malmo wrote:
Just in case you were unable to manipulate the original text data in Excel:
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_10kok.htm1) copy/paste to spreadsheet
2) Data >> text to columns
3) filter by country
4) sort by year
5) count
Gen X alert
malmo wrote:
Just in case you were unable to manipulate the original text data in Excel:
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_10kok.htm1) copy/paste to spreadsheet
2) Data >> text to columns
3) filter by country
4) sort by year
5) count
Gen X alert
I used to hear that the Kenyans had real crocodiles in the water jump. No?
calculation explained wrote:
...
It looks like he started with 1999, and subtracted one from that number through multiple iterations until he got to 1972.
:) LOL
Post of the Day!
You need bears.
A bear will be released every lap. To eat the slowest runner.
So if there are 10 runners, you need 9 bears.
That will leave the true winner.
After which you will need to release the 10th bear.
I have an idea. Erect a few small fences that the runners have to jump over each lap. You could even put a pool of water on the far side of one of the fences so that the runners' feet get wet if they don't jump far enough.
Have a co-ed mile. Give women a 30 second head start and then let the men try to catch the women....I think it would encourage faster times...and the fans
would like the added twist...
Red Bull had a race where everyone got a head start, and then a car started chasing them...slowly at first, but steadily accelerating... last guy to get caught was the winner...nice way to add a bit of "flight or fight panic" to an aerobic competition :-)
Beer gardens, Betting, Stands throughout the course. Make the course spectator friendly i.e. you can see runners from the stands for a large portion of the course.
Obstacles!
Make the sport a contact sport. That would be insane.
Have spectators vote for an MVP and that team gets a point deduction of some sort.
Death race. No set distance. At the end of each lap the last man is eliminated. If the photo is not clear. No one is out. Maybe start with 25 guys. 1 million dollars first prize.
Make the races shorter, say cut 4800 meters off a 5k, maybe 9600 meters off the 10k? A 1500 could be 1400 meters shorter!
Last Man Standing 5k
Something similar might have been mentioned, but this is actually a fun race to be in, as well as watch:
14 entries for a 5k. The last place runner is eliminated at each lap (the 1st elimination coming at the 200-m mark) until there are 2 runners left at 4600 m.
Mark runners
0 14
200 13
600 12
1000 11
1400 10
1800 9
2200 8
2600 7
3000 6
3400 5
3800 4
4200 3
4600 2
5000 1 Your winner
Make all rounds, including Finals (2) strictly Time Based. I.E. 24 fastest times from Quarterfinals move on to next round regardless of place. Obviously, earliest rounds are at a disadvantage, but first round establishes "times to beat". Assuming 2-4 heats, each heat becomes increasingly more interesting as top seeds attempt to qualify with a top 24 time effort.
After top 24 identified, you have 2 Finals, eliminating Semis.
You run 2 Finals after dividing talent equally. (Obviously, method important. Maybe as simple as 1,3,5,7,9 etc. Heat times vs. 2,4,6,8 etc.)
Once again First Final is at a disadvantage, but the dynamics of 2 Time Based Finals are intriguing and almost guarantees fast paced results. It would make no sense for First Final to run "wait and kick" race. 2nd Final would have to guage effort based on First Final results.
Think about it; you could conceivably have the world record set twice in a day in back to back races. TV would love it because, from beginning to end there would be comparisons between the paces of each race and many other contrasts between each Final's cast of athletes.
I know there are many downsides, but anything is better than watching men run 70 second laps in a 1500 Final. My 2 cents.
Take 16 runners or so and have them compete in a season like any other sport. 1 v 1 races over 10 or so weeks. Maybe the "home" racer gets to pick the distance. Maybe it's a set distance. Then the top whatever runners w-l records go to the playoffs and ultimately a 1 v1 championship.
Alternatively, in conjunction with the racing triple crown, have runners race that same distance on the horse track.
Years ago they tried an indoor mile "Devil Take The Hindmost" race for prize money for first and second place. 10 runners, 10 laps. At the end of each lap, whoever is in last place has to drop out. You end up with two runners sprinting like hell on the last lap to snag the big cash prize for first place. Second gets a prize, but a fair amount less than first.
There are some really good ideas here.
Runners may not make enough for betting to work out. It's too easy to fake a bad race, and the economic incentives for corruption are more than in big ticket sports.
Offering something like $2 per second in the lead (5k) would make races faster.
Randy Oldman wrote:
113 wrote:A week-long stage race, as in cycling. A large prize for the individual winner, but also prizes for team performance. Teams of seven. 10-15 teams would be ideal.
Most Americans can't pay attention for 13 minutes, never mind a week.
Who would run in these races?
NBC Sports Net spends a ton of money putting together ~100 hours of programming for the Tour de France, which takes three weeks. People watch it because it's interesting-- there's something different every day.
If there's prize money available, people will run. You don't need the best in the world to make it entertaining, and there would be no chance of world records anyway. You'd replace a race against time with real, honest-to-goodness strategy on both an individual and team basis. Put the race somewhere scenic and use drones for coverage. I'd watch that.
Sell beer to spectators at all post-college track meets and high-level road races. Make the spectators happy. Seriously.
bring the best together wrote:
Creating a situation where the best in the world compete against each other with regularity would do more for the excitement of the sport than any of the gimmicks mentioned. In most other sports, fans get to see big time match ups multiple times per year. In track, we pretty much just have the WC and OG. Any other time a couple of good guys race against each other, we feel lucky to get to see an actual exciting race. We shouldn't feel lucky to get to watch the best compete against each other on rare occasions. We should expect it to happen all the time.
I would look to tennis for a model. Tennis has four events every year that bring the best players in the world together. No top player who is healthy would even consider skipping a major.
If tennis worked like track, Federer and Djokovic would have only played each other two or three times in the last 4 years, and they both would have spent the rest of their time beating up on no-name players at small time tournaments. Because the majors exist, we know that we'll see guys like Fed, Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal playing against each other a whole lot.
Track needs a handful of meets that are actually important. Not just DL meets, but meets that no professional runner would skip if invited. We should have the dozen best 1500 meter guys stepping on the track together in a final for meaningful prize money four times per year.
This
Put a live electrical current in the water of the steeplechase.
A shocking idea, I know... :)
Jeff Horton wrote:
Years ago they tried an indoor mile "Devil Take The Hindmost" race for prize money for first and second place. 10 runners, 10 laps. At the end of each lap, whoever is in last place has to drop out. You end up with two runners sprinting like hell on the last lap to snag the big cash prize for first place. Second gets a prize, but a fair amount less than first.
Yeah, they did these on the old wooden high bank tracks.
very exciting to watch, there were sprints on every lap.