The Ultimate Championship: a success

In several posts I voiced my reservations about the Ultimate Championship. As it turned out, those reservations were not justified. The championship was a real success. That said, several of my criticisms still stand. I still do not understand what dictated the choice of events. Why eliminate the men’s triple jump? Would it really have been so taxing for the programme to include the shot put?

But let us start at the beginning. The Ultimate Championship was advertised as an event that would bring the best athletes into the limelight. And to a certain extent, that is exactly what happened. The red carpet and the media day allowed fans to see their champions in a different light. Just look at the eminently photogenic E. Karalis posing in a burgundy (the trending colour of the year) coat. (Of course we also had to endure the ever present N. Lyles who, thanks to Lord Sebastian, monopolises the images even when he is not competing). Hoever, since there was no formal presentation of the participants, several of them remained simply invisible. As for the non-competing athletes, it is clear that the late date of the championship meant that the lists on the “road to Budapest” page kept changing due to injuries accumulated over the long season. But I understand that the logic of the “ultimate” makes it imperative that the event be held at the end of the season.

From a technical point of view I have several remarks. First, I do not see the logic of the relays. Since the competition is open to the best athletes, regardless of nationality (6 Ethiopian women in the 5000 m), why include events involving national teams? Although I love mixed relays, I would have preferred an Ultimate Championship without them. The four attempts in the horizontal jumps and the throws did not turn out to be the game-stopper I feared, but they still represent a major change of habits. I saw this with Tentoglou, who took his first three jumps with a huge margin just to play it safe. And when conditions are unhelpful, as with the slippery throwing circle in the hammer throw, the consequences can be disastrous. E. Hummel fell in his second attempt but, in his case, without consequences, whereas for Katzberg, who had produced a first 80+ throw just outside the authorised sector, his loss of equilibrium in the second attempt meant elimination. Staging both the semi-finals and the final of the 200 m on the same day (less than two hours apart) showed that this is not detrimental to performance. This could encourage adaptations to the programme of future championships. We did not have the chance to see a tie-break in the vertical jumps. To tell the truth, I strongly oppose the obsession with a single winner (which leads to the aberrant millisecond chase in sprint events). But to finish on a positive note, I must say that the three wild cards awarded were an undisputed success. All three, Tamberi, Ingebrigtsen and Kerr, went on to win their event. Much as I like to criticise Sir Sebastian, I must admit that in this case he nailed it.

M. Jefferson‑Wooden was the queen of the sprints. She beat J. Alfred and S. Richardson in the 100 m, 10.62 to 10.74 and 10.76. (P. Van der Vaeken was the first European in the event, beating A. Hunt). Jefferson went on to win the 200 m ahead of G. Thomas, 21.47 (third all‑time performance) to 21.77. S. Miller‑Uibo, coming back to high‑level competition after a series of injuries, was disqualified for a lane violation in the semis. (You have to look very carefully to see it). 

K. Bednarek imitated Jefferson, winning both the 100 m, beating O. Seville 9.85 to 9.90, and the 200 m, beating L. Tebogo with 19.52 (seventh all‑time performance) to 19.76. M. Paulino won the women’s 400 m easily in 49.07 ahead of H. Jaeger in 49.28 (both would run in the 48s one week later). The race saw the elimination in the semis of N. Bukowiecka and L. Manuel, while S. Eid Nasser, who qualified for the final, finished last. B. Kebinatsipi was manifestly unhappy with his time in the 400 m final, despite a national record of 43.39. R. Benjamin won his first “silver” (though there were no medals at this championship, only a trophy for the winner) before presenting himself an hour and a half later for the hurdles semis.

In the women’s 800 m, it was as if K. Hodgkinson was resigned to not fight A. Werro but to guarantee second place (which she did). Werro, Hodgkinson and Bol finished in that order in 1:55.88, 1:56.26 and 1:56.74 respectively. The men’s race was much more interesting. Entering the final stretch, M. Arop was leading and it was clear that E. Wanyonyi was running out of steam. But the final word belonged to D. Sedjati, who with a devastating sprint passed everybody, winning in 1:41.91. K. Kazimierska is having her best season. After a silver at the Europeans and winning the Diamond League final, she became the absolute champion of the 1500 m with 3:57.55 (and backed it up with a victory in the mile one week later). J. Kerr was invited on a wild card (after having set a world record in the mile with 3:42.66 in July). He put that to good use, winning the men’s 1500 m in 3:29.35 ahead of 20‑year‑old C. Myers in 3:29.68. (You can be sure that I will keep an eye on Myers in the years to come). J. Ingebrigtsen was another who profited from a wild card. When he unleashed his sprint at the end of the men’s 5000 m, nobody could catch him: he won in 12:59.24. The situation was totally different in the women’s race. L. Amebaw (an athlete I have been following for some time) took control at mid‑race and built an advantage of more than 50 m. It turned out to be impossible to reel her in, and she went on to win in 14:13.20, with J. Hull second in 14:18.42.

The hurdles did not reserve any surprises for us. Well, almost. In the final of the men’s high hurdles, C. Tinch looked the winner, but he crossed the line upright and J. Tharp, dipping strongly, stole the victory, 12.94 to 12.95. 

Third finisher B. Franklin was another under‑13 hurdler, with 12.99 in the semis. M. Russell was never challenged in the women’s 100 m hurdles, winning in 12.22 ahead of T. Amusan in 12.34 and N. Visser in 12.39. In the women’s 400 m semis, it became clear that the athlete to beat was neither E. Zapletalová nor A. Cockrell but J. Jones. And, in fact, the latter went on to win the final in 52.45, with Zapletalová second in 52.68 and Cockrell third in 53.09. The great S. Muhammad was again among the best, finishing fourth in 53.11. Two weeks after his world record, A. Dos Santos ran once more under 46 seconds in the 400 m hurdles. He won in 45.98, with R. Benjamin second in 46.40 and K. Warholm in 46.78. E. Agyekum, whom I had noticed at the Europeans, was fourth in 47.10. Barring injuries, I expect him to be the next sub‑47 hurdler (he is already 10th on the all‑time list).

M. Tentoglou won his first Ultimate Champion title in the long jump. It crowned an exceptional season that dispelled any doubt that could have arisen after the injury‑ridden 2025. It was not an easy victory. Over‑cautious, he jumped with 20+ cm of margin, and when on his last attempt he let himself go free, he fouled an 8.50–8.55 m jump. And a moment of pure suspense ensued as B. Saraboyukov responded to Tentoglou’s 8.35 m best with a jump that turned out to be 8.34 m. L. Iapichino and J. Sawyers repeated their European one‑two in the women’s long jump. This time they were separated by more than 10 cm, since they finished with 6.90 and 6.78 m. S. Sarr won her first major title in the women’s triple jump with 15.06 m, in a scenario akin to that of the men’s long jump, since D. Velazco was second just 2 cm from the winner.

