The OTQ standards should have been 2:20 and 2:40... convince me I'm wrong

No matter where you place the time standards, you will always have many runners complaining that they are too hard to achieve.

There are runners complaining that the previous standards were too hard to achieve.

This happens with Boston qualifying times, cut off times in ultras, track qualifying times, etc.

When time standards are lowered, you will have a certain percentage of runners that will train harder/better to improve and meet those new standards.

All those 2:40 women and 2:20 men can still obtain fame, satisfaction and glory (if that is what they want) winning all the smaller marathons and other races all over the US.

I think if I were a 2:20 guy I would rather run a marathon where I would have a chance of winning than be a pack-filler at the Trials.

doctorj wrote:

Let me see: The OQ standard is 2:11:30 for men and 2:29 something for woman and you pretend that 2:20 for men (8 and a half minutes slower than the OQ and just 9 minutes faster than the woman's standard) is a meaningful competitive standard?

What do you smoke bro???

That’s not the point though. there is very little cost and very huge gain to expanding the Olympic Trials to more runners. If you’re a competitive runner in HS and college the Olympic trials marathon is always the dream. 2:22 was the one standard that felt vaguely possible down the line my whole career, from HS to my mid 30s. I did get close but that wasn’t the point - it was reasonable to dream on. I know so many guys who stayed extremely engaged in the sport, training, learning, competing, but most importantly dreaming because they knew they had an outside shot. These are the same people, hundreds of them over the course of a few years, who become true lifelong ambassadors of the sport.

These are guys who work full time jobs while training often on their own, without a coach or a team, in the shadows. These are guys who were not born with freakish genetics. They’re the true blue collar athletes. Guys whose genetic ceiling may be 2:20 and they actually run 2:20.

I say, drop the standard way down. Make it 2:26 for the men. The only reason to restrict the field is a bizarre elitism and corporatism. We’re talking about a field of a few more hundred not thousand - road races routinely organize 10s of thousands more people. And you still do all the little cutesy perks that make the elites feel special

I could be wrong believe the old OQ standard was 2:15:00 before for guys....maybe even as "slow" as 2:19:00? There is a certain trade-off here with "promoting the sport" for post collegiate runners and overall competitive depth for "national class/sub elite Americans" and making it only about selecting the top 3 best runners in the country. They could have just done away with a trials race and/or had a super elite sub 2:12 time standard (for men) and like (2:29 for women or something?). I'm glad they didn't though. And several hundred (if not the top 1000 marathoners in the country) can still "dream big" with an OTQ goal. Which is pretty cool IMO. In my opinion (and I have many...see my full video analysis below), it is best to say anyone who makes the OTQ will get full travel support and lodging at the race as well as fluid bottles. Maybe that's 150-200 for each race. That seems like a reasonable field size to offer that level of support. Over 500 runners financially becomes a lot harder to organize at that level of support and if you opened the Men's time up to 2:26 you'd be talking about well over 1000 if not over 2000 + probably? I don't think its about "elitism" but rather money and a concern of people (i.e. "the real favorites") getting tripped up. The marathon trials for a lot of runners is a pretty unique experience because you are actually running in fairly large packs at 2:12, 2:15 and 2:18 pace for most of the race (which usually you don't experience even in a marathon major or any other large city marathon...except maybe Chicago). Add in super shoes to the mix and it was inevitable the times had to come down. Maybe 2:37 was a little too big of a jump for the Women (I'd say maybe 2:38 would have been better), but I also think a lot of women will rise to the occasion. Anyway, my thoughts (and shameless self promotion):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpmJjg81JZM

The men's qualification time should be as fast, or faster than the Women's world record.

If you can't run that fast you have no right to run in a Men's Olympic trial.

Stick to fun runs and city events.

Men's championship marathons are like flash mobs at Grand Central Station

The standards are still too slow. They're still trying to make it a money-making event or try to break even. It makes sense in that way that you have people that don't really have a shot trying to push the pace like Schrader did, our country sucks at distance running relative to the population size. Why does the event need to make any money when the higher ups in USATF a non profit organization are making millions per year and they do virtually nothing the whole year? A guy like Seigel or Masbeck signed a few papers per year and made millions they did NOTHING.

I've got to agree with AXC here. Adding a couple hundred more people doesn't really affect how the race plays out, but it certainly would change those couple hundred peoples lives. Being given that opportunity would be amazing. It would give a lot more people something realistic to shoot for, and help them potentially have the motivation to stay in the sport longer.

Logistics would need to be worked out of course, but I'm sure pretty much very few runners would complain about having to pay for their travel for an opportunity like this especially since they probably already had to do something similar to qualify in the first place.

