I know T&F and roads rely 100% on entry fees to stay afloat. Only 20 male elites and 20 female elites should run the main race in race day. No juniors, masters, hobbyjoggers may race on the same day as the elites.
I know T&F and roads rely 100% on entry fees to stay afloat. Only 20 male elites and 20 female elites should run the main race in race day. No juniors, masters, hobbyjoggers may race on the same day as the elites.
Get rid of Chicago and add Beijing or Shanghai. Three spring majors, one in Asia, one in Europe, one in North America. Three fall majors, one in Asia, one in Europe, one in North America. Summer has the Olympics and World Champs. That makes for a well-balanced series. Consider summer or winter additions in other regions, like Gold Coast in Australia.
Dubai has 2000 finishers. It's not even close to being worthy of being added.
I'd like them to shake it up a little and allow only 1, maybe 2 of the Majors to be paced (and cycle this around, so it's not always Berlin) to give one good "WR" shot per year, with the rest "true" races.
rojo wrote:
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.
Hey Rojo, the international feed that I watched flicked between the men's and women's race, just as Bekele was falling behind they switched to the female race, which is fair considering she was just about to break 'a' world record but then when they finally went back to the men's race the commentators didn't have a clue what was happening. The camera showed Bekele, and they commented that he was well behind but I instantly noticed that he was looking good and was on the charge. It took the commentators at least 30s to realize this. The guy that was 2nd in Rio (the ex-Ethiopian), I never saw what to him nor why did 3rd cramp so badly etc. The funny thing is, top marathons are the only none Olympic part of the sport that is commercially viable.
El Keniano wrote:
Nothing for South America?
They have really massive snakes, really fast cats and really lousy governments there.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
El Keniano wrote:Nothing for South America?
They have really massive snakes, really fast cats and really lousy governments there.
Tennis has the best organized majors, they have 4 annually and they don't change. London, Berlin (because it is fastest), New York for viewers which leaves one left, the Gold Coast is perfectly timed or a mid-year marathon in Australia but in reality Tokyo would be more logical. The problem is the gap between races which limits star participation. Because elites can only run a few marathons each year a tour with heaps of races makes little sense as layman viewers won't be able to grasp the points standings/leader boards when there is always alot of absentees.
Dubai is a flat boring as hell run but is fast. Seriously - it was not fun.
Demoting Chicago would be a bit of a blow - Carey Pinkowski runs it like a finely tuned race car and it's a great run. So taking away Chicago would be downright cruel.
So let's look at the IAAF Gold Marathons in Asia:
Xianmen - January
Lake Biwa - March
Nagoya Women's Marathon - March
Seoul - March
Beijing - September
Shanghai - November
Fukuoka - December
Singapore - December
Any of these would be candidates for elevation to Abbott WMM status. Singapore is hot as balls and would probably kill a few runners a year. Seoul is hilly and could be fun. Beijing might be nice because odds are they'd make it "Beijing Blue" just like the Olympics (the day after the race, the factories come back online.) Nagoya Women's might be fun if they throw some good race money at it.
Well...
"Tim Hadzima, AbbottWMM General Manager: “Nearly a million people apply every year to run in AbbottWMM races and our new partnership with Wanda Group will develop this phenomenal interest in marathon running.â€
NO WE DON'T!!! We have absolutely no "phenomenal interest' to apply endlessly to 3 more marathons. We have phenomenal interest in running, thats what we like to do... to keep applying to lottery, hoping not all entries will be given away to charity, we actually hate that.
I had no idea the guy behind the Wanda group is the richest man in China.
Karl Hungus wrote:
Dubai is a flat boring as hell run but is fast. Seriously - it was not fun.
Demoting Chicago would be a bit of a blow - Carey Pinkowski runs it like a finely tuned race car and it's a great run. So taking away Chicago would be downright cruel.
So let's look at the IAAF Gold Marathons in Asia:
Xianmen - January
Lake Biwa - March
Nagoya Women's Marathon - March
Seoul - March
Beijing - September
Shanghai - November
Fukuoka - December
Singapore - December
Any of these would be candidates for elevation to Abbott WMM status. Singapore is hot as balls and would probably kill a few runners a year.
