World Marathon Majors looking to expand - How many is too many? What criteria should they use?

They should not expand. They should shrink. They must be expanding because they get paid good money to let a marathon use the branding. Otherwise, they have every reason to shrink. We already don't have the main competitors showing up to the same races for head-to-head action, which leads us to this arbitrary scoring system. It would be better if we had 2 or 3 WMM races per year precisely so that they did have to face each other rather than these added opportunities to be in different races.

They've been planning to add a Chinese race, either Beijing or Shanghai, for over two years. They'd be stupid not to. Look at where the money is going over the next two decades.

On the competitive side, more races means a dilution of the elite field and race cherry picking. I think the format should be changed into a tru championship instead of a Diamond league-esque point competition. Make the races qualifiers. Top five finishers advance with additional runners advancing on time (sub 2:07 or whatever). The championship is held every two years opposite the Olympics rotating from each major marathon. The championship is where the big cash should be. $1 mil for 1st. That would be amazing to see. All the top runners going after huge money.

As far as developing the sport, it will be good to raise the profile of races in China and Africa. China is a huge running market with a number of big races that could benefit from the WMM brand.

I'll chime in.When I start evaluating these marathons, I always start from the same premise- how hard is it too win the elite field. So I think the number of majors depends should depend in part on how many great marathoners there are in the world. I'm always fearful that one year Boston will be so watered down (as London is so so good) that an American will win by default. Thankfully, that's never been close to the case.

But I just looked it up. It looks like there are roughly 50 sub 2:08 marathoners most year. I'd say you want at least 8-10 of them at each race. If they can run two races per years, that's 100 racing opportunities. So you can easily get 8 of them in 10 majors in a year.

The problem is there aren't that many big-time real studs. Looking at sub 2:06 performances, in the last three years, that's been done by 15, 11 and 14 people in a given year. If they race twice per year, that's a maximum of 30 racing opportunities. I'd want at least 4 of these guy in each field and that can't be achieved if there are even 8 races. Now some guys do it in one year but not another.

Maye in the next week, I'll try to figure out how many different humans have run sub 2:06 in the last 3 years. You need 4-5 of these guys in each race at a minimum.

Now, if they over expand, I can think of a way to save it. They could have each major only have one elite race. Boston has men, London has women, etc.

I'd almost prefer that to the way they do it now as right now they have the elite men and women finishing almost on top of each other. With almost 100% degree certainty, I can guarantee you when I watch an World Marathon Majors broadcast that I will miss "the break" in either the elite men's or women's race. That's because normally the elite women are finishing when the men's break is being made (to be honest they often miss both breaks which is embarrassing). They way they put on these races, they make it impossible to watch as a marathon is all about one thing - the anticipation of the break.

Since there is a high likelihood that marathon staffers will see this thread, I'm going to urge them to do the following.

Start the lite men and women farther apart. If you are worried about time, start the elite men first as they finish faster. Your goal should be to have the 1st elite race finish when the other race is just past the half-way mark. Definitely before 30k.

If you are worried about the cost of putting it on tv, put the first half of one race on line only. Come one when they are nearing halfway. There is still plenty of time to catch up.

So if you want the elite men to finish when the elite women are at 16 miles, the elite men need to start about 40 minutes before the elite women.

If the elite men start at race at 9:00, they'll finish at 11:05.

If the elite women start at 9:40 am,they'd hit 16 mile at 11:05 if they are running 2:20 pace (and finish at 12 noon).

If you want to start the elite women first, then you need more of a gap.

If the elite women start the race at 9:00, they'll finish at 11:20.

If the elite men start the race at 10:04, they'd hit 16 miles at 11:20 and finish at 12:09.

I'd really prefer if it they aimed for halfway. So adjust accordingly.

Can't have the elite women start after the elite men because they would be caught up with the masses. Women out front get their attention and their women-only race.

Also, marathon staffers, please do what I've been urging for all of 2017. After your event is over, go back and watch the entire television production of your event from start to finish - with commercials - and see if you had a great experience.

Two additional, Buffalo and Pittsburgh

Look how many "world champions" there are in each boxing weight class. As long as somebody can make a buck, they will try, no matter how much it dilutes the "sport".

If they added Dubai, it'd be interesting to see if someone took a shot at running three majors in one cycle...

Why not just rotate some races? Chicago is a major this year, but next year Tokyo gets it's spot

All the winners of these races are doped up Africans, we should make a "American Majors" series that is American athletes only where our elites face off. Screw the random doped up Kenyans. #MakeAmericanMArathoningGreatAgain

There are already too many, actually. Golf and Tennis only have four majors a year and in those sports all the top athletes actually compete in every major (barring injury). Imagine if golf had 8 majors and Tiger (back when he was relevant) only played in 2 of them. And maybe Rory played 2 of the others and the two never even competed head-to-head. if that happened, people would care much less about golf "majors" and the sport in general. That is what is happening in the marathoning and road racing in general. Too many races, everything is diluted. It all matters less.

Nothing for South America?

Raysism wrote:

If they added Dubai, it'd be interesting to see if someone took a shot at running three majors in one cycle...

Several already have

London

Olympics

New York

Gete Wami famously doubled back from Berlin to place in New York to win the title. But now they've changed the rules so that only two marathons per year count.

This could be a question for you to ask at press conferences!

Make it sting.

"What did you do to prevent last year's snafu in TV production?"

Elites could well hear that question, and how an orgaizer responds.

That is a great idea. The biggest plus is you get the Kenyan and Ethiopian Athletics Associations out of the mix, and no limit on athletes from a given country would be in the world major marathon race. A problem would be how do you keep non-qualifiers out if you have a mass participation race the same time.

I like the rotating idea. London would be WMM for men's on year and women's the next, same for 7 other marathons. Each race would count once for each gender in a two year period.

Not a great idea imo. How many men and women are realistically in the mix to win each time? Only a few and they can only race so many times a year. Add a bunch of races and it will just water down the top end guys in each.

Cape Town Marathon

Kaapenaar wrote:

Cape Town Marathon

No. Nairobi Marathon where some sub-elites can overhaul the big name guests.