I have already written that, to my eyes, G. Tamberi is the best high jumper ever. And he gave another proof of it in Budapest. With J. Harrison, they were the only two to have cleared 2.30 m, with Tamberi leading on count‑back. And then Harrison decided to play a losing game. After one miss, he went successively from 2.33 to 2.37 and 2.39 m (something presumptuous and borderline irrational, but something that pushed Tamberi towards higher heights). So Tamberi cleared 2.33 and 2.35 on his first attempt, indicating by gesture and words that “è basso”. Then he succeeded at 2.37 on his second and asked for a bar at 2.41 m. It has been almost 10 years since anybody has jumped over 2.40 (M. Barshim in 2018, and I refuse to count doping offender D. Lysenko). It was perhaps the best moment of the Ultimate Championship. Y. Mahuchikh won an uninteresting women’s event with 1.99 m, and I must say clearly that I was disappointed by all the participants in the women’s high jump. S. Morris has never won anything outdoors in the pole vault (she has two world indoor titles) despite being the physically stronger female pole vaulter (albeit with a so‑so technique). But at 34 years of age she managed to win her first major title, clearing 4.90 on her second attempt, while H. Moll (13 years her junior) needed three tries. While I admire the female pole vault champions, I feel that the discipline has slowed down and there is no sign of recovery in the near future. And the situation is the perfect opposite in the men’s discipline. What makes it even more interesting is that the absolute supremacy of M. Duplantis is now challenged by the emergence of M. Karalis. Just look at the results: Duplantis 6.20 m, Karalis 6.15 m and Guttormsen 5.95 m. (And, of course, Karalis, when he fouled at 6.20 m, decided to go higher at 6.25 m, forcing Duplantis to gamble on Karalis not succeeding. Men’s pole vault, which became interesting when Duplantis came of age, is now becoming breath‑taking).

The only thing I will say about the three throwing events included in the programme is that I considered the inclusion of the women’s javelin downright stupid. Well, it turned out not to be stupid at all. Z. Yan took control of the event with 68.05 m on her first attempt, but she injured herself and could not continue. And then H. Kitaguchi threw a humongous 68.92 m, clinching victory. (In case you were wondering, I am not changing my opinion on Kitaguchi: for me, she is not a great champion but is simply profiting from the ambient mediocrity of the event). M. Hummel, coached by K. Klaas, won the men’s hammer with 81.46 m (despite his spectacular fall in his second attempt). E. Katzberg, who was the number‑one favourite, finished the competition with two fouls – proof, if we ever needed one, that the current system for throws is a highly risky one. R. Pathirage took control of the men’s javelin with his third throw, and he could have won with that. But something was missing, and at his fourth attempt he unleashed an over‑90‑m throw, confirming his supremacy.

As I said at the beginning of the article the championship was a success. But why on Earth did they have to paint the field black? 

Field events at the Birmingham Europeans

M. Tentoglou is once more the king of the long jump. After a 2025 season plagued by injuries, he is back in great shape and proved this in Birmingham, winning his fourth continental title. The wind was a major perturbation for the jumpers, and I remember Tentoglou commenting that in his first jump, with a head wind, he was having trouble reaching the board. He qualified in third position, in an event that saw the exit of M. Furlani, who has not recovered from his injury, retiring after just one jump at 7.73 m. The final was a totally different affair (but not as far as the wind was concerned). Tentoglou opened with 8.27 m, but S. Ehammer riposted with 8.29 m (both jumps against a strong head wind). Then Tentoglou jumped 8.44 m on his fourth attempt, and that was that (he passed the remaining two, deeming that the opposite wind would preclude a good performance). The bronze medal went to B. Saraboyukov with 8.26 m on his last attempt.

The women’s event, both qualification and final, took place under a strong tail wind. M. Mihambo had the longest jump in the qualifiers with 7.10 m (+3.3 m/s wind), and A. de Sousa jumped 7.00 m under regular conditions. However, in the final, they both finished just outside the medals. L. Iapichino won with a single jump at 7.00 m, just 1 cm ahead of J. Sawyers, 2 cm ahead of H. Kpatcha, 4 cm ahead of de Sousa and 6 cm ahead of Mihambo. It was an incredibly interesting event, where the spectacle was won by Sawyers (a jumper I have been following over the years) and her blanket. Given the consistency of Sawyers (6.95, 6.96, 6.99, 6.92 and two marginal fouls over 7 m), she would have merited the gold medal. The women’s long jump was one more example of finalist replacement. A. Halberg Hossain was injured during the qualifiers and was replaced in the final by F. Fotopoulou, who profited to grab 8th place.

A. Díaz Hernández and P. Pichardo were the only ones over 17 m in the men’s triple jump qualifiers. In the final, the latter opened with 17.76 m, but Díaz riposted with 18.15 m, which places him fourth on the all-time best list, and backed this with a 17.78 m on his third attempt. And I must point out the 8th place of D. Tsiamis, who, at 44 years of age, reached a European final, in a discipline where he won bronze eight years ago.

The women’s triple jump saw two Italians dominate the qualifiers: E. Saraceni with 14.50 m and D. Derkach with 14.42 m. They were going to meet different lots in the final. Saraceni finished 12th with 13.48 m, while Derkach won with 14.60 m. But the real surprise came from a hitherto unknown athlete, S. Guisse. With 14.07 m, she jumped over 14 m for the first time in the qualifiers. And in the final (where all eight finishers jumped over 14 m, with the great I. Španović in 8th place), she showed her intentions with a 14.37 m on the third jump, that did not suffice for a medal, but a 14.46 m (+2.4 m/s wind) did suffice for silver. I will keep an eye open for her next year (despite her below-par performance in the Diamond League of Silesia). And I must say that I was impressed by the concentration of D. Derkach when she had already won the event and had one last jump. She was focused as if all depended on it, and only when it was over (she fouled it) did she allow herself to explode in joy.

G. Tamberi sits in 17th position on the all-time high jumpers’ list. But, for me, he is number one. He would have gone much higher than his 2.39 m personal best had he not had the injury he sustained in 2016. But he fought back and returned to win Olympic and World titles. He did not arrive in Birmingham as the favourite for the event. In fact, his 2.23 m at the qualifiers was his best season performance. But when it came to the final, he showed his unique class. He jumped successively 2.18, 2.23, 2.27 and 2.30 m, trailing Doroshchuk on count-back, but when the bar was raised to 2.32 m, he was the only one to go over, winning his fourth European title. The women’s high jump was a low-key event. A. Topić had some back problems and bowed out at 1.87 m. I. Gerashchenko could not go higher than 1.92 m, and the medals went to jumpers who could master 1.95 m or higher. M. Vuković won her first major medal, a bronze, losing silver on count-back to M. Zodzik. Y. Mahuchikh, clearly not in top shape, still managed to win, clearing 1.97 m.

