Put all the best runners 5000+ on a track. Off they go! Anyone lapped is eliminated. Last man standing wins. Who is it?

rojo wrote:

` wrote:

My favorite part of this thread is how half the responders think the OP meant five thousand runners on a track and the other half think he meant the best runners at distances 5000m and up.

Then it's just a battle of the marthoners.

Good thread though.

It would be better if it was run as a "miss and out" as they do in cycling. Each lap the last place runner is eliminated. Or eliminated if last place or lapped. Start with 100 runners. 5k bonus for each runner you eliminate.

Bro - Mama wrote:

Do it indoor on the old, short, banked, board tracks,

Those were 110 to 150 yards.

.

??????

Lacticacid wrote: It would be better if it was run as a "miss and out" as they do in cycling. Each lap the last place runner is eliminated.

That has been tried in some form at European Team Champs some years back, in the 5000 meters I think - anyway, it was a horrible fiasco! Mostly due to photo finish type line passages in the back of the field and athletes (and coaches and organizers) not actually knowing if they passed last or not while the race was still on.

Also, in the later stages with just a few laps to go, some runners outright ignored stepping off the track despite formally last at that point, some claiming they couldn't be bothered to look back and as runners didn't know if anyone else was behind them or not like the audience could, others openly admitting they continued because they were on pace for PBs andd/or SBs so f*** these expermental rules, they'd peaked for that race so they ran through.

And with sit and kick being so popular these days that actually became more embarrasing for the organizers than the runners when some of them came from hanging on somewhere back to move up several positions on the last lap. The discrepancy between the order in which runners actually passed the finish line - and the offical results once the judges was done reviewing long after - was more like a PR nightmare for the sport than a boost.

You make it sound like Bekele in his prime couldn't run a marathon! In a race like this, suddenly Bekele IS a marathoner. This is a race that would take a minimum of 2 hours to finish and much likely closer to 3 or more if we are talking about putting all of the great ones out there in their prime. Talk about a race of attrition. The surges in a race like this would be ridiculous, but a 400 meter track is just too far to take a lap from the entire field. Getting a 200 meter lead to qualify as the win would be much more exciting.

Also I'd like to add that I'm totally with the opinion of the back of the pack in that experiment that it wasn't working.

Think of it this way, in every big international race over 1500-10000 meters there's probably 1 or 2 (maybe 3) guys/gals who's only gonna be allowed to run at that level just that once in his/her carreer. As unnoticed as they go by us the audience in the aftermath, it might still be the most memorable moment of their running carreer. Years later they are gonna retell it to their grandchildren, "I remember that time when I raced in the DL against Mo Farah...".

Fair enough. Part of the appeal of the sport methinks. But now imagine further how much it lessens the incentive for that runner to even show up for the race if that same sentence risks continuing "...and was disqualifed after the first lap for already being too slow..."

This sounds pretty similar in concept to the Red Bull race around the world. They have runners in various locations all start at the same time and then have a car chase the runners 30 minutes later. Once the car catches a runner they are out, last person going wins. The first year they did it Michael Wardian was the overall winner.

Danny Komen. Race over at 2500m

` wrote:

My favorite part of this thread is how half the responders think the OP meant five thousand runners on a track and the other half think he meant the best runners at distances 5000m and up.

LOL> I like the idea of 5000 plus runners on a track. Now THAT would be interesting. I wonder what the record # of competitors is in a track track race. (Not counting the local fundraiser track jog-a-thon or something obscure like it). Ive seen close to twenty 1500 meter runners at a start, like 18. 10kms probably have had 40+ before...Probably best on another thread....

Toshihiko Seko wins, Rupp a close second

aaagghghjkkf wrote:

Difference is that you have to cover the moves. Someone wants to run a 26:50, you need to be running a 28 min 10k. Someone runs a 59 min half, and you need to go through in an hour or so.

Right. Assuming the 10k specialists go out full throttle, even a minute slower is suicidal for at least most top marathoners.

Even at their steady 14:30ish pace, the top marathoners usually wipe out and gap each other by the end. With a few GOAT 10k'ers working together to start in 26:30, that leaves the 'thoners going 27:33 or going home. Even if they outlast the surge, they're not going to continue at 14:30 pace afterwards. Not to marathon distance at least. The game would be up well before then.

