Did the 2016 Marathon Trials Standards Change?

Ed's a fairly smart guy, he was able to suck a paycheck out of Reebok for years.

hahahah1 wrote:... the 2:17 guy was never gonna beat the 2:08 guy anyway. or the 2:09 guy. or the 2:10 guy. In fact, the race was over at the gun... the 217+ guy is losing by almost(or over) 2 miles.

Plenty of examples throughout the OT history of marathoners with slower pr's beating those with faster pr's. Pfitzinger is one, he came into 1984 with a mid 2:14 pr, if I remember correctly. That's not 2:17, but with the depth of US marathoning back then I doubt Pfitzinger would have been ranked in the top 25 coming into that trials race. He ended up winning that race after an epic duel with Salazar and John Tuttle. 2:09/2:10 guys that he beat included Rodgers, Meyer, Sandoval.

1988 is another one, Mark Conover came in with a 2:18 pr, ran 2:12 to win with runners with faster pr's like Mark Curp, Meyer outside the top 3.

2004, Birmingham, Trent Briney comes in with a 2:20+ pr, runs 2:12 to just miss the team in 4th place. Not a whole lot of 2:08-2:10 guys in that race so you could say Briney beat a bunch of 2:13-2:15 guys, I wouldn't argue that.

To me, Briney's performance makes the case for having a more open trials with a larger field, unless a course has limitations that make it a less fair race above a certain number of runners. (Talking a "reasonably large" number of starters, which I'd define as something around 200.)

I was a critic of USATF's decision to lower the men's standard from 2:22. I felt that we'd see a much smaller number of qualifiers, leading to a situation where the guys in the 2:20-2:30 range gave up before they reached their potential. USATF felt (so I read anyway) that by raising the bar runners would up their training to achieve the faster standard. In reality the decrease hasn't been as much as I expected. In 2012 there were about 20 less finishers in the men's trials race than 4 years earlier, not sure about starter numbers. I'm still not a fan of dropping the bar even lower, but the jury is still out on how many will qualify for 2016's trials. Currently I believe there are 41 men and 63 women who are qualified. Lots of time to go.

go for it wrote:

This is definitely worse. I think 2:20 B, 2:15 A and 1:05 half are what we need. Eventually it'll get so low that we might as well just pick the 3 runners with the best times in the last year. If this keeps up we'll enter another distance running dark age.

I remember when they were about to announce the new standards thats exactly what I was anticipating since 219 was the "A" standard for 2012 (no b standards for men). I know they didnt want to pay for that many peoples travel expenses which is why I figured they would make it 215 for A (Olympic standard plus anyone sub 215 has a legitimate shot on their best day to make it).

I believe the problem that is going to arise however, especially if they keep lowering the time, is you are going to burn more runners out of the sport. People who could legitimately train and get down to sub 220 and get in the trials and drop a great race, will end up overtraining in terms of work load or training cycle, or go out too fast in their races to try and hit the harder standards. This could prevent/halt their possibly smarter progression/training plan they might have with a more obtainable standard. Which could lead to injury/frustration with the sport. You also have the guys that keep improving but just behind the increasing trials standards, which has got to be frustrating.

I definitely understand making the times competative, they need to be its the olympic trials, but from my biased full time non-professional runner opinion, you are doing more of a disservice to the sport if you keep dropping down the standards much more than they curently are.

I am probably in the minority on this point too, but I feel like if you run sub 65 in the half, you should at least have to have run a halfway legitimate marathon time (lets just say for the sake of the argument 225). It shows you can actually run a full marathon, you are just much better at shorter distances or you just had an off day but can still handle the distance.

Agree with exactly what minde15 said...If one runs a sub 2:18:00 they earned a Trials qualifier...that should mean something and USATF can give them a free plane ticket (maybe even a hotel room too) to the trials.I think there will be a lot more guys hitting the sub 1:05 standard. In 2012 it seemed like there was a decent number who qualified this way and some had never even run a full marathon before until the trials. But overall for most of the runners at the OT, this race is their "Olympics"...it is the ultimate goal and dream just to make it there. Lowering the standard from 2:22 to 2:19 to 2:18 in the last 8 years has just killed that dream for a lot of guys. There is a huge difference between running 2:21:xx and 2:17:xx!

Is it the case that sub-65 in the half is being equated with sub-2:18 in the full? Or does a sub-65 earn a free trip to the Trials? If so, there's gonna be a hell of a lot more guys qualifying that way than going sub-2:15. I'm in agreement that to run in the Marathon OT's one should have to run an actual Marathon to get in!

common wrote:

Another bitter, national-class has-been making irrational decisions out of spite.

