Huh? How many people start the Olympic marathon?
Huh? How many people start the Olympic marathon?
is this talking about the 800?
I ran a 2:16 800, does that mean I can go to the olympics?
First of all, there aren\'t that many extra people that would be running the race if it stays at 2:22.
Secondly, even if there are a few extra, it doesn\'t matter. This is a road race, not a track race. There aren\'t heats. There is NO good reason to limit the number of entries.
Thirdly, slower qualifying times make it easier for elites who don\'t want to go hard just to get a time. Now you are forcing people to run in more and more serious MARATHONS. (Granted this isn\'t a very strong point but i think it will become more important as the qualifying time continues to drop).
Fourth, it\'s ridiculous to say if you run 2:20 you have no chance. You never know what kind of race it\'s going to be. You never know under what conditions that previous 2:20 was run under.
A marathon is a big enough deal that if someone goes through the life-consumign process of training for and running a 2:22, let them the hell in the race. There is NO downside, and there is an upside (development, experience). By your standards, eventually only the favorites should be allowed to run.
by the way, you're not much of a mentor for young runners if you are imbuing them with this ultra-elitist ideology from a young age.
Steve Sundell qualified this year with 2:21:03 and placed 15th right behind James Carney and Fasil Bizuneh in 2:16:54. I think it's ignorant to say if you can't run 2:20 to qualify you have no chance being competitive.
lion wrote:
Steve Sundell qualified this year with 2:21:03 and placed 15th right behind James Carney and Fasil Bizuneh in 2:16:54. I think it's ignorant to say if you can't run 2:20 to qualify you have no chance being competitive.
If it's the "feel good" factor, you're after, then let everyone run the OT race; it should be easy handling 35,000 entries.
Whether the cut-off is 2:20 or 2:21 or 2:22:15 really doesn't matter at the end of the day. The point is that the OT race is, by definition, an elite event with one purpose only: to pick the best 3 US marathoners (with 4th and 5th as fall-back positions). It's entirely appropriate to have an elite field and, as far as I'm concerned, 2:20:00 is a fine definition of "elite."
What's the point of having a separate race for the Marathon trials anyways? Why don't we select the team the way that Kenya does, which is pick a major marathon and the top 3 American are it. That would simulate a Olympic caliber marathon better than a race of just Americans.
Instead of lowering the standard (in terms of time), they should eliminate it all together.
if you can't run a sub 2:20, you have no business being at the Olympic Trials....Hello, McFly? It's the OLYMPIC TRIALS...not some race to make 225 marathoners 'feel like they are potential Olympians'. (and I AM one of those guys who fell short by 2 minutes of making the trials. I didn't deserve it).
Man, if you really didn't think you deserved it this wouldn't be the 2,076th time I had to read about how agonizingly close you came.
forget it time to man up wrote:
if you can't run a sub 2:20, you have no business being at the Olympic Trials....Hello, McFly? It's the OLYMPIC TRIALS...not some race to make 225 marathoners 'feel like they are potential Olympians'. (and I AM one of those guys who fell short by 2 minutes of making the trials. I didn't deserve it).
9/10
forget it time to man up wrote:
Hello, McFly? It's the OLYMPIC TRIALS...not some race to make 225 marathoners 'feel like they are potential Olympians'. (and I AM one of those guys who fell short by 2 minutes of making the trials. I didn't deserve it).
It doesn't seem to be a problem for Kenya to use London for their trials. And why 2:20? That's totally arbitrary, especially that the Olympic standard is 2:15. Either have the OT standard 2:15, or have no standard at all and use a major marathon. Having a standard of 2:22 or 2:20 or 2:19 or anything other than 2:15 makes no sense. It just makes a bunch of guys between 2:15 and 2:20 "feel like they are potential Olympians", in your words.
i think 2:22 is a good number - lowering it might discourage people from giving it a shot. Think about it - if the qualifying standard were 2:15, does Brian Sell think he even has a shot at the Olympic Trials Marathon 10 years ago? No one - not even Brian could have predicted his 3rd place finish at the trials this year or 2:10ish PR when he was plugging away at Messiah. Maybe if the standard were 2:15, he thinks its out of reach, and gives up the dream. 2:22 just kind of dangles out there - every 2:30 or 2:40 hack thinks if he puts in a few years of 100 mile weeks he might have a shot. every so often, one of those "hacks" turns out to have talent at the longer distances - like Sell.
no standard wrote:
forget it time to man up wrote:Hello, McFly? It's the OLYMPIC TRIALS...not some race to make 225 marathoners 'feel like they are potential Olympians'. (and I AM one of those guys who fell short by 2 minutes of making the trials. I didn't deserve it).
It doesn't seem to be a problem for Kenya to use London for their trials. And why 2:20? That's totally arbitrary, especially that the Olympic standard is 2:15. Either have the OT standard 2:15, or have no standard at all and use a major marathon. Having a standard of 2:22 or 2:20 or 2:19 or anything other than 2:15 makes no sense. It just makes a bunch of guys between 2:15 and 2:20 "feel like they are potential Olympians", in your words.
For what it's worth, I'm totally fine with having a major race serve as the US trials--NYC, Chicago, or some other race. It's strange that we still do have a stand-alone OT race at the distance. One reason for the current system, as I recall, is that the "extra" runners in an open race complicate the tactics of the Americans in contention. However, one could counter with the blindingly obvious statement that that's precisely what they'd face in the Olympics.
This "big-city" OT scenario would take care of the "feel-good" factor for 2:20+ folks. However, none of them--repeat, none--would be in the running for the top 3 positions.
Great job USATF. Way to further reduce the number of people on this planet who give a sh..t what you do.
Why not 2:12 then? Think about it, makes sense money wise! Right?
ALSO, the more people you let in the race, the more fans you are going to generate, the more money you can rake in. having a bigger race also better simulates what the oly marathon will be like, if even just for the first few miles. you really want to send out only 10 or 15 guys? every race has the people who are not going to be up front competing for the win, including the oly final...no reason to create some absurd elitist time trial crap to prepare for it.
hell, why not just pick the top 10 runners, put them on a track, and invite only their family to watch? elitist enough for you, ya snobs?
douglas burke wrote:
well actually since the olympic cutoff is 215 if you cant run 215 you have no chance, but everyone should just relax this is 5 years down the road and there probably will be advances in coaching, training methods etc. anyways isnt it the same for everyone just do the best you can do and be proud of that.
?????
Advances in coaching and training methods?
In 5 years? How exactly will coaching get better in the next five years to affect performance?
And training methods? Have training methods changed in the last 5 years to make people faster?
If anything, methods and coaching have gotten worse in many ways since around 1975.
why is the standard 2:19? because there are many WOMEN who can run near that time. As far as I am concerned, if you can't beat one of the top 5 women in the world based on time, then you don't deserve a shot at the olympics or olympic trials. Maybe the Women's trials, but not the men's. That's embarrassing, you guys are complaining about 2:19. You do realize the WR is 15 mins faster? Haile could probably run 5k more by the time the 2:19-2:21 guys finish.
I say stop complaining, grow some sacks, train harder, and race faster. 2:21 is slow. Get faster.
kaput.
The change should come to the lady's side! Is 2:47:00 good? The lady's race is usually now around 2:20 to 2:25ish on average. So it fair to qualify for the Olympic trials and lose to the top woman by 15 to 25 minutes? That's 40 seconds a mile worse then the top american!! Should she feel like a Olympic trials qualifier?