i’m all for this money grab for the few that get ‘selected’ to participate. but as a viewer who watch on peacock and was able to fast fwd. it was still hard to watch.
Cento and Rupp should start a channel. both are naturals. Rupp last worked the chicago marathon.
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.
This is the answer.
It's amazing that those trying to increase the popularity of distance running aren't taking more cues from the 2nd most viewed sporting event in the world. It's not that viewers are unwilling to sit through a 13 (or in this case nearly 15) minute 5k
It’s simple. Throw in a pacer through halfway for each race in the 3k/5k groups and don’t prescribe them world record pace or anything, but something that everyone in the field should be capable of; say 13:30 for the men and 15:00 for the women. Then, the race has to be won in under that time or everyone has their prize money cut in half. Furthermore, if nobody goes with the pacer and he/she decides to stay in and win the race in UNDER the prescribed time, the pacer wins half of the prize money for the whole category.
I see this as adding a lot to the format. First, it adds another body on the track in these awkward, 8 person long distance races. Second, it gives the racers/challengers more incentive to run an honest pace rather than the absolute slog we saw for the men’s 5k on Friday. Finally, it adds another level of tension to the races and an underdog (pacer) for the crowd to root for.
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....🤔
Combining times is inelegant. It’s hard to aim for a certain time, especially relative to another runner, and times are even less the point of racing.
Agree. Place can work, but let’s make the difference between the events more interesting. Bring back the mile, which the public understands more? So I would say mile/5k or mile/3k would interest me more. Maybe even 5k or 3k on day one and 800m on day two. If they are only going to race the last part, let’s just see the last part and not the warm up. Was more impressed by Gabby Thomas in the 400m being out of her comfort zone than if she ran 100m and 200m.
Lets combine some ski racing pursuit aspect... have the first race (probably the shorter of the two) as a 'mass start'... then stagger start the second race by finish time... so the person who wins the first race starts first, and then the second place person has to wait however many seconds behind he finished until he can start... That way, whoever crosses the line first in the second race is the winner - no points or places or times to add.... first one across the line is the winner.
I think shorter race first as it will give a little more time to make up the gap in the longer race... but the shorter race second might make the winner want to lay down a hot pace right from the go (even though they might have to run all alone) just to make it extra painful for the others to try and catch up.
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.
.....
In order to force competition from 800m to 5000m combined times is the ONLY solution. Even if the field is planning to get an easy payday. The moment someone capable takes off from the field , the field HAS to respond to ensure that person doesn't put such a time gap on them, that they would essentially win the $100,000.
Combined times is THE solution and would force any moves by notable competitors are covered by the field.
I think this would go against the idea of GST. GST is supposed to be all about racing and not about time. Maybe a better solution would be to offer an additional $10k to the winner of each race. That way even if an athlete can win overall without winning the second race, they will still have something to win by coming 1st in the second race.
Announcers have a hard enough time now declaring who won and who came in 2nd and 3rd in terms of the"Slam." Now people want them to add minutes and seconds? Runners would cross the line and just look neutral until someone brings out an abacus and tells then they've won or lost.
The series is supposed to be about the points. I say each winner of each race gets $50k. But if you win both, you get $200k. That should be enough incentive.
I think it would be funny if tense Sydney who always has the pressure to win starts calculating she only needs to come in 3rd and she has to save herself for the other Slams.
Announcers have a hard enough time now declaring who won and who came in 2nd and 3rd in terms of the"Slam." Now people want them to add minutes and seconds? Runners would cross the line and just look neutral until someone brings out an abacus and tells then they've won or lost.
The series is supposed to be about the points. I say each winner of each race gets $50k. But if you win both, you get $200k. That should be enough incentive.
I think it would be funny if tense Sydney who always has the pressure to win starts calculating she only needs to come in 3rd and she has to save herself for the other Slams.
....
You could have named just about anyone for calculating and only have to come in 3rd except Sydney. I think Sydney could line up against 5th graders at field day and she's STILL gonna give it her all.
Combining times make perfect sense OR half the prize money between both races. WHICH ONE will Letsrun and Michael Johnson lean towards for the next slam?
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.
I do think one of the problems is that they need to condense- maybe down to 2 days. Making the long distance group not double would speed the meets along instead of running 2 3ks and 2 5ks in each ‘slam’. You could alternate between the 3 and 5. Single race for 100k with no double looming would be entertaining racing.
Love seeing all of these ideas and suggestions to hopefully make Grand Slam better as the meets move ahead…hopefully MJ, Kyle, and others are reading and discussing before Miami. Let’s STOP being so critical and START Supporting OUR sport…are you listening Brothers Johnson and JG?
Using total time to offer bonus points seems sensible to me.
It would help balance the 8/15 group, for example, incentivising struggling runners to try and keep close to maybe steal the slam with a boost from bonus points.
I started another thread with the content below, but sadly, I'm not sure it got any visibility. Since you are stating that the formatting for the races/categories below 400m are fine as-is, then can you (or someone) can answer what I tried to ask in my original post. Here it is:
If the races for both the long and short hurdles categories were simply made up of "race distance (with hurdles)" plus "race distance (flat/without hurdles)" then can someone help me understand what's compelling enough to balance the competition? Obviously SMR is a talent above the rest in most cases, but what exactly is making it more difficult for her versus some of the other racers/challengers by simply removing the hurdles for one of her two races?
The format for the short distance was exciting and felt more dynamic in the way that the 800m specialists had to fair with going up a distance and the 1500m specialists having to do the opposite the next day.
I'm just not understanding how the format for hurdles is creating a similarly engaging double experience. Can anyone help explain?
Tighten up the points and make the tie breaker the combined time. ...and run the 3 k first day.
12 pts for 1st
10 pts for 2nd
8 pts for 3rd
6 pts for 4th
5, 4, 3, 2, 5th thru 8th
Tie breaker = racer w the best overall combined time wins.
Tightening the points upwards makes the second race more competitive. It also gives the likelihood of a tie being a real possibility. Because the tie is a possibility, then just winning a certain position isn't the only motivation but getting a bigger gap...or closing a bigger gap becomes important. Running the 5k after the 3k might leave more in the tank for the racers and the dynamic of the likelihood of a tie breaker in the second race should make for faster racing.
Combining race times privileges the longer distance time. For instance, in the 100-200, if you had a 10 and 20 in the two races, the 200 counts twice as much as the 100 in the final combined time. To even it, multiply the shorter time by 2. That works in events where the typical time multiple is two. From 3k/5k, the pace isn't radically different usually but in this case it was. If the lowest total time wins, then you have, say, 14:30/8:00=22:30. 2/3 of that is from the 5000m. Do you just multiply the 3k time by 5/3 or account for the slower pace?
Simplest is usually best but mere averaging favors the longer distance specialists.
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.
You're actually wrong.
First race will be tactical (and close) no matter what.
If Hagos goes into the second race knowing that he only has to finish 1-2 seconds ahead of Fisher, rather than having to win and try to remove him from 3rd, second race will also be tactical. He would just try to move with 800 left.
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.
You're actually wrong.
First race will be tactical (and close) no matter what.
If Hagos goes into the second race knowing that he only has to finish 1-2 seconds ahead of Fisher, rather than having to win and try to remove him from 3rd, second race will also be tactical. He would just try to move with 800 left.
.....
Oh stop playing Psychic Extraordinar. With Hagos G and a couple more people including Cooper Teare you never know which tactic they going to use. THAT'S why combining the times would force competitors to cover ANY move:
and I guarantee ONE of the first races of the men's long distance group will be fast.