A height of 5.60 m was enough to gain access to the men’s pole vault final, but was too high for T. Collet, E. Sasma and M. Vloon, who were expected to play some role there. The Collet family was not totally frustrated, since the younger brother, Mathieu, did manage to qualify and went on to finish 4th, just behind another frenchman, the talented B. Thierry, who obtained bronze with 5.85 m. S. Guttormsen had a below-par competition, failed twice at 5.85 m, gambled unsuccessfully with his last jump at 5.95 m and had to content himself with 6th place. As for the first two, well, by now the scenario is familiar. Both Karalis and Duplantis jumped 6 m. And when Duplantis jumped 6.10 m and 6.15 m, Karalis tried to go higher, but 6.20 m turned out to be too high for him. (Not for long. In the Zürich Diamond League, Duplantis, Karalis and Guttormsen staged the highest pole vault competition ever, with 6.25, 6.20 and 6.00 m respectively, the first two making three attempts at a would-be world record 6.32 m). The women’s pole vault was not of the same calibre as the men’s. (In fact, this is a remark that applies to this event at a global, world, level). A. Moser won with 4.80 m, ahead of W. Heltelä (Murto) with 4.75 m. M. J. Bonin had a so-so competition but managed to pass over 4.70 m on her second attempt, snatching bronze from her team-mate M. Chevrier, who could not go higher than 4.60 m. And I must, once more, share my admiration for K. Stefanidi, who came with a season best of 4.40 m and improved it twice, finishing sixth with 4.60 m. One could imagine that, having won everything, she would retire, devoting herself to her newborn son. But it is clear that she loves jumping, and so she is back, giving us another proof of her immense talent.

L. Fabbri won the men’s shot put easily with 22.31 m. In fact, all his valid throws would have sufficed for victory, Z. Weir, who placed second, having thrown just 21.12 m. The women’s event was dominated by J. Schilder, who had four valid throws over 20 m, culminating at 20.73 m. J. van Klinken obtained silver with a 19.64 m personal best, while Y. Mabry (Ogunleye) had to content herself with bronze at 19.50 m. And I must salute the arrival in the big girls’ league of N. Ndubuisi, who was 8th with 18.21 m. Germany had three finalists among the first eight (but only one medal). 

The men’s discus throw was, for M. Alekna, a bis repetita (non) placent of the Olympics. He started by throwing a championships record 69.89 m, only to see K. Čeh surpass him first with 70.83 m and then 72.51 m (at just 10 cm from his personal best in Ramona, from April this year, one can only wonder what he can do if he returns to Throw Town in his present top shape). Van Klinken added discus gold to her shot silver with a first-attempt throw of 67.67 m. Only S. Craft could react to this, throwing 65.72 m for silver, with V. Kamga having to settle for bronze with 64.61 m. M. Robert-Michon was, at 47 years of age, making her eighth appearance at a European Championship. This time she finished 9th with a more than honourable 60.58 m. (Let’s point out that S. Elkasević (Perković), “listening to her body”, is taking a year off).

The men’s javelin throw (where T. Röhler was eliminated in the qualifiers) was a curious affair. J. Weber took command of the event with a throw of 83.71 m, and then his compatriot N. Thumm edged him by just 5 cm at the fifth attempt. One throw remained, and J. Weber (who has already performed a last-throw feat) unleashed a humongous 90.40 m, winning the competition with a championships record. And what was Thumm’s puerile riposte? He threw the javelin 5–6 metres and collapsed on the runway. I don’t understand: hasn’t anybody explained to him that an event is not over until everybody has thrown? Did he see himself already crowned European champion with a (let’s be fair, more than mediocre) 83 m performance? I have real trouble understanding such spoiled-brat behaviour. 

The women’s javelin was, alas, as expected, a mediocre affair. E. Tzengko and A. Villagos managed to qualify, something that was denied to M. Andrejczyk, who could not do better than 55 m. The final was settled at the first throw, with S. Kolak winning with 62.43 m. Villagos could grab bronze with a 60.93 m throw, just behind J. Ulbricht (61.53 m). And please don’t ask me about Tzengko. I have a real difficulty understanding what is happening with Tzengko, who is undeniably talented but has not managed a single 60+ m throw in a year where she does not have a serious injury (she has reported a minor shoulder discomfort in May, but not something incapacitating). The first surprise in the men’s hammer throw was the elimination in the qualifiers of W. Nowicki. The second, perhaps bigger, was the 9th place of Y. Chaussinand, who had thrown a European-leading 82.44 m in June. B. Halász totally dominated the event, taking the lead from the first throw and culminating in a world-leading performance of 84.25 m at his fifth attempt. M. Hummel did not offer much in the form of resistance, but secured second place with his fifth throw at 81.30 m. It is interesting to remark that all eight finalists fouled their last, sixth, throw. S. Kosonen won her first title in the grown-ups category with a 76.28 m throw in the women’s hammer. A. Włodarczyk, the indisputably greatest hammer thrower ever, was present in Birmingham at 41 years of age, making the final, where she finished fourth, missing the medal by just half a metre.

Usually I devote a special article to the combined events. But this year I was somewhat disappointed by the decathlon, and so I decided to lump the combined together with the field events. The decathlon was won by L. Neugebauer. But for me that was a minor deception. All along the event he gave an impression of heaviness that was not present in previous years. And then came the scandal of the pole vault. When the bar was raised to 4.80 m, both Neugebauer and M. Gletty missed three times. Then they started pestering the judges, pretexting that the umbrellas next to the runway, agitated under the strong wind (true), had hindered their efforts (I am skeptical about this). In the end, the judges caved and allowed them a fourth try. Gletty missed, but Neugebauer passed and went on to jump 4.90 m (for an extra 61 points). 

That, and his 54.31 m discus throw, secured his victory over N. Kaul. The latter showed from the outset that he was in good shape, threw 48.88 m in the discus and jumped 4.90 m in the pole vault. However, his only throw in the javelin was “just” 73.54 m, and that was not enough to close the gap with Neugebauer. In the end, despite a 4:20.70 by Kaul in the 1500 m, Neugebauer carried the event 8611 to 8573 (the “extra” 60 points did make the difference). S. Skotheim was third with 8433. I was expecting him to play a major role in the event but that was not to be. The surprise came from J. Tesselaar, who, in the absence of S. Roosen (injured just before the championship), represented the Netherlands in the best way, finishing fourth with a personal best of 8378. If he manages to improve the technical events, he will be among the decathlon stars in the years to come.

The women’s heptathlon was much more interesting than the decathlon. K. O’Connor, on an ever-ascending trajectory, was the favourite and did not disappoint. On the contrary, she managed to excel in all events, winning with 6751 points. (And in a windy competition, she was lucky with a 1.3 m/s tail wind in the hurdles and exactly 2 m/s in the long jump, meaning that her record can be homologated). E. Oosterwegel returned to the places of honour, finishing second with 6713 points, just ahead of S. Dokter, 6664 points. A major disappointment was the 7th place of Adrianna Sulek-Schubert, who was among those vying for a medal and then foundered with a 36 m javelin throw. N. Vidts was also not up to her usual level, finishing in 11th place. And if one reads the classification carefully, one finds in last position K. Johnson-Thompson with 5790 points. At 33 years of age, she is definitely past her prime, but I would have understood her participation if she had given the impression of enjoying it. Unfortunately, her demeanour throughout the event suggested quite the opposite.