I can see how it would make it "feel soft" but all the top runners are gonna be there regardless of the time so why not give more people an opportunity of a lifetime

It can be motivating and inspiring for more than just a couple hundred people...as you gotta also add up all those qualifier's family and friends and former/current teammates and other support systems that may have helped and sacrificed for that runner to meet that goal. Local newspapers and media outlets should love the story of the small town teacher who works full time and has a family and runs 120mpw in the dark before and after school and qualifies. Even though runners like I knew I had 0% chance of making the Olympic team, it is a very special race and a "ultimate dream in running" kind of goal. Plus, people hear "you are trying out for the Olympics"....so it for sure helps with a running career as a post collegiate and is a good motivator to keep running at a high level and dreaming big in one's 20s and 30s (and in some cases even older!). Others in the sport can relate to trying to qualify for Boston or something. But I disagree with the financial aspect of people "not caring" about shelling out the money for travel. Guys that run 2:17 and faster can get travel support at a lot of marathons...and even win prize money. Financially it can be a big deal to travel (sometimes across the country) and get a hotel for a race like the Olympic Trials if you have no sponsorship and no support from the race. Not all marathoners in the US are very well off financially (although no doubt many people come from rich families where money is not a problem in this sport). I think if the field size is under 250 in each race then they can all get offered some support from USATF/hosting city. Travel stipend, hotel and bottles etc. Maybe even a free shirt. We got several clothing items from NYRR in 2007 (hat, gloves, sweatshirts all branded with OTQ stuff). I could be wrong, but In 2012 at Houston I'm pretty sure there was travel support of any guy that hit the "A standard" (which was also the "B marathon Standard") of 2:19:00. And all of us who did that got bottles too (granted there were less than 100 guys in that race). On another note I can see why some women were saying the last trials with nearly 500 runners was a little crowded feeling- and people were getting tripped up and falling down. When I was running near the lead pack at the start of the 2007 trials (we went out slow in like 5:25 first mile!), my #1 concern was "don't trip Brian Sell or Ryan Hall etc". Like I said earlier, a lot of guys used to running 2:17 or so are used to running in "no mans land" at a lot of marathon majors...or running off the front of a smaller marathon. Then all of a sudden at the trials you find yourself running in a pack of 60 guys all at 2:17 pace for 20+ miles. It's honestly a very unique experience.

jshealy13 wrote:

I've got to agree with AXC here. Adding a couple hundred more people doesn't really affect how the race plays out, but it certainly would change those couple hundred peoples lives. Being given that opportunity would be amazing. It would give a lot more people something realistic to shoot for, and help them potentially have the motivation to stay in the sport longer.

Logistics would need to be worked out of course, but I'm sure pretty much very few runners would complain about having to pay for their travel for an opportunity like this especially since they probably already had to do something similar to qualify in the first place.

I can see how it would make it "feel soft" but all the top runners are gonna be there regardless of the time so why not give more people an opportunity of a lifetime

AXC wrote:

I'll never understand the disconnect that most runners I meet in person are incredibly pleasant and encouraging people, many of whom regularly read Lets Run. And yet the dominant culture of LRC is so vindictive, toxic, and nasty.

I don't agree with sub elites competing in an elite race where they have absolutely no chance at meeting the Olympic Qualifying Standard. For the last Olympics it was 2:11:30 / 2:29:30. Why would we allow a 2:45 woman to compete at trials? To encourage her?

Why don't we make the female Olympic Trials standard for the 800 a 2:10 for example under that logic and have multiple heats at trials for it? We can do it. It would only be a little more time.

We should have consistency of excellence through the events! It should be a higher standard for all events and not water it down with inferior competitors. This is not emerging elite at New Balance High School Nationals. This is Olympic Trials.

I have great respect for anyone making the effort to train and compete in trials. I have a lot more respect for competitiors that make track trials because it is WAY harder.

I don't believe the idea that sub elites will someday become elites solely because they are supported by B standards at US Olympic Marathon Trials. I don't agree with that logic. Do you think we would produce more elites if we made track trials easy?

I can't think of any other reason why we would support it. I'm not part of the everyone wins movement applying to the Olympics Trials. It is a competition to see who gets in plain and simple. For everyone else there are more events to compete at than any other sport.

I agree with you. I just wish a compromise could be made to have another marathon be a middle ground between Boston and The Trials. There is a universe of talent differential between runners who could hold their own on an OIympic stage and runners who can eek out a sub 3.

You're wrong because that isn't what the settled on. They obviously felt the standard was too lax for both sexes.

The women's 2:45 was egregiously lax compared to the men. It's still far more lax than the men. 11% puts them in the 2:33 to 2:34 range. 2:37 is far more lax than it should be.

