USATF Announces 2020 Olympic Trials Marathon qualifying standards

fdasjfdsaladsfl wrote:

Yet the US's sole Olympic medal in the event last year was from a Half Marathon qualifier.

What is the harm in having a HM qualifying time?

Rupp ran 61:20 not 65:00 or 64:00 or 63:00 I see no problem using a 1/2 to get into trials but 62:30 is a better cut off.

broken arrow wrote:

I don't like the half marathon qualifier time as they are two completely different races. No other event lets you qualify by running a shorter distance. Should be 2:19 marathon and that is it.

I agree with you (although I voiced that it should be 2:20/2:45 for the men and women to draw similar sized fields). However, the argument was made for keeping the half times and tightening them so the best talent/legit contenders (~Rupp, Chris Derrick, Molly Huddle) wouldn't be forced to run a marathon and possibly throw off their track season or require additional recovery time as compared to a half. 1:04 was chosen over the more equivalent 1:03/1:13 because someone like Chris Derrick was used as an example (he had run 1:03:41).

It seems that when Americans were the most competitive in the world at the marathon distance, the qualifying time for the trials in the marathon was solely a marathon time, and not a half marathon time (1970s-1980s). I like the idea of 2:20/2:45, which forces runners who want to be marathoners, become marathoners. It;s a different event, just like guys specialize in the 800m. Those athletes focus on the 800m and dapple in the 1500m/mile every once in a while, but they consider themselves 800 specialists. Now, I know you can recover and race more 800s and miles, and that's completely different than the 1/2 marathon to marathon, but the athletes that have had success in the marathon, have expressed that they are marathon runners. Anyways, the marathon trials have been the fastest it's been in decades, and it would just be nice to see some up and comers tackle the distance and feel legitimate at the "Trials Stage". Just take a look at these awesome status that marathonguide.com has provided on the History of the Trials:

http://www.marathonguide.com/news/exclusives/USAMenOlympicTrials_2007/USAOlympicMarathonTrialsHistory.cfm

Plus, where would American distance running be without the self made olympian - Ron Daws. side note: he never broke 2:20, but made the Olympic team! Thank you usatf for crushing dreams. To all the 2:30 guys and 2:50 gals, keep the faith and keep training!!!

generalquestion wrote:

whats the harm in making the trials 2:25? roads are already closed, the streets are massive, they basically have the course blocked off for 3 hours anyway. never made much sense to me why they wouldnt allow the top 500 US marathoners into the trials

I tend to agree.

What about 2:18, 2:35 all expenses paid. 2:25, 2:46 $1000 entry fee? Which would weed out non serious runners.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

What about 2:18, 2:35 all expenses paid. 2:25, 2:46 $1000 entry fee? Which would weed out non serious runners.

Fantastic, this really encompasses the spirit of running. The richer athletes get to run, plus we get to keep out those runners who are so not serious about running that they can't even scrounge up a grand plus airfare and lodging.

OnePieceToe wrote:

It seems that when Americans were the most competitive in the world at the marathon distance, the qualifying time for the trials in the marathon was solely a marathon time, and not a half marathon time (1970s-1980s). I like the idea of 2:20/2:45, which forces runners who want to be marathoners, become marathoners.

The only American to medal in the marathon since 2004 qualified for the trials with a half marathon. Your argument is weak. Americans weren't relatively stronger on the world stage because of our qualification for the Olympic trials. We were stronger because the event was relatively weak on the world stage with few top Africans competing.

Asdfgh wrote:

OnePieceToe wrote:

It seems that when Americans were the most competitive in the world at the marathon distance, the qualifying time for the trials in the marathon was solely a marathon time, and not a half marathon time (1970s-1980s). I like the idea of 2:20/2:45, which forces runners who want to be marathoners, become marathoners.

The only American to medal in the marathon since 2004 qualified for the trials with a half marathon. Your argument is weak. Americans weren't relatively stronger on the world stage because of our qualification for the Olympic trials. We were stronger because the event was relatively weak on the world stage with few top Africans competing.

Arguments could be made both ways about using a half marathon time as a qualifer. Using Rupp as an example is not a good one. If he needed to run a 2:1x:xx marathon instead of a 65 minute half, he would have. He was going to run (and win) the marathon trials regardless of what standard he needed to meet beforehand.

generalquestion wrote:

There's no feasible way to fit 70 runners on the track in the 10k.