All in all it was a nice championship. I just hope that the famous "Ultimate Championship", the last invention of Sir Sebastian, will be at least of equal quality.

Brookes and the Revival of the Olympics (part 4 of "the real story of the Olympics")

When de Coubertin, in 1890, went to Much Wenlock to visit William Brookes, he did not know anything about the ancient Olympic Games. His interest lay in general education, physical education, and sport, an interest shared by Brookes. But once in Much Wenlock, the Baron unexpectedly encountered an Olympic revival movement. Returning to France, he wrote an enthusiastic article titled “Les Jeux Olympiques à Much Wenlock”. Referring to Brookes, he wrote: “si les jeux olympiques que la Grèce moderne n’a pas su ressusciter y revivent aujourd’hui, ce n’est pas à un Hellène qu’on en est redevable, mais bien au Dr W. P. Brookes” (“if the Olympic Games that Modern Greece has not yet been able to revive still survive there today, it is due, not to a Greek, but to Dr. W. P. Brookes”). At this point, one can appreciate that de Coubertin showed complete disregard for the efforts of Soutsos and Zappas in reviving the Olympic ideal (although the latter are alluded to, indirectly, in his article). Yet de Coubertin, being the perfidious character we know, soon began to selectively forget Brookes’s contribution, later claiming that he had founded the Olympic movement singlehandedly. But this is not an article on de Coubertin. So let us return to Brookes.

William Penny Brookes was a physician born in Much Wenlock, Shropshire, in 1809. In 1840 he founded the Wenlock Agricultural Reading Society, with a special interest in the working class, collecting books for workers, farmers, and laborers to read. In 1850 he created the “Olympian Class”, a sub-section of the Reading Society, to organize annual athletic games with cash prizes for the victors. He called the sub-section “Olympian” out of admiration for the ancient Greek Games, though his own featured modern and even medieval sports alongside athletics. The games were not called “Olympic” until the end of the decade, when Brookes became aware of Zappas’s efforts. Learning about the Zappas Olympiad, he wrote to the organizers and offered a £10 prize from the “Olympian Class of the Much Wenlock Agricultural Reading Society of England”. Ironically, the prize was for “Tilting at the Ring”, a medieval event absent from the Greek Olympiads. The prize ultimately went to the winner of the 1859 distance race, Petros Velissariou, whom Brookes made an honorary member of the newly renamed “Wenlock Olympian Society.” Influenced by the Athens program, he introduced the javelin throw to the Wenlock Games.

Tilting at the Ring

In 1860, only months after the first Zappas Olympiad, it was announced that five towns in Shropshire had agreed to hold annual regional games, the “Shropshire Olympics”. Four of these Games actually took place, and they were serious athletic meetings, featuring mostly track-and-field events. In 1865 Brookes and John Hulley (who had launched the Liverpool Olympics in 1862) formed the National Olympian Association. They proposed to hold annual national Olympic Games, “in rotation in the principal cities and towns of England”, and six were held between 1866 and 1883—the first in London. However, resistance to Brookes’s movement soon built up: the “upper-class” gentleman athletes refused to compete against plebeians. They therefore formed the Amateur Athletic Club (AAC) and organized the first “amateur” championships. Still, Brookes’s Olympian Games in London were a resounding success. The AAC boycotted the Games, and did the same the following year in Birmingham. From that point, alas, things began to deteriorate. The 1868 Games had to move from Manchester to Wellington (a small town in Shropshire), and no further Games were held until 1874, when the fourth edition took place in Much Wenlock. The British National Olympic movement was practically dead.

A much older Brookes during the  Wenlock Games (third from the right)

Brookes maintained contact with Greece. On the occasion of the fifth British National Olympic Games in 1877, he requested, through the Greek ambassador in London, that King George of Greece donate a cup to the winner of the pentathlon. The King agreed, and a silver cup “from the King of the Hellenes” was awarded to the victor (a local student, since the AAC again boycotted the Games). These contacts probably inspired Brookes, in 1880, to propose an International Olympian Festival in Athens. But the Greek Olympic Committee, dominated by the anti-athletic faction, refused to organize national Olympic Games—let alone international ones. Brookes therefore continued with his Wenlock Olympian Games, now only a shadow of their former glory. The best athletes no longer competed there, as the AAC (by then renamed the Amateur Athletic Association) organized meetings across England. In 1890, the Wenlock Games took place in May, and in October Brookes received the visit of de Coubertin. To impress the Baron, he staged a special autumn “Olympian” meeting, and succeeded so well that de Coubertin decided to appropriate his idea. But that is a story for the next post in this series.

High and low hurdles: a record explosion

It happens from time to time: performances stagnate and, all of a sudden, everything changes, with records falling one after another. This is the year of the hurdles, with three world records already, and the season is still under way, with two major competitions to come.

But let us start at the beginning, with the one record that was not set this year: the women's 400 m hurdles record. The current world record, held by Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone, stands at 50.37 s, set at the Paris 2024 Olympics. To illustrate the point about stagnation, let us go back to the pre-Muhammad and McLaughlin era. The previous world record belonged to Yuliya Pechonkina, who ran 52.34 s at the 2003 Russian Championships. (Pechonkina won the 2005 World Championships in a time under 53 seconds, but had finished eighth at the 2004 Athens Olympics, where her semi-final time would have guaranteed her the silver medal). And then, for 16 years, nothing happened. At the 2019 US trials, Dalilah Muhammad broke the record with 52.20 s and improved it further at the World Championships, with 52.16 s. On both occasions, Sydney McLaughlin was not far behind. The positions were going to change when competitions resumed after the pandemic. McLaughlin first shocked the world with 51.90 s at the US trials, then improved the record again in the Tokyo Olympic final, running 51.41 s, with Muhammad just behind in 51.58 s. It was the best 400 m hurdles race I have ever watched. Three more world records followed, culminating in the current 50.37 s mark. (McLaughlin-Levrone took a year off from the hurdles and went on to challenge Marita Koch's 400 m flat record with 47.78 s. She then took another year away from competition to give birth to her daughter). Just to put things in perspective, Y. Lituyev broke Hardin's men's world record with 50.4 s in 1953. Muhammad continues to compete and remains among the best in the world, in a discipline temporarily deprived of McLaughlin-Levrone and Femke Bol (Bol has moved towards the 800 m, a distance in which Muhammad ran 2:03.71 this year).

The men's 400 m hurdles also experienced a period of stagnation. Edwin Moses reigned practically unchallenged for more than ten years, taking the world record from John Akii-Bua's 47.82 s to 47.02 s in 1983. Then came Kevin Young's stunning 46.78 s at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, followed by almost 30 years of silence. The first hurdler to go under 47 seconds again was Abderrahman Samba, who ran 46.98 s at the Meeting de Paris in 2018. Plagued by injuries, Samba never managed to threaten Young's record (although he was a world bronze medallist in 2019 and again in 2025). That honour was reserved for an ex-decathlete who had converted to the low hurdles, Karsten Warholm. He had run under 47 seconds in both 2019 and 2020, but reached the summit in 2021, first running 46.70 s at the Bislett Games and then producing the astonishing 45.94 s at the Tokyo Olympics. (After all, the first official sub-46 performance in the flat 400 m came only in 1955; the best times of the 1950s were still above 46 seconds). Over the last years I have been following Alison dos Santos, who, like all athletes, had his ups and downs because of injuries, but had established himself among the leading figures in the event. Following his victory at the 2022 World Championships, I wrote:

"Dos Santos has progressed to a level at which I will not be astonished if, barring injury, he goes for Warholm's record. What he is technically doing, passing the first three hurdles in 12 strides, has never been attempted before, with most hurdlers struggling with the 13-stride rhythm".