The question is, who dies first - 10k Bekele and Tergat starting a few seconds slower than their 10,000m PR's, or marathoners (including marathon-focused former track athletes) starting a few seconds slower than their current 10,000m fitness? Marathon Kipchoge can't run 10k like track Kipchoge did. If track Bekele gets close - say he gaps the top 'thoner by 50 seconds, 26:30 to 27:20 - then he's only 83 meters behind his last opponent at that point. With his target in sight, I say he could hang on that extra 1 or 2 kilometers to cover the remaining distance. All he needs is a couple seconds per lap, and then a devastating kick once he's within 40 meters or so.

He might fail, or be scared out of closing the gap by another 10k guy, but he'd have a chance. If he failed it would still be over fairly quickly, as the half and mary guys would sort things out among themselves well before 40k.

I want to see a race like this actually happen. Of course nobody will ever assemble WL's let alone GOAT's into a field for it, but some fast people could try it and see how it plays out. And settle the subtopic: can a fast 10,000 runner lap an equivalently fast marathoner in an all-out contest?

Also teams or groups with a 200m track could test this, maybe as a kind of workout, see what happens and report back.

madmandoc wrote: Do you honestly think that tedese can run a 5k so fast (after many miles of alternating surges even) that he can beat top marathoners by more than 400m?

On second thought no I don't.

madmandoc wrote:Why would the marathoners even go with the surges? Why not just pick a steady pace and close the gap a bit whenever the surger slows? They can always pick it up if anyone closes to within 150 meters.

This is the correct tactic, but not employed by the marathoners. More like Bekele or Komen. Either reel the surger in over a couple laps then drive or be the surger yourself. Get a 100 or 150m lead then start dropping 60 second laps until you lap the field or die.

With 5000 runners on the track, skinny distance runners wouldn't stand a chance against muscular sprinters who simply would plow them aside. Kebede could maybe run between their legs though.

I got Meb winning this, with Ryan Hall getting the assist for keeping the pack slow.

The pressure is on the marathoners to avoid getting lapped by both the 5k and 10k runners. Think of WC lap times as 60 sec 5k, 64 sec 10k and 70 sec M. The 5kers will run a little easier, about 62s to extend over 12 1/2 laps. That means the M have to run under 67's to avoid getting lapped in 12 1/2 and faster depending on how long the 5kers can hold pace, so say 66s. How long can the Ms hold 66s? The 10kers won't get lapped by the 5kers but they can run 64s through 20+ laps at race pace. After 10 laps they close off 20 seconds of gap. Now the 10kers have more than 10 laps to close 44 seconds. With Ms already doing 10 laps at 66, they cannot drift more than 4 seconds of 10k pace, 70s and that's marginal to 20 laps. The 10kers could cover 5 more laps at that pace so maybe the Ms would need 69 sec laps after already running 10+ at 65s.

My money's on the 10kers.

interplay wrote:

My money's on the 10kers.

I definitely think the race winner would depend on how the 10K runners would run this race. If you had a handful of high-26 guys in the race, and they decided to go out at all-out 10K pace to try to break the longer guys, then this race will be over between 15K and 25K, depending on how bad everyone ties up. But if the 10K guys ran it like one of these championship races in the mid to high 27s, then they won't hurt the half and full guys enough, and the winner will be a strong half or fast full guy, probably wrapping up before 40K.

I don't think there's any way it lasts a full marathon, simply because you have to assume a couple guys are going to run the first 5K and 10K fast enough to damage everyone's endurance capability. And I predict the winner is simply the last person not to walk off the track -- the final group of losers will all have completely tied up and bonked.

The problem is to some extent is that there is no real incentive to run fast as you just can't get 60+ seconds on similiar calibar runners. Running a 26:30 is suicide if there is a 26:30 guy that goes out in 27:30. And the 27:30 guy is in trouble if the guy that goes out in 28:30 isn't eliminated.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Last man standing wins. Who is it?

Ummm...ever heard of Jordan Hasay?

Mike Rossi. No question.

Forget about staying within a lap of him. All these other folks would have a hard time even keeping him in sight.