There is plenty of feasible way to fit 500 people on a marathon start line. Maybe 2:25 isn't the number, maybe 500 isn't the number, but expanding the marathon trails and making it slightly more lax (also, since they charge a registration fee, all that does is boost the prize money - theoretically)

I say keep the A standard as is. Do away with B standard. Anyone ranked top 100 not hitting the A standard can pay $500 entry fee that directly goes to the prize purse.

A standard gets elite start 30 meters ahead of general start line.

Done.

Dave and Camille, thanks for chiming in.

Random hypothetical (I know, we all love these) but Dave, your note about top-10 at BOS being auto "A" standards (iaaf) made me wonder, if it were a crazy hot day, with a headwind, and 10th place was an american, in 2:23, would usatf still recognize that as a "trials qualifier" performance? One would hope so (and obviously its quite farfetched but...), as I've always felt that top-10 (or even top-15) at majors should be auto trials qualifiers.

Just another fat guy wrote:

Asdfgh wrote:

The only American to medal in the marathon since 2004 qualified for the trials with a half marathon. Your argument is weak. Americans weren't relatively stronger on the world stage because of our qualification for the Olympic trials. We were stronger because the event was relatively weak on the world stage with few top Africans competing.

Arguments could be made both ways about using a half marathon time as a qualifer. Using Rupp as an example is not a good one. If he needed to run a 2:1x:xx marathon instead of a 65 minute half, he would have. He was going to run (and win) the marathon trials regardless of what standard he needed to meet beforehand.

His point was that Americans were better in the marathon when they had to qualify for the trials with a full marathon. That is ridiculous. Yes, obviously Rupp could have run a qualifying marathon without much trouble. But that isn't my point or the original poster's point.

jaguar1 wrote:

broken arrow wrote:

I don't like the half marathon qualifier time as they are two completely different races. No other event lets you qualify by running a shorter distance. Should be 2:19 marathon and that is it.

I agree with you (although I voiced that it should be 2:20/2:45 for the men and women to draw similar sized fields). However, the argument was made for keeping the half times and tightening them so the best talent/legit contenders (~Rupp, Chris Derrick, Molly Huddle) wouldn't be forced to run a marathon and possibly throw off their track season or require additional recovery time as compared to a half. 1:04 was chosen over the more equivalent 1:03/1:13 because someone like Chris Derrick was used as an example (he had run 1:03:41).

This just seems like such a shortsighted approach. If Derrick had run 1:04:12, would the new standard be 1:04:15?

It feels to me like this decision was mostly based on people's personal philosophies or egos rather than a serious discussion of what would be best for the sport as a whole.

OTQ wrote:

jaguar1 wrote:

I agree with you (although I voiced that it should be 2:20/2:45 for the men and women to draw similar sized fields). However, the argument was made for keeping the half times and tightening them so the best talent/legit contenders (~Rupp, Chris Derrick, Molly Huddle) wouldn't be forced to run a marathon and possibly throw off their track season or require additional recovery time as compared to a half. 1:04 was chosen over the more equivalent 1:03/1:13 because someone like Chris Derrick was used as an example (he had run 1:03:41).

This just seems like such a shortsighted approach. If Derrick had run 1:04:12, would the new standard be 1:04:15?

It feels to me like this decision was mostly based on people's personal philosophies or egos rather than a serious discussion of what would be best for the sport as a whole.

You must be new to USATF.

While Chris Derrick was used as an example, I believe the decision not to go to 63 more to make the numbers of qualifiers similar, yet have most of the qualifiers come from the marathon, like the women. The number of men that ran 64:00 or faster was 41 compared to number of men that ran 63:00 or faster (13). Only 86 men qualified with a 2:19:00 or faster (14 made it "after the fact" when the IAAF relaxed the standard from 218 to 219). Using 64:00 or faster dropped 84 men that had hit the 65:00 or faster standard and would have yielded about 127 qualifiers in 2016 (you never know who else would have tried to lower their time to hit the 64 standard).

