Womens Oly Trials Marathon Standards

Page on usatf.org has been updated since it was originally posted on Friday. "B" standard lowered to 2:46 from 2:47, and they fixed that qualifying window typo referenced above (window opens 1/1/10, not 1/1/09).

I told you so.

Thanks Ray. You showed the way, I wish I could say that I am filling your shoes but would never consider my contributions on par with yours. You know I mean that in all sincerity.

pocky wrote:

so basically, they're the same, whereas the guys is now much harder. seems fair.

it's like Title IX all over again.

Only 3 (4 if you include alternate) on either side go to the Olympics. Get a sex change if you don't like it. Women get it so easy. Although I'm sure that can be detected and your dream of running in the women's Olympic trials will never be fulfilled.

Notakicker wrote:

The women's standards are easier because fewer women compete at the elite level. The goal is to have roughly the same number of entrants overall, men and women, about 200.

The reason there are fewer women competing at the elite level is because the standards are too low! It's time the women start raising standards in this event. Any decent woman runner can train well for 6 months and make the B standard.

Let's compare: Men for 2008 A Standard - 14+ minutes slower than WR, B Standard 16+ minutes. Women for 2008 A Standard - 23+ minutes slower than WR, B Standard 31+ minutes slower!

Does the men's qualifying window still open on January 1st of 2009 or is it 2010 as well?

USATF still says 2009.

it doesn't open at all if you live in the armpit of california. sorry. perhaps you can try the womens trials, after all you're on that thread right now.....good luck, i hear mrs goucher will be tough to beat....

Any guys bitching about the women's standards either need to train a bit harder or grow a pair.

Seriously, boys. What a bunch of crybabies you are.

Or get a sex change.

So the men's qualification window opens January 1, 2009, and the women's opens January, 1, 2010?

Does anyone know why there is a year difference between the two? Just curious.

The idea was to give the men an extra year because of the tougher standards. The women didn't feel like they need it.

I know why the difference in qualifying periods- a competition to see which sex can qualify more for their respective OTrials.

I've got a pair and I'm complaining that the women need to raise their standards closer to what we ask the men. It's not a matter of fair to men, its being fair to women and challenging them to raise the standards for the marathon to that of the other events they compete at in the Olympics. By setting lower standards we have fewer women trying harder to clear the bar. I could care less that we've made it "harder" for men to qualify for the Trials. What we have done is ask more men to run even faster. We are asking more men to run 2:19 or faster to even participate. Let's ask more women to run 2:39 to participate, not 2:46.

ray wrote:

Any guys bitching about the women's standards either need to train a bit harder or grow a pair.

Exactly why do you believe that it's inappropriate for a male to criticize the decisions of this particular committee?

Ever since 1984, the U.S. Olympic trials qualifying standard for the women's marathon has been exceptionally soft. It doesn't seem unreasonable for people, both men and women, to prefer a more stringent standard, if only because the glaringly soft standard for the women's marathon tends to diminish the accomplishment of qualifying for the Olympic trials for both men and women. You may not like that basis for objecting to the soft standard, but at least it's a cogent reason for a tougher standard. I still haven't heard a cogent reason for maintaining an exceptionally soft standard, and trying to shut down discussion on the matter by telling critics to train harder and grow testicles tends to suggest that the decision to maintain a soft standard may be difficult to justify on the merits.

I do believe that a single qualifying standard of 2:40 would produce significantly more sub-2:40 marathoners among U.S. women, and probably more sub-2:30 marathoners as well. Maybe those aren't important goals of the committee, or maybe the committee was more concerned about other things. It sounds as though the committee isn't particularly inclined to explain its decision.

I was not involved in the process this time around. I actually argued to have the standard tightened in 2004 which put my own wife out of the trials. The original intent was to get as many women as possible involved. There is absolutely no evidence to show that tighter standards and a higher bar get more people running faster. Without even checking the data, I'd venture a guess that we don't have as many men running as fast as they did from 78-88.

My last point is why is it that it is always the men that argue that the women should do things the way the men do them? You may not think so, but I was involved in the inner workings of that organization for a long time, and it was a long battle to get them to stop thinking that way (on both sides), I'd say both groups have gone back to doing their own thing and having little if any cooperation between the groups. Just my opinion, but there's little indication reality is any different.

When the women start complaining the standard is too soft it'll change. When the men do it, it's just sour grapes,

[quote]Avocados Number wrote:

Ever since 1984, the U.S. Olympic trials qualifying standard for the women's marathon has been exceptionally soft.]

I don't agree.

[It doesn't seem unreasonable for people, both men and women, to prefer a more stringent standard, if only because the glaringly soft standard for the women's marathon tends to diminish the accomplishment of qualifying for the Olympic trials for both men and women.]

No it doesn't.

[You may not like that basis for objecting to the soft standard, but at least it's a cogent reason for a tougher standard. I still haven't heard a cogent reason for maintaining an exceptionally soft standard, and trying to shut down discussion on the matter by telling critics to train harder and grow testicles tends to suggest that the decision to maintain a soft standard may be difficult to justify on the merits.]

Object all you want. I don't agree 2:46 is an exceptionally soft standard.

[I do believe that a single qualifying standard of 2:40 would produce significantly more sub-2:40 marathoners among U.S. women, and probably more sub-2:30 marathoners as well. Maybe those aren't important goals of the committee, or maybe the committee was more concerned about other things.]

Looks like only about 20 women broke 2:40 last year when we hosted an Oly Trials Marathon. To a degree, I agree that standards can & do provide stimulus to up your game but drawing the line at 2:40 for OTM qualifying purposes is currently too arbitrary, too exclusive, too fast. I'd think the goals of 'the committee' are to set standards tough enough to ensure a competitive field of runners. That said, the very best will be there regardless of the 'B' standard which at 2:46 is still an excellent time no matter the manner you'd choose to measure it.

Drawing lines of absolute, or even relative equality between men's marathoning and women's marathoning in the US is erroneous. They are two significantly different animals. Consider that 1984 was the very first women's Olympic marathon and that from then through today the women's side of the sport (for a number of reasons, some physiological and some societal but none resulting from OT standards) remains nowhere near as competitively deep as the men's side. Women have not been competing in the marathon for even half as long as men have. The focus on 2:19 vs. 2:46 is a non-starter. Face it, all 2:14+ men and all 2:32+ women are out of contention for a team spot, the majority of the field is there simply as fodder to fill out the field since USATF wants a certain field sizes for the OT marathons. I do not have a problem with a field as small as 10 for the OT marathon but apparently USATF does. The time standards acting as goals to drive a certain subset of elite marathoners is nothing more than an unintended side-effect.