Dos Santos can sustain the 12-stride rhythm because he is at ease with both legs over the hurdles, something Warholm has never mastered. And he can finish the race in 13 strides, while almost everybody else has to switch to 15. So the fact that he ran a 45.80 s world record in Zürich is not such a big surprise.

The other world record set in Zürich was in the women's 100 m hurdles. Going back in history, we find that Yordanka Donkova's 12.21 s record stood for almost 30 years, until Kendra Harrison ran 12.20 s in 2016. (It is remarkable to see a world-record holder achieve so little success when it comes to honours at major competitions. Harrison has just one world title, in the 60 m hurdles at the 2018 World Indoor Championships, one Olympic silver medal, from 2021, and one world silver medal, from 2019). Tobi Amusan broke Harrison's record with 12.12 s in the semi-finals of the 2022 World Championships, followed by a wind-assisted 12.06 s in the final. But this year belonged to Masai Russell. She had announced her intentions last year, when she ran 12.17 s during the Grand Slam Track competitions. (That may have been too early in the season, which could explain why she was not in top shape at the World Championships). In Zürich she ran a flawless 100 m hurdles in 12.09 s, beating Amusan, who could manage only 12.23 s.

The men's high-hurdles record was also improved in 2026. Renaldo 'Skeets' Nehemiah was the first man under 13 seconds, with 12.93 s. Unfortunately, he turned to professional football (the American version) and when he returned to athletics it was too late. Pat Connolly, who coached him, believed that if he had concentrated on athletics he could have broken the 400 m hurdles record as well. In any case, the world record progressed thanks to several great champions, like Roger Kingdom, Colin Jackson, Xiang Liu and Dayron Robles, and had been in the possession of Aries Merritt since 2012, with 12.80 s. People expected Grant Holloway to break it, but he was sidelined by injuries, and the record survived for a few more seasons. The spotlight then moved to C. Tinch, the 2025 world champion, but that was not to be. Finally, it was the 2024 world under-20 champion, Ja'Kobe Tharp, who erased the long-standing record, running 12.75 s in the semi-finals of the NCAA Championships in June. Given that Tharp is only 21, one can hope that this will not be the last record set by this talented athlete. (To achieve that, he will need to become more consistent and avoid blunders such as the one at the Lausanne meeting.)

The two world records were the icing on the cake of the superb Zürich Diamond League. (I enjoyed the meeting in the company of my friend P. Motis at his 'Cacti House' estate on the island of Kythira, where I was spending a week enjoying his hospitality).

The meeting was truly exceptional. Imagine two pole vaulters, Duplantis and Karalis, still competing at a world-record height and finally settling for the highest one-two finish in history: 6.25 m and 6.20 m. There was a women's 800 m in which A. Werro dispelled any doubts I may have had after the Europeans by winning in 1:53.70, the third-best performance of all time, followed by F. Bol in 1:54.71, which places her ninth on the all-time list.

And what about the men's long jump, in which just 2 cm separated two world champions, M. Tentoglou and T. Gayle, with 8.45 m and 8.43 m? It was a contest that barely missed my quality criterion, 'eight jumpers over 8 m', since only seven athletes cleared eight metres. J. Alfred edged M. Jefferson-Wooden in the 100 m, but only just: 10.693 to 10.698.

A. Cockrell ran a world-leading 52.13 s in the 400 m hurdles, just ahead of D. Muhammad, while F. Diallo once again broke the Portuguese record, following her bronze medal at the Europeans, with 53.30 s. N. Olyslagers cleared 2.02 m, I. Gerashchenko 2.00 m and M. Vuković 1.98 m, relegating Mahuchikh to fourth place in the women's high jump. H. Moll cleared a personal best of 4.90 m in the pole vault. R. Pathirage won the javelin with a throw of more than 92 m. E. Wanyonyi ran a world-leading 1:41.76 in the 800 m, while K. Bednarek did the same in the 200 m, with 19.62 s. F. Cherotich won the women's 3000 m steeple with 8:55.82 just ahead of D. Lemngole 8:55.94 and P. Chemutai 8:58.28.

It was a great competition, and I am telling myself that I should not set my expectations too high for the Brussels DL final. As for the famous Ultimate Championship, the one with the curtailed, arbitrarily fixed programme, my expectations are definitely lower. (I would, however, be glad to be proved wrong).

Track events at the Birmingham Europeans

I have mixed feelings about this year’s European Athletics Championships. On the one hand, the standard was very high, as it usually is when the Europeans do not coincide with the Olympic Games. When the two competitions are held in the same year, many (perhaps most) of the leading athletes prefer to save themselves for the Olympics and the European Championships consequently become somewhat watered down.

On the other hand, this year’s organisation was far from entirely satisfactory, both in the decisions made before the championships and in those taken while they were under way.( We shall come to those in due course). Take, for instance, the absurd rule concerning qualification races. It was decided that the 12 fastest entrants in the sprint events would proceed directly to the semifinals, while the remaining athletes would have to run in qualifying heats, from which the 12 fastest times would advance. This sounds perfectly reasonable on paper. But reality turned it into a disaster. Birmingham was plagued by strong and changing winds throughout the competition. The three qualifying heats of the women’s 100 m, for example, were run with winds of 3.2, 1.8 and 0.0 m/s respectively. So how exactly are times obtained under such different conditions to be compared? It is hardly surprising that the fastest time of the championships was recorded in the first of those races.

Amy Hunt was the queen of these championships, winning four gold medals: two individually and two in the 4 × 100 m relays. In the 100 m, after a sluggish start, she had to chase Ewa Swoboda all the way to the finish line, winning 11.00 to 11.02, with the surprising Delphine Nkansa third in 11.06. Hunt was more at ease over her speciality distance, the 200 m, which she won in 22.19. 

Rhasidat Adeleke made a last-minute comeback from injury, too late to be fully prepared for her speciality event, the 400 m. Nevertheless, she won silver in the 200 m, finishing ahead of Dina Asher-Smith, 22.28 to 22.29, thanks to a powerful finish.

As expected, Great Britain won the women’s 4 × 100 m in 42.05, well clear of Switzerland, in 43.12, and Poland, in 43.15. For the first time in European Championship history, a mixed 4 × 100 m was also held, with a direct final involving the eight best teams. Great Britain took no risks and fielded its strongest possible quartet: Jeremiah Azu, Dina Asher-Smith, Zharnel Hughes and Amy Hunt. They won in a European record of 39.97, becoming only the second sub-40 team in the world. Hunt’s split was an impressive 9.86. Germany and Spain followed in 40.11 and 40.42 respectively.

