Lake Biwa, Dubai prove the Olympic marathon is pointless

George213 wrote:

steve. the. addict... wrote:

No one cares or remembers who won lake biwa or Dubai marathon. Olympic Champs are remembered forever as legends.

Who won the marathon at the 2012 Olympic?

Ok, I know it's Kipsang, but my point is that no one cares about who wins the Olympic marathon either aside from some hardcore runners here, or the winner is as high-profile as Kipchoge,

Kipsang didn't win in 2012.... the most memorable marathons have been the Olympic games win, 1984 Los Angeles, 3 Europeans vying for gold in brutal conditions, Barcelona 92 with the asian dominance, An Italian wimner, a South African winner, Paula Radcliffe imploding, Wanjiru dominating in Beijing. It's running in it's purest form, no pacemakers, the only downside to this years is it not being held in Tokyo, that's farcical.

This is an argument that could apply to every other Olympic sport. Why let everyone field a basketball team? Why not just let the US have 10 squads? Because the Olympics are about countries putting together their best team, as defined by the rules, and seeing where things stack up. It's fun to root for the upset. It's fun to see good performances by people from small countries.

I get that Kenya has a much bigger percent of runners in the top-100 than 3 out of 100. But they still send their top-3 who are all medal threats. Anyways, the Olympics is making it harder for countries to send athletes but aren't filling those slots. No need to do that on the road. Let a country send 3 2:18 guys and 3 2:40 women if that's what they can send.

Yup you nailed it. The Olympics are really about optics and participation, not truly awarding the best in the world

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

HRE wrote:

[quote]jeff tallon wrote:

In truth, I don't believe there's much interest in a marathon with the world's fastest 100 or so marathoners racing each other.

Then what's the point in any competition, anywhere, ever, in any sport?

The point is to see who wins and often to make money and for most fans, to see how athletes or teams from their own country will do. And it's places, not times that interest most people who will not appreciate times but can appreciate placings. Most Americans by far were happy that Centrowitz got gold in Rio and couldn't give a crap how slow the time was. They'd have been far less happy if he'd come fourth in a spectacular race where the first five all broke the old world record.

Quoting the purpose of the Olympics "The Olympic Games are an international sports festival, held every four years. The ultimate goals are to cultivate human beings, through sport, and contribute to world peace" To do this each country sends their best athletes to compete against one another. If the Olympics was simply to find out who was the best in the world at a certain event then yes your argument would be valid but this is not the primary reason for having the games.

Nope the Olympics are about international competition.

It's not a sport-specific world championship. Each sport has their own world championship for that.

Also, if you think unlimited entries means the "best" field, think again. There is no prize money at the Olympics, so all those African marathoners who runs for money will skip the Olympics and run a fall marathon instead.

Les wrote:

Also, if you think unlimited entries means the "best" field, think again. There is no prize money at the Olympics, so all those African marathoners who runs for money will skip the Olympics and run a fall marathon instead.

Yeah, that's an excellent point.

I like it, but how fast is the 211th American?

I've always thought time based is more fair. Just take the top x number of runners from the descending order list to make up the field. Sure, the US won't have any marathoners but they'll have over half the field in the 100-400. It seems unfair to me that 2:04 marathoners from Ethiopia miss out while 2:12 guys from other nations who end up running 2:25 on the day make it. Sure, some of the 2:04 guys will pass because there's more money elsewhere. That's ok, take whoever is next.

I propose fastest performer qualify automatically then pick top two from trials race

Ackley wrote:

I agree to some extent that if more East Africans were allowed in a global championship, someone from "the field" (i.e., not the people selected by the Olympic Committees) would podium and possible win. However, the IOC has a long term objective of shrinking track and field athlete numbers so the Olympics are probably not the best venue for a "best in the World" race.

Also, I think big money needs to be involved so athletes make it a priority to run in the race. Maybe the World Marathon Majors can rotate a "single race" Global Championships among its members or the World Champs can reincorporate the World Cup (as it was until about ten years ago) and have teams of 7 per country and financial incentives to be on the team.

It’s not that they’re trying to “shrink track” lol. It’s because they want more than one or two countries only being involved and winning. Good lord our sprinting in some years would out 7 out of 8 people in the finals lol. Come on.

It’s why the canceled softball because the US was winning it all the time and there was only one other good team.

The reason the marathon, like any extremely niche sport, isn’t great in the US is because the best athletes aren’t doing them. We could be the best at every single sport or game in the world if we picked our best athletes and raised them in only that one thing. Truth is marathon runners were the kids that were never athletic to begin with in this country anyways. As is dam near all distance runners period from the start.

steve. the. addict... wrote:

If Japan had a distance running league it would be the equivalent of the NBA G league. Lot of good athletes but nothing great or on a world class level except for an anomaly or two.

It would be the equivalent of NBA or American Football top leagues tbf.

World class doesn't really exist if no-one else in the world takes it seriously.

fhfchhhg wrote:

How much does an Olympic medal mean when the best athletes aren't there.

The public love the Olympics, but pros know the World Championships are more meaningful. Olympics have more luck involved. The purpose is like a big pageant or fair. Remember, they always say what matters most is to take part, not to win.

And the marathon is like tennis, with London being like Wimbleton.

This may be somewhat fine for track events, especially shorter ones. However, for longer events, this type of approach does not take into factor, the effect of racing conditions and the few times per year people do these events. In the end, it will be the other smaller countries that get hurt the most, not the US or other Rich countries. Those little countries do have a say with their votes. And they will never go for that system, even in the shorter events.

George213 wrote:

steve. the. addict... wrote:

No one cares or remembers who won lake biwa or Dubai marathon. Olympic Champs are remembered forever as legends.

Who won the marathon at the 2012 Olympic?

Ok, I know it's Kipsang, but my point is that no one cares about who wins the Olympic marathon either aside from some hardcore runners here, or the winner is as high-profile as Kipchoge,

You sure as heck don’t speak for me. I’m sure you agree with yourself though.