Should World Marathon Majors change their membership? Are these 5 really the best?

The Majors are more than a couple dozen elite runners. They are each huge participant marathons in major markets and I think Rotterdam and Fukuoka are too small, much like Dubai.

Paris would be a good and so would Tokyo.

Here are the words from the wmm web site:

"Each of the five races that make up the World Marathon Majors boasts an international elite field for both men and women, has a mass participatory field completing the same course as the elites, takes place in a major international market, has a history of 25 years or more and is regarded among the very best in the industry. Collectively, the group annually attracts more than 5 million on-course spectators, more than 250 million television viewers, 300,000 applicants and 150,000 participants. It also raises more than $80 million for charity world wide and generates an economic impact of more than $400 million."

Thanks. Good info. The thing about Boston is that its participation is time limited, and is much smaller than the other four. Plus, really look at the way they're setting up their elite fields these past few years. Not much depth there, and it APPEARS (I'm just saying it appears) that they're trying to set it up to get an American win. If they're really a major marathon force, shouldn't they be trying to get the best and more of the best? If they want to run their marathon that way, then by all means, go ahead, but does that necessarily qualify them as one of the 5 that should be a Major? Just thinking out loud...er..in type.

How does it appear they are setting it up for an American to win? Is the race offering more money to top American finishers? Is the race preventing international competitors from entering?

Setting up for an American to win?

How's that worked out so far?

I knew I was going to get nailed on that. Just read around the board a bit. Or mabye I'm biased by reading the boards too much.

IMO, Boston's elite field is not pulling in the best any longer, bu they are going out of their way to pull the best Americans and hype them up. I know...american race, and they want the american audience. It's their race to do with whatever they want. It's not necessarily a slam on BAA or the Boston Marathon, it just appears that it is not one of the 5 best marathon elite fields any more - either in depth or at the top.

Let's just consider who was supposed to be running Boston this year ... pre-injuries:

Cheruiyot, the 4 time winner and course record holder.

Then the following Americans who have run sub 2:07:

Ben Maiyo, Deriba Merga, Abderrahim Goumri, Gilbert Yegon, Robert K. Cheruiyot, Evans Cheruiyot, Chala Dechase, Elijah Keitany, David Mandago.

Top Americans are Ryan Hall with a 2:06:17 PR in London, 2008, and Meb, whose PR was in NYC in 2009 with a 2:09:15.

Hall has bib #3 and Meb has bib #18. Obviously the field was watered down for an American to win ... you moron.

You have to be kidding me if you think the field is "set up" for an American to win or that the field is in any way watered down. Your beef about not having a stable of sub 2:05 guys or 20 world famous runners should be that the BAA doesn't have millions of dollars that other races have nor is the course pancake flat to attract those who are attempting a World Record.

What the BAA offers is an historic race that is among the toughest in the world. It puts together a competitive elite field that will turn this into an anyone's game footrace that requires both talent and smart racing tactics to win.

Other than Rotterdam, Boston probably has a deeper field than any of the other non Majors.

Slight typo - due to my own ignorance. The list was of "NON" Americans who have run sub 207

Rotterdam seems like it is deserving of being a marathon major because Rotterdam gets all the younger marathoners who are super fast and looking to break through to the marathon majors. The marathon majors are too concerned with lining up as many past winners of majors and olympics as they can. The result is that the marathon majors end up with too many runners that have peaked and are on the way down and not enough of the new talent that is on the cusp of a major breakthrough.

Cheruiyot, the 4 time winner and course record holder.

Cheruiyot is done. Still a great name but he won't win again.

What makes you say that?

I would like to see more races involved. But, the points system would have to be changed. Maybe to incorporate time (although I think racing should come before time).

Maybe something about depth of field influencing how many poins are awarded.

I don't have the solution, but Paris could/should be in there.

The trouble with Rotterdam, Paris, Dubai etc is that the women's field is very weak.

I think top five marathons with both genders considered is probably:

(1) London

(2) NYC

(3) Chicago

(4) Berlin

(5) Boston

although of course it varies from year to year.

d2 run wrote:

Here are the words from the wmm web site:

" takes place in a major international market"

Well, Boston is a major New England market. I guess that's close enough.

Which ones have the biggest budgets? That will make the difference in the end.

So what about concerns that Rotterdam is giving aid to runners on the course?

It used to be that in the Tour de France, outside help was not allowed.

But as time went on, and the race was more competitive, and the courses were harder, the organizers didn't want something like a flat tire to determine the winner.

So I would wager that as times continue to dip, and you have multiple guys at 2:04 or 2:05, or even faster, that race organizers will have to allow mobile feed stations.

But who makes the records the record keepers could throw the aided times out.