Why was the 1908 London figure chosen in 1921 rather than the Athens one?
None of the sources consulted for this Journey quotes the congress minute or gives a reason, and several say so explicitly. The Athens distance had at least a geographical rationale behind it and was not chosen. This is an absence in the record rather than a dispute within it, and it sits directly under the Journey's central claim.
Did the 1908 start really move for a royal window?
This Journey's own catalogue text says the distance was fixed for reasons of royal convenience, and researchers associated with the International Society of Olympic Historians report finding no archival support: a start placed on the East Terrace, and a surviving photograph showing royal children outside on the lawn. What is documented is that the regulations asked for about 40 km and the organising club laid out a course about two kilometres longer. The stadium half of the account is not in dispute. The corpus keeps the two halves separate and so does this package.
Was Pheidippides one person, and did he run the route the sport is named for?
The earliest source records a trained runner sent to Sparta before the battle and nothing about a run from Marathon to Athens afterwards. Historians generally hold that a real messenger stands behind the name and that two separate runs were later conflated. The reported distance to Sparta varies substantially between accounts. The battle is history; the commemorative run is a later assembly, and the Journey does not resolve the person behind it.
How short was the New York course, and when was that established?
Accounts differ on the shortfall and on the year of the remeasurement, and none of the primary certification documents was retrievable for the canonical pack. What is not in doubt is the consequence: two world bests were rescinded and distance was quietly added to the course afterwards. The Journey uses the case for what it proves about procedure, not for the precision of its figures.
Have the 2026 London marks been ratified?
Three independent race reports agree on the times, and no ratification notice was found when the canonical pack was written. The Journey therefore states them as run and reported rather than as ratified — which is uncomfortable, because the fastest performance in the subject is also the one whose standing is least settled.
Where does the 2024 Chicago women's mark now stand?
The athlete who set it was subsequently sanctioned for a doping violation, with prior results reported as remaining valid. The sanctioning body's decision document was not retrieved for the canonical pack. The Journey records the mark and the sanction together and asserts nothing about the outcome.
Does "the Majors" still mean these six races?
It did for twelve years. A seventh race joined the series and ran in that status, and an eighth was reported confirmed with a debut scheduled. Whether the original six retain any distinct standing, or the phrase simply comes to name a larger set, is genuinely undecided — and the series is a partnership between organisers, so the answer is theirs to make rather than a governing body's.