I love to watch elite runners managing the heat, but it probably scares off many people.
timthegrim wrote:
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.
I was thinking tennis & golf myself. Good analogy - well done.
rojo wrote:
I had no idea the guy behind the Wanda group is the richest man in China.
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/chinas-richest-man-deepens-sports-foray-global-marathons-105640885--finance.html
We'll add that to the list of things you had no idea about. But it doesn't shrink the list of things you still have no idea about by much.
I don't care if the WMM is a success as a business. It is not a success as competition. The criteria for victory is understood by almost none of the competitors.
My view; create a league that includes points for one or (optionally) two marathons a year, plus one mandatory track 10k, one road 10k, and one half-marathon, plus the world cross country championships (returned to 12k and being held every year). Winner on points crowned as best multi-surface distance runner.
Agreed.
Distance runner, not just marathoner. I'd suggest one marathon a year, one track 10K or steeple, one road 10K, one road race of between 10K and 30K, and a recognized cross country race, not necessarily worlds. To quality for this title, two of the competitions would need to be from a selected list of races. Otherwise, no matter.
I couldn't care less about the who wins the Majors series as the format makes no sense in marathoning. On the other hand, I care a lot about the individual races. To me, non-Majors are just as important and interesting as the Majors.
Just add Dubai. It is basically a major-caliber race already. If they want to add something new though, I think that it would be good to get rid of one or two (Chicago should be the first to go in my opinion, this has turned into a hobby jogger race in the last few years and doesn't have any well known exciting history). There could be some that cycle year to year though as one poster has already said.
My criteria would be:
-Record eligible (Boston is historic and a great race but it sucks to see someone run fast and have it not count)
-Large prize purse to attract elites
-Fast course (nobody wants to see a major race won in 2:10)
-A city that has consistently put on a well managed race and can handle large capacities of people on the roads and in hotels
It should also be a city that can attract people to come from farther away - ex. if a dull city started hosting a Major, elites might come for high prize money but semi-elites and the masses would not travel far to run a race in a boring city/course.
I would say look into adding cities like Dubai, Shanghai/Beijing, Cape Town, Somewhere like Buenos Aires/Brasilia/Rio, Madrid
Some of these don't necessarily fit all the criteria I listed but they don't seem inherently unable to host a Major under these criteria.
I say add the Comrades Marathon, double the distance double the points. Held in June every year so slots into the calender nicely. Already has 21,000 runners every year with a growing reputation, also one of the greatest races on the planet...
A lot can be done to change and improve and I wonder if they would have the balls to do it.
I would get rid of Chicago.
I'd add Dubai, a race in Asia, and a race in South America. What is the reason for nobody even considering South America?
Buenos Aires, Bogotá, Santiago & Rio have all decent races, each could be improved on a different way but they all have potential to be great.
Make the circuit with 8 Majors. I'd agree that more than 8 is too much.
2 Races in Asia - Tokyo + another race
1 Race in Asia / Middle East - Dubai
2 Races in Europe - Berlin + London
2 Races in North America - Boston + New York
1 Race in South America - options above
then what each of those races has to offer that is different from the others?
Dubai - season opener. Runners going for the highest prize money of the circuit
Tokyo - ?
Boston - historical reasons
London - fast race, top of the top field, WR attempt
2nd Race in Asia - ?
South America Race - ?
Berlin - fast race, top of the top field, WR attempt
New York - largest race of the circuit, it is New York - great season closure.
races in Asia / South America would need to focus on different kind of challenges.
I'd go for one marathon under the heat /humid conditions, another with a real challenging course, where nobody cares about the time but really finishing first - a race where a 2h12-15 winning time would be impressive.
some sort of relay competition could also be interesting - maybe in Tokyo?
London and Berlin would be the fast races, we do not need more than 2 WR attempts per year.
And it seems like the Wanda Group investment is slowly starting to pay off... Now, I'm just waiting for news later this year that Abbott WMM decided to speed track the Chengdu candidate process to be included by 2020... Just like it was the original plan... I hope Abbott won't spend all the investment on paying the PR machine to deal with the mess... LOL
https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a27465424/chengdu-marathon-world-marathon-major/
BTW, only an idiot would want to run in this: