OTQ sub 65 fair?

If you can run a half marathon that fast than you already are a good ENDURANCE runner. It is not like you can qualify with a 14 5k(about 2:18 equivalent according to McMillan Calculator).

I don't believe that it's really an issue of fairness. I do, however, believe that if there is going to be a half-marathon qualifying standard for the Olympic marathon trials, it should be much tougher than the marathon qualifying standard, available only for the purpose of providing some flexibility in fairly unusual cases involving exceptional athletes who have demonstrated that they would be serious contenders for the team if permitted to compete in the trials. The current half-marathon standard, which now (unlike, as I recall, the half-marathon standard for the 2012 trials) expressly permits qualification on point-to-point half-marathon courses with significant net elevation drops, provides a relatively easy way of qualifying for the Olympic marathon trials without going through the trouble of training for and running an actual marathon. That would not appear to be a very good way of encouraging good runners to become good marathoners.

And no, not all sub-65 half-marathoners can run a sub-2:18 marathon. The converse is also true.

Thank you for your insight Avocado.I do not think the converse of not being able to run under 65, but able to run under 2:18 would matter if your goal is the OT. Your response is appreciated, I agree with a lot of what you said.

Any other thoughts?

They definitely didn't set the HM and marathon standards with the intent of them being "equal". The HM standard is easier than the marathon standard (for a larger majority, but not always true), which is why so many more men have been pursuing it over the marathon. I ultimately think this is bad because it's an "easy way out" and might be a reason why so many men are underperforming when they eventually try the marathon. We need to be encouraging our men to step up to the marathon and become marathon specialists. I hope they drop the HM standard altogether, or as Avocado said make it harder to qualify that way. Same goes for the women (although their HM standard is harder than the marathon B standard, so more women are pursuing the marathon).

The marathon is almost a whole different sport from T&F. The HM is a pretty good predictor of marathon talent, but has a much lower relevance than say 5,000 to 10,000 or 10,000 to HM.

The field for a trials marathon is already much, much less elite than any track event, so I don't see HM qualifiers diluting the race any more than the other B standard qualifiers that would need to have a great day (relative to their qualifier) to sniff the top 20!

I'd see no harm in eliminating a HM standard or making it tougher, but I wouldn't be against lowering the 2:18 either. It all depends on what the goals of an OT race are.

Avocado's Number wrote:

I do believe that if there is going to be a half-marathon qualifying standard for the Olympic marathon trials, it should be much tougher than the marathon qualifying standard.

In its ever-whimsical and inscrutable style, USATF has done exactly this on the women's side but not on the men's. A 1:15:00 for a runner who's reasonably well-trained for the marathon equates to something like a 2:37:30, and going the other way, the "B" standard of 2:45:00 means that runners who may not be able to run under 1:18:00 for the half have a shot at the Trials. On the men's side, 1:05:00 and 1:17:30 are on roughly equal ground.

So regardless of anyone's opinion concerning whether a half-marathon OTM qualifying standard should exist at all, it's undeniable that USATF, perhaps hoping to surprise people, is being wildly and inexplicably inconsistent. (That 2:18:00 is far more stringent than 2:45:00 is also undeniably true, but that's fodder for a different argument.)

Avocado's Number wrote:

The current half-marathon standard, which now (unlike, as I recall, the half-marathon standard for the 2012 trials) expressly permits qualification on point-to-point half-marathon courses with significant net elevation drops, provides a relatively easy way of qualifying for the Olympic marathon trials without going through the trouble of training for and running an actual marathon. That would not appear to be a very good way of encouraging good runners to become good marathoners.

Both half and full marathon standards permit point-to-point courses & elevation drop. See here:

I admit I googled to check that because it made me curious to find a downhill half marathon.

anyone intersted in posting some of the best courses to use? I would assume it would rule out crazy races like that big cottonwood canyon in utah that josh rohatinsky puts on, but perhaps there are those "perfect" pitch ones where it's around 199ft over 13mi?

FWIW- For 2012 Trials, I counted 55 guys ran sub 2:18, 27 guys ran in the 2:18s, and 65 guys (that did NOT run sub 2:19) ran sub 65 for the half. Based on this, I agree with OP. Maybe make the half standard sub 64?

2:43:00 not 2:45:00.

not my real name. wrote:

anyone intersted in posting some of the best courses to use? I would assume it would rule out crazy races like that big cottonwood canyon in utah that josh rohatinsky puts on, but perhaps there are those "perfect" pitch ones where it's around 199ft over 13mi?

Same rules as the marathon apply - 3.25m/km is the max drop. So that's about 220 feet for the half marathon. No, the stupid Utah courses don't count.