This is great news. I thought I could hit 2:45 eventually but 2:37…not so much. Now I have an excuse to give up and float around in my pool all day! Thanks, USATF, for freeing me from the goal of becoming a hobby runner.
This is great news. I thought I could hit 2:45 eventually but 2:37…not so much. Now I have an excuse to give up and float around in my pool all day! Thanks, USATF, for freeing me from the goal of becoming a hobby runner.
Still a flipping fun run for the pretenders. And don't forget to have the trials at a place that's 180 degrees different than the games location.
Interesting that the women's field may likely be significantly smaller than the men's, especially given that US women's marathoning is stronger and deeper on the world level than the men.
Tokyo:
US Women: 3-17-DNF (hard to imagine an Alphine at decent health & fitness not finishing top 30)
US Men: 8-29-41
Doha WC '19:
US Women: 6-13-38
US Men: 23-38-46
London WC '17:
US Women: 3-11-37
US Men: 16-42-DNF
Rio '16:
US Women: 6-7-9
US Men: 3-6-33
Qualifying standards for the 2024 Olympic Marathon Trials were announced today at the USA Track & Field (USATF) annual meeting, and they’re faster than the times needed to get into the 2020 race—especially for women.
Women who want to enter the race must have qualified with a 2:37 marathon or faster, or a 1:12 half marathon or faster. The marathon time is 8 minutes faster than the 2:45 required to get into the 2020 Trials. (The half marathon time in 2020 was 1:13.)
For men, the times are 2:18 and 1:03, one minute faster at both distances than the 2020 times (2:19 and 1:04).
The qualifying window for marathon times opens on January 1, 2022 and for half marathon times, January 1, 2023.
Mentioned this on another thread but 82 women were under 2:37 going into 2020, while 157 men were under 2:18 - what the hell's the logic there? Are they trying to "make up" for letting too many women in in 2020?
Should've gone with the World Athletics standard, then add off the descending order list. Hopefully whoever bids for the rights to the 24 Trials doesn't get left holding the bag.
Guess those running CIM this weekend are SOL if they go under the standard, since it won't count.
It’s time to make the women step up their games. The standards for the full distance is still tougher for the men. (6.5 minutes slower than the Olympics standard for men and 7.5 minutes for women). If you go off percentages the 2:37 is 17% slower than the world record of 2:14 while the men’s 2:18 is 13% slower than the men’s record of 2:01:39.
We've got an aticle up on the new standards that projects out how many qualifiers we can expect in 2024.
Not an OTQ wrote:
Mentioned this on another thread but 82 women were under 2:37 going into 2020, while 157 men were under 2:18 - what the hell's the logic there? Are they trying to "make up" for letting too many women in in 2020?
If I recall, the brojos posted an article within the past 2 years saying that 2:18 for men and 2:37 for women were roughly equivalent physiologically, so would guess that is the motivation. However, men are more likely to continue running post collegiately, so it would make sense for there to be more sub elite men to hit the standard.
Any updates to the allowed courses?
Are they at the point where there are only a few cities left in the pool to host the Marathon Trials or is it still too early?
If Dick Mahoney can run 2:14 in leather shoes while working as a letter carrier, more than 200 guys can run 2:18 with a work from home gig and these carbon fiber monstrosities. Delete your instagram and start training.
My new username will completely rule wrote:
Still a flipping fun run for the pretenders. And don't forget to have the trials at a place that's 180 degrees different than the games location.
This was USATF's biggest choke last time around.
Trials : cold and hilly.
Olympics: hot and flat.
How hard is it to get this right?
streak wrote:
Shelby is guilty wrote:
There’s no way the standards are that fast for men relative to the women. There’s just no way
What's your issue with it? According to IAAF rankings 30 US women met that marathon standard this year, and 31 men did. As for the half standard, last trials 2 men entered with a sub 1:03 half and 3 women entered with a sub 1:12. These standards if accurate seem designed to get equal numbers of men and women, with fields I would guess around 60 each.
To be fair, this will be about 60 men and 60 women for 2021 by Sunday night, after the CIM downhill Grand Prix has taken place.
Should be tougher. Estimate of 200 chicks is still too many.
Should be 2:15 for men and 2:32 for the ladies.
Why such discrepancies?
For women 2:37 is almost recreational level. Elite women are running consistently sub 2:20 is like allowing guys running 2:25. So pathetic getting exited cuz some chick runs sub 2:30.
When Atlanta was awarded the Trials races, the Olympic race was scheduled to be on a hilly course in Tokyo.
This doesn't make sense why the # of women is almost half of the # of men expected to qualify unless they're trying to make up for the excessive # of women in the 2020 trials. I'd rather they just get it right and set standards that have an ideal # that's roughly equal from each gender. Or just go off times and set a descending order list with a cap on the # of qualifiers.
abcrunning wrote:
Why such discrepancies?
For women 2:37 is almost recreational level. Elite women are running consistently sub 2:20 is like allowing guys running 2:25. So pathetic getting exited cuz some chick runs sub 2:30.
elite guys are running 2:02. why let rec time like 218 in?in 2019 1046 guys ran a 2:18. 556 Woman ran 237. The guys standard needs to be at 2.13.32 to be as competive. Mayne of we stop coddling guys with weak timea, they will man up and start putting up competitive times...
HobbyTrot wrote:
It massively cuts the women's field - any faster and you're looking at a few tens of women qualifying
https://twitter.com/slorgebutler/status/1466878301293613056
Yeah. They meant to do that. It leaves room for men to run in the womens field. They’re so brave.