Congrats to this dude - Jesse Davis. 2:18:00 by a nose! Check the lean:
https://Instagram.com/p/9ydegEjt6l/
Clock shows a few seconds over, but must have been gun time discrepancy.
With 2:18 flat, I understand expenses are paid to trials - worth fighting for every second!
Not to bear the bad news, but 2:18:00 is the B standard. 2:15:00 is the A that gets your expenses paid.
Still a fantastic run to get the OTQ.
The trials standard is getting ridiculous.
I remember it being around 2:22 although I could be remembering it wrong.
Many can hope to run in the 2:22 range but 2:18 is out of reach for most and therefore they won't bother trying.
Sid Luft wrote:
The trials standard is getting ridiculous.
I remember it being around 2:22 although I could be remembering it wrong.
Many can hope to run in the 2:22 range but 2:18 is out of reach for most and therefore they won't bother trying.
It was 2:20 paid/ 2:22 non paid
No good reason it couldn't be 2:16 & 2:20. It would encourage post-college runners to stick with it and bring more interest to the trials. Friends, family, co-workers who don't care about running would become interested and maybe stick around and watch some on TV.
Looks like USATF goes with gun time, but make exceptions.
" Consideration may be given to "chip/tag" times for competitors with "gun" times extremely close to the above qualifying standards."
Em jay wrote:
Congrats to this dude - Jesse Davis. 2:18:00 by a nose! Check the lean:
https://Instagram.com/p/9ydegEjt6l/Clock shows a few seconds over, but must have been gun time discrepancy.
With 2:18 flat, I understand expenses are paid to trials - worth fighting for every second!
Shouldn't the time be based on clock time, not chip time? It's extremely easy for a timer to change someone's chip time to help them out if they barely missed.
it is clock time, but the finishing clock is not accurate.
My bad on the a vs b std. Ah well - still gets to roll the trials in la.
Article on the race:
What is the A std? I only know stds that start with G H and S.
Anal warts.
Scabies etc. wrote:
What is the A std? I only know stds that start with G H and S.
....but apparently they can be scratched out.
Brim wrote:
Anal warts.
Scabies etc. wrote:What is the A std? I only know stds that start with G H and S.
Sid Luft wrote:
The trials standard is getting ridiculous.
I remember it being around 2:22 although I could be remembering it wrong.
Many can hope to run in the 2:22 range but 2:18 is out of reach for most and therefore they won't bother trying.
The trials standard was 2:19:04 in 1984 and 2:20 in 1988 and 1992. Significantly, the qualifying window was only about one year, and there was no alternative standard based on half-marathon time. All things considered, the trials standard was probably quite a bit tougher to meet within the qualifying window back then; it is likely that far fewer runners would qualify under such a standard these days.
The standard was relaxed to 2:22 for the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2007 trials. I think that it was too soft, and its greater accessibility didn't seem to inspire athletes to faster times; runners simply began to aim for 2:22 instead of 2:20. I also think that the current half-marathon standard is too soft; it simply encourages athletes to train for and run a half marathon instead of a full marathon. But these things get debated endlessly. Many runners who are on the slow side of the standard argue for a slower standard. Go figure.
....while running 2:18! Without that distraction, he has to be good for at least 2:15.
Brim wrote:
....but apparently they can be scratched out.
Brim wrote:Anal warts.
FWIW Renato Canova has said that he thinks the American trials standard should be 2:25 or even 2:30...
asdfdsfasdf wrote:
FWIW Renato Canova has said that he thinks the American trials standard should be 2:25 or even 2:30...
I would agree that the B standard should be somewhere in this area with the A standard still around 2:15. As someone mentioned above, more qualifiers means more interest in the sport -- coverage by local media, etc.
This would also put it in line with the women's B Standard. The women's B Standard in @ 21 minutes slower that the PR of the women's favorites (Shalane/Desi) and the men's B Standard is @ 11 minutes slower than the PR's of the men's favorites (Meb/Ritz).
