4 road records to disappear

[gh]

no, not be broken; the IAAF has removed them from its list of acceptable events:

15K, 20K, 25K & 30K

[NotDutra5]

no, not be broken; the IAAF has removed them from its list of acceptable events:

15K, 20K, 25K & 30K

Have the parameds been dispatched to aaronk's home?

[Powell]

Good decision. All the distances are hardly ever run, and there was no real point to them being officially recognized. The WRs were usually just splits recorded in HM/ marathon anyway.

[Atticus]

no, not be broken; the IAAF has removed them from its list of acceptable events:
15K, 20K, 25K & 30K

With the rise of the HMar as a legit race, these other distances are obsolete. I am mildly surprised that 15K is gone. There are several big ones every year, incl. our own River Run, the USATF Championship for the distance.

[Powell]

With the rise of the HMar as a legit race, these other distances are obsolete.

They're not even obsolete. With the possible exception of the 20k, they were never relevant in the first place.

[Trickstat]

Sensible decision for me as well. Seems quite strange to me that they weren't removed from the list earlier. Over the years, I seem to recall the Japanese showing some interest in the 30k but very little elsewhere. It has never been prestigious enough for many runners to bother with it whilst being too far to run very often.

[gh]

For years I argued against "non-standard" WR races because they tended to be gimmicks and the sport should be above using such fakery to create buzz.

We've now fallen far enough off the map that I think the IAAF (and USATF) should actually be increasing the number of WR events. Not to Guiness-like levels, but certainly more than there are now.

Records sell, even if they're just "records"

[MJR]

Records and championships create interest, if done properly. IAAF/USATF fails to do things properly.

[aaronk]

For years I argued against "non-standard" WR races because they tended to be gimmicks and the sport should be above using such fakery to create buzz.

We've now fallen far enough off the map that I think the IAAF (and USATF) should actually be increasing the number of WR events. Not to Guiness-like levels, but certainly more than there are now.

Records sell, even if they're just "records"

We agree....again!
(What is this world coming to??)

That last sentence (of yours) could describe my blog's (& Record Book's) raison d'etre!!
LOL

[norunner]

By that logic, we should have records for 110m, 120m, 130m...., SP with 4,5,6,7,8 kg and so on.
Only the right records sell and create interest, a 25km WR isn't worth more than a couple of lines in most newspapers.

[Juicy News]

Makes sense since they can save some money on plagues.

[Halfmiler2]

Tom Fleming must be turning over in his grave.

I agree that more is better than less in this case. Just as the occasional 300, 600, 1000, or 2,000 on the outdoor track creates interest and can create match-ups.

[Bruce Kritzler]

no, not be broken; the IAAF has removed them from its list of acceptable events: 15K, 20K, 25K & 30K

Are we talking about track races?

[gh]

"standard" terminology is to refer to track races in meters (10,000m, 15,000m, etc., etc.) and road races in kilos (10K, 15K, etc., etc.)

[xw]

I have no problem with odd distances, what's been bothering me is that those 'records' are usually recorded en route, which means they do not actually record the real limit of the record setters' ability!