Marcell Jacobs entered the men’s 100 m final as the clear favourite after recording the fastest semifinal time. Alas, 50 m into the race he had to withdraw because of yet another hamstring injury. R. Glave and J. Azu produced a British one-two, 10.06 to 10.16, with the bronze medal going to O. Ansah in 10.19. Ansah was to demonstrate his superiority in the 200 m, which he won in 19.95, finishing two metres ahead of Hughes, who ran 20.16. A long wait followed while the judges examined the photo-finish. In the end, the bronze medal was shared by E. Desalu and T. Mumenthaler in 20.26, as it proved impossible to separate them even to millisecond precision: both were given 20.251. The 100 m was interesting for another reason: it was the first time I had seen the new replacement rule applied. Hinchliffe had qualified for the final but withdrew because of injury. He was replaced by D. Kopec, who had finished ninth in the semifinals.

Great Britain won the men’s 4 × 100 m in 38.45, ahead of Germany, in 38.64, and Belgium, in 38.70. The Greek team also managed to qualify for the final, finishing sixth in the earlier round.

The women’s 400 m was a very high-level event. Five athletes ran under 50 seconds in the semifinals, with N. Bukowiecka recording a season’s best of 49.57. (Had Mawdsley not injured herself a few weeks before the Europeans, it might have been an excellent opportunity for her to break the 50-second barrier). The final, however, was an entirely different race. H. Jaeger crushed the opposition with a devastating sustained sprint, winning in 49.04, ahead of Bukowiecka, in 50.04, and L. Klaver, in 50.15. L. M. Manuel was a disappointing fourth in 50.86, despite having run 49.81 in the semifinals.

    

    

Matthew Hudson-Smith was the favourite for the men’s 400 m title and duly won in 44.17. In the semifinals, however, I had noticed M. A. Kounta, who won his heat in a personal best of 44.38, and I was expecting something good from him in the final. He did not disappoint—one of the rare French athletes to surpass himself—winning silver in 44.40, ahead of J. Phijffers, in 44.41.

Italy won the men’s 4 × 400 m relay after resisting a late assault from Great Britain, 2:59.16 to 2:59.19. Perhaps putting Hudson-Smith on the first leg rather than the anchor was a tactical mistake by the British team. The Netherlands managed to push Belgium out of the medals, 2:59.49 to 2:59.51, thanks to a 43.59 anchor leg by Phijffers. The Dutch did not take any risks in the women’s 4 × 400 m relay, entrusting the anchor to Femke Bol, who ran 49.50. Klaver had also run 49.50 on the second leg. In the end, the Netherlands won in 3:21.10, ahead of Great Britain, in 3:21.68, and Italy, in 3:23.57.

The mixed 4 × 400 m relay was also run as a direct final, with the eight best teams. Once Warholm had completed the first leg for Norway, the Netherlands took the lead through Klaver, despite a superb 50.8 leg by A. Iuel. But on the anchor leg nobody could resist Jaeger’s finish. She brought Norway to gold in 3:09.62, while Great Britain snatched silver from the Dutch, 3:10.47 to 3:10.77.

M. English set a new championship record of 1:43.49 in the men’s 800 m semifinals. Those semifinals also saw the reigning champion, G. Tual, eliminated. English went on to win the final, in which M. Burgin did not participate because of injury and was not replaced—probably because his withdrawal came too late.

I was going to title the paragraph on the women’s 800 m “The Audrey Werro scandal”. On reflection, however, it is clear that Werro herself is not to blame. She fell in the semifinals, and, to my mind, that should have meant that she could not participate in the final. The claim that contact with Bourgoin’s hand caused her fall sounds like a justification invented after the event. (I will not include any link to the several existing videos. You can track them down yourselves and shape your own opinion). 

The matter is quite simple. Lord Sebastianhas made it clear that commercial opportunities, broadcasting and sponsorship agreements are of great importance to him. He therefore could not afford to deprive the championships of the race that perhaps everybody was waiting for. (On the other hand, excluding Russian athletes from Athletics, being prepared to oppose the IOC’s decisions concerning their reinstatement, and fighting the Russian appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (all while rejecting the suggestion that this policy is politically motivated, which it plainly is) is something he tries to present as a defence of “the integrity of competition”). Well, I think that the integrity of the competition suffered a serious blow in Birmingham. Werro was allowed to run in the final, Keely Hodgkinson could not respond, and they finished in 1:54.81 and 1:55.01 respectively. Femke Bol was third in 1:55.54. (And, frankly, I wonder whether Bol’s decision to move up to the 800 m was the right one. Admittedly, she was not the winner of the 400 m hurdles. But will she ever win the 800 m? For the time being, she occupies 20th place on the all-time list).

The 1500 m races were rather uneventful. S. Nillessen, wearing a ridiculous nose clip, prevailed in a tactical men’s race in 3:35.70. Two world champions, Josh Kerr and I. Nader, finished sixth and 12th respectively. Georgia Hunter-Bell won the women’s race in 4:07.78, while the reigning champion, A. Guillemot, finished fourth.

The 5000 m marked Jakob Ingebrigtsen’s return to competition, and he did not disappoint. He let the other runners set the pace and, when they all reached the final straight, unleashed his familiar sprint to win in 13:15.29. Gressier, who had looked like the favourite to many (including myself) finished just outside the medals. He did manage to take bronze in the 10000 m, thanks to his finish, in a race dominated by A. Almgren, who won in a championship record of 27:23.44, defeating the reigning champion, D. Lobalu.

    

N. Battocletti has no serious opposition at European level. She made winning both the 5000 and 10000 m almost a formality, launching her sprint 200–250 m from the finish and leaving nobody capable of following her.

Despite the presence of the world champion, D. Kambundji, the favourites for the women’s 100 m hurdles were P. Skrzyszowska and Nadine Visser. They fought all the way to the finish, after which another long wait ensued while the photo-finish officials tried to separate them.

In the end, the title went to Visser (those who follow my blog know that she is one of my favourite athletes) by a single millisecond: 12.668 to 12.669. (I have written on several occasions about the absurdity of milliseconds, so there is no need to repeat myself here). L. Bapté managed to beat Kambundji to the bronze medal, 12.73 to 12.75.

Like Visser, J. Joseph added the European outdoor title to the indoor one, winning in an underwhelming 13.12 (given the recent progress in the high hurdles). M. Trajkovic reached the final, but some early mistakes over the hurdles prevented him from being competitive, and he had to settle for eighth place.

E. Zapletalova won the women’s 400 m hurdles in 52.91, a time that looks rather ordinary by today’s standards. I had expected something better from Lina Nielsen and A. Iuel, who finished sixth and seventh respectively. On the other hand, I was impressed by the finish of F. Binta Diallo, who took the bronze medal behind E. Newnham, 53.33 to 53.55.

