Why does running not have weight classes?

josh1988 wrote:

a 200 pound runner most likely won't kill a 125 pound runner during a race. A 200 pound boxer has a good chance of literally killing a 125 pound fighter.

Congrats! That's literally the first time I've seen "literally" used correctly on LR.

Some race have them. I am for it. In Mexico they had a race like this and some 100,kg guys hit sub 20min 5ks. Also in Mexico, I like their finisher medal policy.. gold to first 500, bronze 500-1500, bronze 1500+. It gives you something to work for. Top 3 at races get better than medals... Money

Easy Money wrote:

Its about high level competition and people want to see the best. Physical non-team sports have weight classes because certain body types/frames would dominate without weight classes. Non-physical non-team sports like tennis, golf, and running are not dependent on weight classes to determine who the best is. Certain body types will be eliminated from being the best but there is some variability in winners and weights. For running bigger guys may sprint vs go long.

Dumb

It's not that much different. Tennis certainly depends on height - the strongest server in the world, Jon Isner is a giant. Most tennis pros are 6'1" or taller. All of the Big Four were 6'1" or taller. Also most tennis players got significant amount of fast-twitch muscles in both legs (for quick, rapid movement) and serving (speed). A slow-twitch distance runner would not be great at tennis, despite phenomenal endurance (their best games would probably be long, 5 set games).

And how many elite 200lb runners are there?

Weight classes dont need to exist in boxing other than to increase participation. Otherwise the sport self selects who gets to compete like running does currently. I imagine the people arguing against this are those that benefit from the current setup and probably all weigh under 140.

Cool to see the Marine corp marathon does this. A good example, probably lots of Marine 'meatheads' who couldn't get below 180 even with an extremely low body fat %.

The issue the way I see it is that Americans are on average larger than many other countries so right now you have a sport that self selects only a very small portion of the population even having a chance at being world class because most people are just too big, even with going as low in weight as their genetics will allow.

josh1988 wrote:

a 200 pound runner most likely won't kill a 125 pound runner during a race. A 200 pound boxer has a good chance of literally killing a 125 pound fighter.

Death or injury is not the reason there are weight classes in boxing and wrestling.

The classes are to expand participation in the sport.

A lot of marathons have the Clydesdale/Athena categories. Along those lines some will include your age-graded finish time percentile.

Unless you're competing for money running is about competing against yourself. You don't either of those things to do that, which is why plenty of overweight people run marathons as it is, but I could see more categories providing extra encouragement.

Obviously as some has said it doesn't matter on the elite end (a 200 lb marathoner will never contend in any size race unless it's P*trick Cutt*r) but from a race director's perspective it could be good for overall participation.

Fun fact: of the over a hundred men to have broken 2:10 in the marathon, the heaviest was and still is the first.

Weight doesn't really tell you much. The guys who won the heavier weight categories would likely be 6 ft 7 string bean types.

What the public would really pay to see is bulky Matt London types racing it out.

Much better to have something like biceps size categories.

But what might be fun is having all runners handicapped with weights vests and such so that they all weigh 100kg exactly.

I always run in the Clydesdale division if the local race I'm running in has one. Sometimes the weight is pretty low like 200lbs. I would prefer it to be at 235 because, well......I weigh 235!