The women's standard of 73:00 only would have had 13 qualifiers (dropping 35 qualifiers with the 75 standard) and like Camille had pointed out that would have led to the same number of qualifiers from the half for men and women. However, 198 women qualified in the marathon with the 245:00 standard (39 of those women had made it "after the fact" when the IAAF standard was changed from 243 to 245). So using the new standards would have had 211 qualifiers for women in 2016.

Personally, I think I am in a similar boat as Camille in thinking that only a few people should be able to qualify from the half and the majority should be from the marathon. I would have definitely been for 220/245 but the idea with sticking with 219 from my understanding was just to make sure than in some extremely unlikely scenario if a 219:30 guy got top 3 at the trials, he wouldn't be eligible for the Olympics from not having the IAAF standard.

Also, to whoever asked about an American finishing top 10 at Boston in a really poor condition year and only have run 223, he would be an A standard individual per the IAAF Gold Label race standards and if he got top 3 and did not run under 219 at the trials, nor at any other race when you can get the standard for the 2020 marathon (how this would happen realistically, I do not know), he would be competing for the USA in the Olympics in 2020.

jaguar1 wrote:

broken arrow wrote:

I don't like the half marathon qualifier time as they are two completely different races. No other event lets you qualify by running a shorter distance. Should be 2:19 marathon and that is it.

I agree with you (although I voiced that it should be 2:20/2:45 for the men and women to draw similar sized fields). However, the argument was made for keeping the half times and tightening them so the best talent/legit contenders (~Rupp, Chris Derrick, Molly Huddle) wouldn't be forced to run a marathon and possibly throw off their track season or require additional recovery time as compared to a half. 1:04 was chosen over the more equivalent 1:03/1:13 because someone like Chris Derrick was used as an example (he had run 1:03:41).

I would have loved to see the men's standard be set at 2:20 or 2:22. IMO you're still very serious at that point and for the high-2:20s/low-2:30s folks out there you still have something to shoot for. Those are not the kind of folks who are chasing the half time. They would be honored to be in the field. It's their Super Bowl. Who makes these decisions? What is the harm in putting 2:22 out there as the standard? The race does not change up front and local press picks up 50 more people who are hometown heroes. High school and college kids have more local folks to look up to. It's good for the sport.

As for the half, I'm okay with 1:03 or lower and even a fast 10k just as a way to let in the best runners who might have a chance to finish top-3. I think a 1:04:59 guy could do the training to get under 2:22 anyways. I would rather have a slew of 2:21:XX runners in the trials than everyone who chased 1:04:59. Chris Derrick would have been able to go under 1:03 if that were the standard.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

I tend to agree.

What about 2:18, 2:35 all expenses paid. 2:25, 2:46 $1000 entry fee? Which would weed out non serious runners.

Don't think they can set the A standard for trials faster than the Olympic A. (Which is what happened when they had to change the A from 2:18 to 2:19 last time). So I think they are assuing the Olympic A will be 2:19 again and setting it based off that.

If we really want to get anything done or get answers, we should email the usatf long distance running division - respectfully of course. Simply express your concern, thoughts and positive insight, and they will listen. I'm not sure how much they will consider your thoughts, but for the most part, I think they'll at least open your email and read it.

Division Chair: Michael Scott - 401-848-5121

Chair, Men's Long Distance Running: Edwardo Torres - 303-517-7434

Chair, Women's Long Distance Running: Kimberly Keenan-Kirkpatrick - 862-216-8210

Chair, Road Running Technical Council: Gene Newman - 520-904-7805

*these are the contacts to what usatf has on their website, whether they're update is another story...

fdasjfdsaladsfl wrote:

broken arrow wrote:

I don't like the half marathon qualifier time as they are two completely different races. No other event lets you qualify by running a shorter distance. Should be 2:19 marathon and that is it.

Yet the US's sole Olympic medal in the event last year was from a Half Marathon qualifier.

What is the harm in having a HM qualifying time?

/EOT

Gene Newman retired from the Chair of the Road Running Technical Council.

I now serve in that role.

Fill free to email me any questions in regards to road course certification/ requirements.

David Katz

katz@flrrt.com

One thing that is great about the current set up is that pretty much everyone who qualifies runs in the race. If you finish 50th you can say "I'm the 50th best American marathoner." If you make the standard 2:25 and made everyone over 2:19 pay extra a lot of those guys over 2:19 might skip it.