L. Warholm had no serious competition in the men’s 400 m hurdles, winning in a championship record of 46.63. I had noticed E. Agyekum in the semifinals, and he did not disappoint in the final, taking silver in 47.87, ahead of I. Nezir, in 48.26. The latter’s bronze was Turkey’s only medal of the championships.

F. Ruppert, the European record-holder in the 3000 m steeplechase and the only European to have run under eight minutes, won a slow and tactical race in 8:25.33. R. Querinjean provided Luxembourg with its first medal of the championships, taking silver in 8:25.61.

G. F. Krause added a third European gold medal to her collection, following the titles she won in 2016 and 2018. Let us not forget, either, her bronze in 2012 and silver in 2024. A. Finot, who had beaten Krause in Rome in 2024, had to settle for silver this time. Their times were 9:12.69 and 9:14.24 respectively.

I did not follow the marathon from start to finish, but began watching at around 30 km. By then, A. Vainio had established a substantial lead over the chasing group, and it was steadily increasing. She finished in a championship record of 2:22:26, a good five minutes ahead of the silver medallist. And, in case you are wondering, as I was, she is not related to Martti Vainio, the 1978 European 10000 m champion.

Things were different in the men’s race, although A. Petros had taken control shortly after halfway. He did not build a safe lead, however, and the remaining runners actually began to gain on him during the final kilometre. He held on to win in a championship record of 2:09:11, with the first ten athletes arriving less than a minute behind him.

PS1. You know that I do not comment on the race-walking events, but I will make a small exception this time. The new marathon and half-marathon distances were introduced in Birmingham, for the first time at an official championship. M. Pérez set a new world record of 1:30:06 in the half-Marathon.

PS2. People have been aslking about examples of bad organisation. I can give you two images

The 43.23 was regularly appearing in the place of the score of the second attempt in feild events during the first morning Fortunately it was corrected for the evening session. The next image

is a screenshot from the third morning. The three words ISO MELT REEL is video-techncal jargon meaning roughly a highlights video made from the camera’s raw footage. Now, why did we, spectators, had to see this, it's something I have no answer to (apart from sloppiness on behalf of the organisers). 

The steeplechase mile: one and done (part 2 of "where did innovation go?" mini series)

In a recent article, where I returned to the subject of (nonexistent) innovation in Athletics, I wrote that I had seen a steeplechase mile only once. My memory had played a trick on me. In fact, I had watched two of them. The first was part of the farcical comedy that was the Fribourg Track Lab, a competition I hurried to forget. The second, however, was memorable for a completely different reason. It took place at the 2025 Diamond League meeting in Brussels, where a women’s steeplechase mile was organised with the participation of Winfred Yavi, the World and Olympic champion. Yavi did not disappoint. She won in 4:40.13, establishing the inaugural world record for the distance. She does not hold the world records for either the “canonical” 3000 m or the shorter 2000 m steeplechase. Those belong to the great Beatrice Chepkoech, with 8:44.32 and 5:47.42, respectively. Yet Yavi’s 8:44.39 and 5:56.83 place her firmly among the discipline’s best, especially over 3000 m, where she is only 0.07 seconds away from the world record.

And what happened next? Exactly what usually happens with World Athletics’ attempts at innovation: nothing. The event was promptly forgotten. No other steeplechase mile has been organised since, and none appears to be planned in the near future. That is a pity, because it could have been an interesting event.

Actually, that is precisely why it got me thinking. What other distances could be used for steeplechase races? In my article, a follow-up to “Metric versus Imperial”, I examined several possible alternatives for track events. One of them was a 5000 m steeplechase. I remember presenting the idea to the late great Greek steeplechase champion G. Papavasileiou, who found it particularly attractive. He even suggested that, given the difficulty of a race involving more than 50 obstacle jumps, it might be more interesting than the standard 3000 m event.

But the steeplechase mile also raises the opposite question. Could the event be made shorter still? Before answering that, let us look at how the steeplechase is run today. The water jump cannot, for obvious reasons, be placed on the main track. It is normally located in the infield, producing “steeple laps” of roughly 390 to 395 m. It can also be placed outside the track, which produces laps of around 420 m. Each lap contains five jumps, including the water jump. As a result, the 3000 m race contains 35 obstacles, 28 ordinary barriers and seven water jumps. The 2000 m race contains 23, 18 barriers and five water jumps.

How short could the race become before it stopped making sense as a steeplechase? My guess is that 1000 m is the lower limit. To make the format work, the race would have to begin with a water jump. Unlike the 3000 m race, it would need a water jump at the beginning, and there would be three water jumps in total, producing 12 obstacles altogether. That does not sound unrealistic. It would attract a different type of athlete, and the battle for position at the first water jump could provide a particularly entertaining feature.

Now let us remove the water jump but keep the steeplechase obstacles. If we also fiddle with the distances, could an 800 m hurdles race make sense? The average distance between jumps in steeplechase races is roughly 80 m. Over two laps, that would give us ten jumps. There is, however, a complication. The rules require at least 70 m from the start to the first obstacle and at least 40 m from the final obstacle to the finish. Applying the same principle here, we must leave enough room at both ends of the race. So this is what I propose:

There would be six obstacles per lap, with an average separation of 66.67 m. The first obstacle, on the right-hand bend, would be removed on the opening lap, giving the athletes roughly 120 m before the first jump. They could begin in lanes and move to the inside after 100 m. The final obstacle, the second one on the finishing straight, would be removed on the second lap, leaving more than 80 m for the finishing sprint. The result would be an 800 m “hurdles” race with ten jumps in total. And once we accept that such a race is feasible, why not consider relays as well? But relays deserve an article of their own, so I will leave them for another post.

It is clear from the above considerations that there is room for real innovation. Not just new events, but new events that could create new specialists. Will World Athletics ever take such a road? Unfortunately, I do not think so.

The 2026 Women's Decathlon championships

The 2026 edition of World Women's Decathlon Championships were held in Oberlin (Ohio) on July 8&9. And it was a smashing success. You can find all the details on the Décapassion blog, curated by my friends Frédéric and Pierre Gousset. 

Just after the first day I exchanged some mail with them and we shared our optimism on a possible 8000+ final score. Unfortunately that was not to be. But still, overall, that was the best women's decathlon ever. N. Boon who had won the 2025 edition last year with 7451 points improved her score to 7714 but had to contend herself with bronze medal. R. Bidois added close to 500 points to her score and still lost on place in the final classification. And I should point out that C. Newton-Smith who won the event with 7900 is a 6200 points heptathlete. We can only dream what a 6600 heptathlete could do with a one season preparation. (But, to be fair, Newton-Smith has always been practicing the pole vault, so she had only to learn how to throw the discus).

There are some excellent photos on the Décapassion Facebook page. What I would like to share here are the results. There were in fact two competitions staged at the same time, one for the elite and a promotional one with a good 50 participants overall. 

What is really interesting is that almost all participants had a valid performance in pole vault. Slowly this discipline is becoming a women's event (as prophesied in an old article of mine). And what I find astonishing is the second place, in the promotional event, of a 13-year old competitor. Lila Neese is a budding pole vaulter but I cross my fingers that she pursue her decathlon adventure in the coming years. Clearly the next generation of female decathletes, the ones who will practice the event in WA-sanctioned competitions and championships, is here already. Let us hope that lord Sebastian sees the light.

