Bingodamus wrote:
There is a huge chasm between Boston an the OT. Getting the top 300 americans in one race would be great.
World marathon majors is like the bcs, it prevents deep competition pools
so its 300 is it now? What happens when the standard is 2:24, 2:28, etc.
Getting the top 500, 1000, 5000 Americans in one race would be great...
as a previous poster said a descending order list of the top 100 would work as well, with no standard
Funny how here is a guy who has been there and ran in two trials and his experience is dismissed. The fact is our sport is dying.
The Cross Country nationals was an event! I remember lining up with over 600 guys on the starting line in Blue Lake Park in Oregon. Then they split and it has died...though club seems to roll on.
USATF lowering the A standard is understandable. But a 2:22 for the B was more than reasonable.
Isolating the elites from the club runners is not the answer in the marathon, nor is lowing the standard to 2:30. There needs to be a balance where it means something but is obtainable. We need to support our club athletes for our sport to be successful.
Not too long ago they did have a "top 100" marathon and is was very successful. Unfortunately with big pay days it would never work without huge financial backing. If you are top 100 in the U.S. I think that is worth elite status.
d3 wrote:
The trials standard (since '68) has always been between 2:22 and 2:19:04, and the number of qualifiers has fluctuated (more or less) between 100 and 200. I completely understand making the A standard very fast, like 2:12-2:15, the USATF shouldn't pay the way for guys who almost definitely won't make the team? What I don't get, is why suddenly it's a problem to have 100 guys in the 2:18-2:22 range paying their way to the race. It's not like there's a high cost of having 100 extra guys finishing 10-15 minutes behind the leaders. It's not turning the race into a dog and pony show, it's not preventing the leaders from establishing who the best 3 marathoners in the country are, it's not ruining the quality of the field. All it does is fill out the field so it looks like a full fledged race, attract spectators to the course, and give hundreds of runners a long term goal to chase that could very well turn into the accomplishment and experiment of a lifetime. If 500 guys were hitting the standard, then sure, tighten it up, but the field size has been the same almost every time. Why change something that has worked well in the past? Why take that opportunity and experience away from so many dedicated American runners when the upside to the USATF and race itself is almost nothing?
Say a guy runs 2:19. He looks at the standard and gives up. "I'll never be that fast, why try?" Same guy trains his can off gets in the race and runs 2:16 his first year in the trials. He doesn't quit and trains for the next 4 years.
How many of these guys do we lose by telling them they are not worth running in the National Championships. Why not keep the B standard 6 minutes behind the A and cap the race at 140? 160? runners? Way to demotivate all the guys we should be encouraging.
Looks like the final numbers are in for 2012--161 men's qualifiers. Of those, 59 have never finished a marathon (37% of the field). Is it me or is something very wrong about that?
I agree, that is wrong. The half should just be a way to prove you can run the marathon standard. It would make more sense if it was 1:05 if you have ever run a marathon under 2:20, otherwise 1:02.
I actually think the half standard is a great idea as it is a reasonable transition for someone coming out of college having trained for 5k/10k. I think it's a nice stepping stone to the marathon for the post-collegiates we are trying to keep in the sport.
Something else that is interesting/depressing is that there were no US Marathon Champs in 2011 due to the trials being in early 2012, so if you didn't qualify, you missed 2 years of competing at the US Champs.
Oh Please wrote:
Maybe what needs to happen is that the standard should be the top 50 times (based on individual) over the qualifying period.
Really, really, really bad idea!
Please do not give USATF ideas on how to screw up the Marathon Trials.
October 2009 Minneapolis-St. Paul women run in the annual
championships and qualify a bunch with "A"'s under 2:39
and "B"'s under 2:46.
Flash forward to December 2011 California International,
with your plan all those that qualified early could get bumped off the list by marathoners in a last chance race.
It's already painful enough to see it when it happens to a 5,000 meter or 10,000 meter runner in the NCAA's, but a marathon? No, let's stick with a time standard or like
Observation mentioned we may never get a chance to see a performance like Tera Moody did in the 2008 Oly. Trials in Boston.
msuxc1 wrote:
I actually think the half standard is a great idea as it is a reasonable transition for someone coming out of college having trained for 5k/10k. I think it's a nice stepping stone to the marathon for the post-collegiates we are trying to keep in the sport.