Galen rupp qualified, having never even run a marathon and he got a bronze

AXC wrote:

US women have been substantially outperforming the men in the marathon in recent years at the top, with a a softer more inclusive OTQ standard. So if anything I think it is more likely that having a more inclusive men's standard could raise the men's standard at the top instead of saying that the women's standard has to move to be more restrictive like the men's

With all due respect and politeness, this might be the most illogical comment I've ever read in over 15 years of following this site. How on Earth do you think it's possible that having slower standards contributed to the success of our top female marathoners, who would have qualified with faster standards? Do you think Molly Seidel won an Olympic medal this year because she had to beat a bunch of 2:38-2:45 women in order to make the team?

News flash: Only those who have the talent to run under 2:30 can make it to the podium of any top women's marathon. Don't believe me? Here are the personal best times for each U.S. woman who has finished in the top 3 of a championship or major marathon in the past decade:

Emma Bates - 2:24:20

Amy Cragg - 2:21:42

Shalane Flanagan - 2:21:14

Sara Hall - 2:20:32

Jordan Hasay - 2:20:57

Molly Huddle - 2:26:33

Desiree Linden - 2:25:55

Molly Seidel - 2:24:42

The slowest PB among them is 2:26! Do you really think having slower standards helped these women? If so, please explain.

You are wrong because you are missing the purpose of the race, which is to select the runners who will represent Team USA in the Olympics. The purpose is not to inspire a bunch of sub-elite runners who have no chance of ever making it to the Olympics. Only those with a realistic chance of making the team should be at the Olympic Trials. Someone who is 8+ minutes slower than the World Athletics qualifying standard of 2:29 has no chance of being an Olympian, sorry.

I'm with AXC. Having a trials standard that is "achievable" for more runners provides opportunity and inspiration to keep training for 2, 3, 4 more years. During that time, it's conceivable that a handful of runners could develop into competitive top-10 runners at the trials. Maybe with a very high standard they give up on running instead of having the patience to develop and improve. I also like the idea that a bigger field is a way of building and marketing the sport. These "marginal" qualifiers are real life influencers in their communities and do way more to build and sell the sport than any organization or marketing campaign. Regarding the potential of a ballooning field size with a lower standard, why not take the approach that Boston uses? You set a qualifying time and anyone who meets the standard can apply for the trials. Then you take the top 200, (or 300, or whatever number) who have met the standard. Publishing the list would keep it transparent and encourage achieving a time well under the qualifying mark.

purposeful wrote:

AXC wrote:

In 2020 the final qualifiers were the professional amateurs, those who are not putting off the rest of their lives but continuing to run at a high level... totally inspiring!

You are wrong because you are missing the purpose of the race, which is to select the runners who will represent Team USA in the Olympics. The purpose is not to inspire a bunch of sub-elite runners who have no chance of ever making it to the Olympics. Only those with a realistic chance of making the team should be at the Olympic Trials. Someone who is 8+ minutes slower than the World Athletics qualifying standard of 2:29 has no chance of being an Olympian, sorry.

Where does it end when it comes to "promoting the sport"? How about us old shufflers in our 50s and 60s? Shouldn't there be an age-graded standard? If a 60 year old man runs a 2:49:00, then that equates to an open sub 2:18. Just imagine the "interest" and the "motivation" that would generate amongst old athletes to say they ran in The Trials!

Keira D’Amato just won the half champs in 67:55. A few years ago, she was coming back to the sport after injury and birthing two children — she ran a 3:xx time, then a 2:48 or something, and that’s when she realized she could go after the Trials standard. Maybe she would have, maybe she wouldn’t have if it was 2:37.

Are you really going to pick up that many people who are seriously competitive from a slightly looser standard? Probably not many. But you will get some, and you will continue to make fans of the sport in cities across the country who are excited for their local runner. Some of those fans could grow up to be the next Molly Seidel, and even more immediately— those people might get excited about real pros and buy their gear, the products they rep. There is money to be made here to help the people who make a living from this sport, but USATF has never seemed to be very good at that type of growth, so not surprised they made a short sighted decision.

You MIGHT want to take a close look at the results from TODAY's California International Marathon.....

That created already a most impressive depth of field at the officially proposed standards.

Keira D'Amato is a great comeback story, but you left out an important fact: her qualifying time for the Olympic Trials was 2:34:55, so she still would have qualified with the faster standards!

I see your point about getting people excited about their local runners, but we already have well-known major marathons that can serve that purpose: Boston, Chicago, and New York. The Trials are about making it to the Olympics, and someone who can't run faster than 2:37 has no business being there, except as a spectator or aid station volunteer.