Where did innovation go?

World Athletics loves the word innovation. Type it into the search box on the World Athletics website and you will find articles going back to 2019. (That is already an improvement: until recently, the search function was in shambles and finding anything on the site was an achievement in itself). Unfortunately, the early articles offer little more than polished journalistic blah-blah. Things become slightly more interesting with World Athletics’ article on its “four-year business strategy”. The article links to a substantial document entitled Pioneering Change (2024-2027), which sets out the organisation’s strategic priorities for the future of Athletics.

It is an interesting document, or rather, a profoundly uninteresting one if you actually care about Athletics. It reads less like a sporting strategy than a marketing brochure. Its central ideas are familiar:

Make events faster-paced and more exciting for millions of people watching in stadiums and at home.

Increase innovation throughout the sport and bring athletes and fans closer together.

Turn athletes into the stars they deserve to be through competitions and social media.

Create more inclusive and accessible ways to enter Athletics as an athlete, coach, referee, volunteer, or administrator.

The problem is that none of this is specific to Athletics. Replace “stadium”, “athlete”, and “coach” with the corresponding words from almost any other field and the same paragraph would still work. This is not a strategy for Athletics. It is a collection of general ambitions expressed in corporate language.

The concrete plan is to “reconfigure the summer season to conclude each season with a global championship” and to launch “a new global championship in non-World Championship years”. The latter is the Ultimate Championship, to be held in September with a truncated and strangely unbalanced programme whose logic escapes me. The most revealing passage appears under the fourth strategic axis:

Discipline reform to see if we can improve the entertainment and excitement value of the sport to help future-proof athletics, with a particular focus on field disciplines, race walks and combined events.

Race walking has already provided us with a useful demonstration of what World Athletics means by innovation. First came the 35 km event. It did not take a high-level coach to see the problem. The 20 km and 35 km distances were too close together. An athlete could prepare for both without having to specialise in either. The new event filled a place on the programme, but it did not create a genuinely distinct discipline. A few years later, the 35 km was abandoned and replaced by the marathon, while the 20 km was replaced by the half-marathon. Innovation, apparently, sometimes means undoing the previous innovation. The mixed relay was at least a worthwhile idea. I find its total distance and its distribution bizarre, with legs of 11.45 km for the first man, 10 km for the first woman, 10 km for the second man, and 10.745 km for the second woman. Yet I find the event interesting. As regular readers know, I am a fan of mixed relays.

The reference to combined events gave me the chills. It probably refers to the proposed introduction of the Gundersen method, in which the final 1500 m would be run as a pursuit race. The athletes would start at intervals determined by the points difference accumulated in the preceding events. This proposal is not innovative. It is simply a way of removing the combined event’s defining feature, namely the competition between different disciplines. The decathlon is not a preliminary contest followed by a final 1500 m race. It is a competition in ten events. Turning the last event into a pursuit race would distort the contest rather than improve it. I have explained in detail why this is a bad idea and have presented the technical arguments in a separate article. I strongly recommend it if the subject interests you.

Jasmine Sawyers winning the 2026 Commonwealth Games' long jump

The document then offers a catalogue of possible innovations.

The first is the mixed 4x100 m relay. I advocated this event in a 2017 article. I had to wait until 2025 to see the relay run in the obvious order: man, woman, man, woman. Before that, World Athletics preferred the woman, woman, man, man arrangement, apparently because its decision-makers could not accept the possibility that a woman and a man could match each other’s speed in successive legs.

Then there is the steeplechase mile. Have you seen one? I have. Once. That was the beginning and the end of my experience with the event. Nobody is talking about it now.

“Improved efficiency of measurements” is another fine example of strategic vagueness. Which measurements? If World Athletics means timing in sprint events, I have already discussed the issue in my Imperative Changes series. If it means wind measurement, that subject too has been discussed in detail. In either case, nothing seems to have emerged from the proposal.

There is also a proposal to use new technology to settle ties in the jumping events. If this means the spectacle staged at the Fribourg “Future of Athletics” competition, where the highest point reached by the vaulter over the bar was measured, then I am relieved that the idea has disappeared into thin air.

I will not spend much time on the proposal to review the weights of the women’s shot and javelin. It is hardly worth discussing. Women already throw the shot beyond 20 m, which is within the broad range of men’s performances. There is no convincing reason to change the weight of the implement. The javelin is a different matter. Reducing its weight to, say, 400 g might produce throws in the region of 80 m, but only if the lighter implement could be thrown with the same efficiency as the current 600 g javelin. That assumption is far from certain. A lighter javelin would also be more vulnerable to crosswinds, making the event less predictable rather than more exciting. If World Athletics really wants to reform the throwing events, it should begin by confronting the records established before effective doping control. We may have to wait a very long time before a woman throws 76 m in the discus again.

The Fribourg “Future of Athletics” Track Lab also featured a women’s 100 m hurdles race with no lower reaction-time limit. This was presented as innovation. It was not. If World Athletics genuinely wants to experiment, it could lower the threshold to 70 ms, a value below what is normally considered a possible human reaction time. At least that would eliminate the absurdity of disqualifying athletes for reacting in 99 ms, as has happened in recent years. And if the organisation really wants to improve the women’s hurdles, it could raise the hurdle height to 91 cm. Keeping it at 84 cm suggests that the people making decisions in Athletics are still influenced by the Victorian idea that women are the weaker sex.

I will not discuss the take-off zone for the horizontal jumps at length. I have written about it several times, and the argument seems obvious to me. In one high-level official competition, unlike the Fribourg slapstick experiment, the number of fouls reportedly fell to 13%, compared with a historical average of 32%. The majority of observers appear to support the change. The exception is the group that matters most to the existing system: athletes and coaches. This is the real obstacle to innovation in modern Athletics. People do not want to surrender an advantage they have worked hard to acquire. Long and triple jumpers have spent years learning to hit the board accurately. They understandably do not want that investment to become irrelevant overnight.

The same logic keeps the women’s decathlon out of the stadium. Heptathletes and their coaches do not want to risk moving from the elite of the discipline to the also-rans once the event includes the discus and pole vault. But this is not a reason to postpone the women’s decathlon. It is a reason to introduce it. Every new event changes the distribution of expertise, and athletes eventually adapt to the demands of the discipline. The current dominance of the heptathlon should not be allowed to determine the future of women’s combined events.

And now we come to the question in the title. Where did innovation go? Nowhere. It never existed as a coherent programme, and it was never intended to. What World Athletics calls innovation is mostly presentation, repackaging, and occasional experimentation. The sport’s fundamental problems remain untouched. The organisation produces strategies, slogans, workshops, laboratories, test events, and press releases. But a genuine innovation would require something more difficult: deciding what Athletics is for, identifying which parts of the sport need changing, and accepting that meaningful change will upset people who benefit from the status quo. That is the part missing from the programme.