So you guys want to bitch and moan about the women getting any easier marathon standard, while the men get an easier half marathon standard? To me, it looks like the men are the pussies here for only having to run 1/2 the distance to hit their easier qualifying standard-- plus, they get all their expenses paid for (whether 10K/Half/Mar). I don't want to hear anymore complaining about how the women have it easier, most of whom are paying their own way to the Trials.
I hate it when people pretend that running is a waste of time. If running is a waste of time then you could also say that so is watching TV, reading a book, growing a garden, etc. I guarantee you that the average American spends twice as much time watching TV than an average 2:45 marathoner spends training. You should run because you like running and it is satisfying by itself. Running is a hobby and an enjoyable activity to many people just as gardening, playing an instrument, or watching football is to others. There are much worse ways to spend 4 years.
Sayer of Things wrote:
From Mike Morgan's Twitter.
Rumor has it out of the USATF annual meeting, that they have made changes to the qualification standards for the marathon trials.
All of that unofficial, but from my good buddy Will Lindgren.
10 hours ago
The men will have an A standard of 2:14, and a B of 2:18, no word on the half time. Women's A will go down to 2:37, and B to 2:43, 1:14 half.
any news on what the times for qualifying at other distances like the half marathon or 10000 will be?
or if there will be qualifying by way of other distances?
also what are the dates the qualifying window opens and closes?
There is no news of any kind, including any sort of confirmation of the trials standard change.
There is nothing in the agenda from the recent convention to suggest the 2016 OT Trials standard was discussed or being instituted. Remind anyone of Hawaii?
http://www.usatf.org/events/2011/annualMeeting/library/2011MLDRGenMeet_Agenda_v1.pdf
Excuse me, but i personally believe that this is very inapropriate. Where would be without Women's athletics today. we would have no gymnastics, we would have no dance. but to say that especially about running? I won my first half marathon at age 14. I finished behind the top 4 men. putting me at an overall 5th place. So what about the other 100s of boys and men in that race, are you saying they shouldn't be alowed to run because i beat them? Or i shouldnt be alowed to run because i can acctually hang with the top dogs? What i think is that you are a slow runner or a horrible athlete that has been beat by girls. and that probably hurt your ego, am i right? And what i think is because your such a slow runner you just want to put a stop to girls athletics because you are tired of them being better than you. Which i think is a little selfish an self absorbant. well listen up buddy. if girls beat you good for them, if thats to much for you, then just step up your game. And like the guy said before, i hope you never have a daughter.
Excuse me, but i personally believe that this is very inapropriate. Where would be without Women's athletics today. we would have no gymnastics, we would have no dance. but to say that especially about running? I won my first half marathon at age 14. I finished behind the top 4 men. putting me at an overall 5th place. So what about the other 100s of boys and men in that race, are you saying they shouldn't be alowed to run because i beat them? Or i shouldnt be alowed to run because i can acctually hang with the top dogs? What i think is that you are a slow runner or a horrible athlete that has been beat by girls. and that probably hurt your ego, am i right? And what i think is because your such a slow runner you just want to put a stop to girls athletics because you are tired of them being better than you. Which i think is a little selfish an self absorbant. well listen up buddy. if girls beat you good for them, if thats to much for you, then just step up your game. And like the guy said before, i hope you never have a daughter.
So, now that the OT's are over and results are in... how does everyone feel about the current standard of 2:19 vs the "new" rumored standards of B-2:18 and A-2:14...?
For reference:
-Number of Runners under 2:14 - 21
-Number of runners under 2:18 - 41
-Number of runners under 2:19 - 45
-Number of runners under 2:22 - 65
Number of runners that finished - 85
http://www.usatf.org/events/2012/OlympicTrials-Marathon/results/Men.asp
i think looking at #'s from one day and one race is a poor representation of the fairness of the proposed standards. to qualify people have their choice of hundreds of races during a multiple year window
like most people, i think the women's standard needs to (more closely) reflect the male standard difficulty, especially if the men's standard is going to go down even more
Remember that George Young won the 1968 Olympic Marathon Trials in his debut. We have to keep that hope alive for those that dare to dream and dare to train like no other.
Has there been any update or timing for an update for this? Last time the window opened on Jan 1, 2009 and I want to make my spring schedule. I'm right on the border of 2:19 capability.
