominate on the world stage (no, not all Kenyans run. Soccer is by far the biggest sport in Kenya.)
Okay all of Europe. Europe has more than twice the population of the United States. How many podium does Europe have in the past 10 years for world marathon majors and olympics? A few? In the past 10 years Rupp has had 4 podium finishes, women we've had Seidel, Des, Shalane, I might be missing one. So 7 or more podium finishes by Americans in the marathon. Europe would need 15+ to match us. They have Sifan Hassan who has had two podium finishes, the guy from the Nageeye has had two. And Mo has had two. Any others? That's only 6 from the entire continent of Europe. I might be missing a couple, but it doesn't match what the US has for podium finishes per capita. And then if we looked at top 10 finishes, we're still way ahead. Rupp had another top 10 at the olympics, Jared Ward had a top 10 in Rio. Lots of American men and women finishing in the top 10 at Chicago/Boston/New York and even in Tokyo and London.
It can be explained with one word: soccer. It is so far above any other sport in terms of interest that Americans can't comprehend It.
The other factor is that half of Europe are borderline 3rd world sh1t countries and they wouldn't dream of try distance running when a player in some local league in Western Europe makes more money than Jacob Ingebrigtsen.
America has what - 300 million people? Sweden has 10 and the only sports that really count are soccer and ice hockey. If you count running participation on all levels: from fitness joggers to world class America is the biggest running nation on the planet. You really should dominate on the world stage (no, not all Kenyans run. Soccer is by far the biggest sport in Kenya.)
Okay all of Europe. Europe has more than twice the population of the United States. How many podium does Europe have in the past 10 years for world marathon majors and olympics? A few? In the past 10 years Rupp has had 4 podium finishes, women we've had Seidel, Des, Shalane, I might be missing one. So 7 or more podium finishes by Americans in the marathon. Europe would need 15+ to match us. They have Sifan Hassan who has had two podium finishes, the guy from the Nageeye has had two. And Mo has had two. Any others? That's only 6 from the entire continent of Europe. I might be missing a couple, but it doesn't match what the US has for podium finishes per capita. And then if we looked at top 10 finishes, we're still way ahead. Rupp had another top 10 at the olympics, Jared Ward had a top 10 in Rio. Lots of American men and women finishing in the top 10 at Chicago/Boston/New York and even in Tokyo and London.
Ok, but Europe has 24 men who have run sub-2:07, the US has 3 (and only one of those was in the last 10 years). Europe has 14 women that have run sub-2:22, the US has 9. If you look at those WMM wins (nobody gives a sh1t about the podium at WMMs) then both Flanagan's and Linden's come with heavy caveats (Keitany starting her period mid-race and a biblical storm). Only Rupp's was a 'normal' race. I also like how you've limited it to the last 10 years so that you don't have to count Paula Radcliffe and Constantina Dita's wins, though that would add in Meb and Kastor for the US as well
Though this is just the classic two bald men fighting over a comb. 2:07 is still a great time in both the US and Europe (except for Bashir Abdi, who you missed from your list). A Kenyan or Ethiopian running 2:07 wouldn't even be able to call themselves a pro runner
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I sometimes think that athletics is not really a professional sport. I suppose you have to call it that because it's not an amateur sport anymore. But every other professional I can think of has money that goes much further down from the really elite athletes. There are active 780 Major League Baseball players and everyone of them is making more than almost any track athlete does. Most minor league players are making more than track athletes ranked 5th to 10th in their event. I can't identify another professional sport where so many very good athletes are earning so little.
have you seen some of the woman’s ice hockey salaries? Men’s Lacrosse? Wrestling? If you look up, track sucks. Look down and it isn’t so bad. Even in sports like woman’s golf, the money drops pretty quick. 200k in prize money doesn’t go far when you have travel to 25 events, pay a caddy, pay a coach, and the rest.
I suppose there are other professional sports where athletes are paid but not enough really to live on. One of the kids on a baseball team I managed had a father who had been a professional lacrosse player. My reaction was something like, "Really? That's a thing?" The ancestor of the NBA's G League was the Eastern League. It was played in small to mid sized cities in the Mid-Atlantic States and for a year in Anchorage. A lot of the players were good enough to be in the NBA but were kept out because they were black. They were professional basketball players but the league only played on weekends because none of the players made enough from basketball to live.
So...I will admit that Andreas Almgren is not random or unknown; he now has a great track time to support his recent road race results. He now is #3 all time for Europeans (which I would argue is #2 all time since Mourhit is convicted doper).
But I think my point still stands about the ability of the current crop of Americans to break the half marathon record. Not sure if this is the right time in Nico Young's career to make an attempt, but the likes of Fisher, Kincaid, Rotich, and Klecker seem like they could challenge the record. Considering not every one of those guys in going to make the Olympic team, I hope we can see a couple target the American half marathon record in the fall. Or perhaps now in the spring when they seem to be in great 10k shape. And then focus on the Trials and go again.
This post was edited 32 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
fixed misspelling