Why is the Half Marathon distance not in the Olympics?

Just sayin wrote:

So, why has the distance not been added on to the Olympics? if all the other Major distances are Olympic distances, then why not the Half?

Maybe because you would not be creating a new pool of competitors but rather diluting the existing ones for the 10,000 and full. It's not like there are overflowing fields in the 10,000 as it is.

The half is just what it says: half of a marathon.

It's not an event worthy of the Olympics.

It's still a competitive and important distance, why does it matter if it's a half or a Marathon? It still is worthy to be an Olympvi Distance.

Sure, its avery competitive distance, but most people in it are 10,000m runners and a few marathoners. There are very few people who only run the half.

If you added the half to the Olympics it would only lead to having three weakly contested races instead of two reasonably competitive ones.

Just sayin wrote:

It's still a competitive and important distance, why does it matter if it's a half or a Marathon? It still is worthy to be an Olympvi Distance.

It's exactly one half as worthy as the marathon.

Does this mean the Half-mile is 1/2 worthy of the 1 mile?

If you are going to add a new running event to the Olympics then it should be one that won't poach runners from the existing events. That implies (to me) an ultra event.

Yeah. The 400 is 1/2 as worthy as the 800.

IAgreeShouldBeAdded. wrote:

Does this mean the Half-mile is 1/2 worthy of the 1 mile?

Sort of.

There are too many events already where guys can duck each other.

At least you can double in teh 800/1500.

No one will double in the half marathon and marathon or hald marathon and 10,000m.

Um, yeah wrote:

Maybe because you would not be creating a new pool of competitors but rather diluting the existing ones for the 10,000 and full. It's not like there are overflowing fields in the 10,000 as it is.

I don't think it'll necessarily dilute the fields up front (top 5 or 10). A lot of really fast East Africans don't make their national teams even though they would do so if they represented other countries. It would just allow more fast runners a chance to run in the Olympics. That being said, I don't think they should add it simply based on tradition.

Because unlike swimming, where we see all the same white people win medals for swimming this way and that way and sideways and backwards over distances that differ by a few yards, half marathon winners would very likely be black Africans. So there's much less motivation to add it. (What's up with those ridiculous biking events?! How many people practice "racing" bikes by standing still? And don't get me started on the winter Olympics.)

I do agree that "HALF" marathon is a terrible name for an event that deserves to stand on its own.

Mostly, because it's not a traditional distance. You could add all sorts of distances if you wanted - 15k, 25k, 50k, etc. - but they aren't in the Olympics already because they aren't traditional international distances.

As other people have said, there are lots of good reasons not to add something that's fairly similar to the 10,000 and/or the marathon.

I think you could make a better case for an 8k or 10k cross country race, because that would be significantly different from any current running event.

IAgreeShouldBeAdded. wrote:

Does this mean the Half-mile is 1/2 worthy of the 1 mile?

No, because the mile is not any Olympic event. In fact, neither is the half-mile. We have the 800 and 1500, none of which have the name half in it.

The half marathon is called a half marathon because it is half of a marathon. It is exactly half of one marathon, thus, it is half as worthy of being an olympic event. I thought you would be smart enough to figure this out.

I agree, it should be added. It's a better test of sustained threshold running than the 10000m, which has become a test of who can sprint the final 400m after (usually) tactically running almost 6 miles. Lots of people run the half, so many spectators could relate. Relatively few run 10000m on the track. It is really not the same test that the marathon is, and could be run the same day or within one day of the marathon to prevent doubling.

PhysMech wrote:

I agree, it should be added. It's a better test of sustained threshold running than the 10000m, which has become a test of who can sprint the final 400m after (usually) tactically running almost 6 miles. Lots of people run the half, so many spectators could relate. Relatively few run 10000m on the track. It is really not the same test that the marathon is, and could be run the same day or within one day of the marathon to prevent doubling.

So we watch an hour of running, then the next day watch two hours of running? I would love it, but 99% of the world would be bored as hell.

No Way wrote:

Sure, its avery competitive distance, but most people in it are 10,000m runners and a few marathoners. There are very few people who only run the half.

If you added the half to the Olympics it would only lead to having three weakly contested races instead of two reasonably competitive ones.

Actually quite the opposite. How many east africans are sitting on the sideline because of only 3 runners per country in 10k and marathon. Lets face it the final in the 10k is weak because its the olympics. The half would give lots of more deserving talent to compete.

Personally, I feel we have too many running events at the Olympics already. Looking at how many athletes could double (at least in theory, practically this is often restricted thru so many heats) the 100/200, 200/400, 1500/5000, 5000/10000, this is what I'd leave for the Olympics:

100m

400m

800m

5000m

Marathon

What else would I eliminate? Both Walking events, disc, hammer, shot put (leave only Javelin). Reason for disc/hammer/shot put: not athletic enough, favors the fatties (large body mass).

I'd also eliminate triple jump and pole vault.

The Olympics T&F would be over in one weekend. But I'd be one helluva weekend.

What about the 12K and 15K and 10 mile road races. Should they all be there as well?

Exactly my point. If there are so many events in running that athletes can double in/run, than why not add a Half in? Should this distance just be undermined because of its name? It's the only distance that has a major championship race and is often run that isn't an Olympic distance. So why should it be left out? Is there any clear reason besides of tradition and because of its name?