Avocado's Number wrote:
The standard was relaxed to 2:22 for the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2007 trials. I think that it was too soft, and its greater accessibility didn't seem to inspire athletes to faster times; runners simply began to aim for 2:22 instead of 2:20. I also think that the current half-marathon standard is too soft; it simply encourages athletes to train for and run a half marathon instead of a full marathon. But these things get debated endlessly. Many runners who are on the slow side of the standard argue for a slower standard. Go figure.
I am miles away from 2:22 and I think it should be a slower standard. I suppose it comes down to two options:
- Helping the sport as a whole to encourage post college runners and trying to increase fan base.
- The only purpose of the Trials is to pick the three fastest runners for the Olympics support the fastest professional runners.
Everyone wonders why many road races 5Ks are won in 16, 17, or 18 minutes. Give the post college and competitive recreational guys some motivation and goals to train 100 plus miles a week.
asdfdsfasdf wrote:
FWIW Renato Canova has said that he thinks the American trials standard should be 2:25 or even 2:30...
I disagree with him, and I don't consider him to be an expert on the subject.
As I said in my earlier post, the issue has been debated endlessly. Undoubtedly, it will be debated a great deal on this site again around the time that the standards are being considered for the 2020 trials.
Ackley wrote:
asdfdsfasdf wrote:FWIW Renato Canova has said that he thinks the American trials standard should be 2:25 or even 2:30...
I would agree that the B standard should be somewhere in this area with the A standard still around 2:15. As someone mentioned above, more qualifiers means more interest in the sport -- coverage by local media, etc.
This would also put it in line with the women's B Standard. The women's B Standard in @ 21 minutes slower that the PR of the women's favorites (Shalane/Desi) and the men's B Standard is @ 11 minutes slower than the PR's of the men's favorites (Meb/Ritz).
The women's marathon trials standard has been the outliner ever since the first women's marathon trials in 1984. It was finally tightened up significantly for the 2016 trials.
I also don't see much point in having an A and a B standard in the marathon. It's not a huge deal to me, but it doesn't serve the same purpose that A and B standards in other events do, and I think that it creates an unnecessary divide among the participants.
Sid Luft wrote:
The trials standard is getting ridiculous.
I remember it being around 2:22 although I could be remembering it wrong.
Many can hope to run in the 2:22 range but 2:18 is out of reach for most and therefore they won't bother trying.
I'm glad it's 2:15. What did it say about our future to ldr when the OT standard is 2:22?
What real chance does a 2:22 marathoner have to make the team?
Then why bother qualifying that person?
We all know when we get to the trials who the runners are that have a legit chance. Everyone 2:13 and under. No others. There are 3 spots and one alternate. Write this down; the guy from Kenya who is now an American who ran 2:11, Meb, Ritz, Ward, and maybe 3 others have a real chance. No one else. So why have people watch? Treat it like a track meet in LA. when they come around after the 2nd loop. Anyone further back than 10 minutes gets pulled.
I mean, to walk around saying you made the OT's. And it was with a 2:21:59, really?
Don't other countries laugh at us enough in the marathon?
Avocado's Number wrote:
Ackley wrote:I would agree that the B standard should be somewhere in this area with the A standard still around 2:15. As someone mentioned above, more qualifiers means more interest in the sport -- coverage by local media, etc.
This would also put it in line with the women's B Standard. The women's B Standard in @ 21 minutes slower that the PR of the women's favorites (Shalane/Desi) and the men's B Standard is @ 11 minutes slower than the PR's of the men's favorites (Meb/Ritz).
The women's marathon trials standard has been the outliner ever since the first women's marathon trials in 1984. It was finally tightened up significantly for the 2016 trials.
I also don't see much point in having an A and a B standard in the marathon. It's not a huge deal to me, but it doesn't serve the same purpose that A and B standards in other events do, and I think that it creates an unnecessary divide among the participants.
The reason a and b standards are different it other events is that you can run 200 people in a marathon and it is logistically the same as running 20 people. Not so in the 100m or 10000m or long jump.
If you think there should be just one standard, what should it be and should USATF cover expenses?