It seems a bit irrational to ascribe such a collection of characteristics and motives to someone based upon his apparent belief that Olympic trials standards should be somewhat higher than you or someone else might prefer them to be. And on all of the message threads that I've read on this subject over the years, I've seen much more evidence of bitterness and vitriol from those who lack confidence in their ability to reach a relatively high qualifying standard than from those who have no great concern about their own ability to do so. Perhaps Ed is a bundle of bitterness, irrationality, and spite, but I've never heard him to be such, and I'd be surprised if he relied on those qualities to arrive at his opinions about reasonable trial standards.

I really don't care much about whether the standard is 2:17 or 2:18. I do, however, believe that qualifying times should be allowed only on courses that meet IAAF standards for qualifying times (or, even better, record-quality courses only, although that's a very tough sell because of the prominence and clout of the Boston marathon).

The other big change that I would make is to greatly increase the difficulty of the half-marathon standard or eliminate it altogether. I originally saw some value in a half-marathon standard to allow trials participation for a few legitimate team contenders who, for various reasons unrelated to the quality of their running, were unable to obtain marathon qualifiers within some period before the end of the qualification window. I had in mind something like a 1:03 or perhaps a 1:03:30. A 1:05 half-marathon standard, however, just encourages many potential qualifiers to forego the marathon event altogether, and also allows a number of qualifiers who have not made a compelling case that they can meet the marathon standards. For those who believe that the Olympic trials should be used to encourage a stronger marathoning scene in the U.S., allowing people to qualify for the Olympic marathon trials by avoiding marathons altogether doesn't seem very sensible to me.

The 1/2 Marathon qualifier is at B level. B permits you to run the trials at your own expense.

MJR7 wrote:

Is it the case that sub-65 in the half is being equated with sub-2:18 in the full? Or does a sub-65 earn a free trip to the Trials? If so, there's gonna be a hell of a lot more guys qualifying that way than going sub-2:15. I'm in agreement that to run in the Marathon OT's one should have to run an actual Marathon to get in!

I'd like to see the standards rolled back.

A standard you get your whole freight paid.

B standard, you pay your way but it's less expensive. You get free entry fee.

C standard: anyone under 2:30. You pay your own way, it's more expensive but you get to run in the race. This gets you to the starting line but you have to pay a fee to enter and find your own transportation, room and pay for your own food.

Maybe there's a banquet the evening before where you can mix with the elites.

I don't have prices in mind but I have friends who pay full freight to run Boston, Chicago and New York. It's expensive but people find a way.

AN, we went around about this a few years ago when the standards were changed from 2:22. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you.

My argument is purely about what would be best from a developmental standpoint. When someone like Glenn Latimer or Ed Torres makes irrational, disrespectful comments that show an irrational disregard for the very people and programs they are ostensibly there to support, I tend to get a bit irrational myself. Guilty as charged.

Just to be clear, I am referring to published quotes from both Glenn and Ed, not simply my impressions of their behaviors and actions as heads of the LDR committee. They have each shown a disdain for the very athletes they are supposed to be representing in words and in deeds.

I agree completely with your thoughts on the half-marathon.

go for it wrote:

this is definitely worse. I think 2:20 B, 2:15 A and 1:05 half are what we need. Eventually it'll get so low that we might as well just pick the 3 runners with the best times in the last year. If this keeps up we'll enter another distance running dark age.

___________________________

Why do you want 2:20?

Does that person have any slim chance of making the team?

Are the standards for people to just make the trials, and fill out the number of people in the trials?

I say make it 2:12.

9 guys who actually have a chance.

Mick5 wrote:

I say make it 2:12.

9 guys who actually have a chance.

10/10

This is how it's done, kids.

As a runner and member of the usatf, I would say the usatf should look at this in two ways. One would be towards the effect of developing athletes/marathoners. If that is their main goal, then increasing the standard and encouraging higher quality runners in the Olympic Trials Marathon would make sense by aligning the marathon standards with the IAAF marathon standards. That's clear, cut and dry. Then you have another goal - Making our sport popular with the general public. By discouraging the majority of competitors, it makes running unpopular. So why the heck would the usatf put themselves in this conundrum? They really need to align their goals with the other committees and increase the popularity of our sport before creating such high standards for those that seek them.

xenoscrems wrote:

What they really need to change is the women's standard. Based on participation levels I would argue that 2:40/2:55 (A/B) would be fair and bring us up to the men's level.

Nice try, but I think everyone knows 2:18 for men is faster than 2:43 for women, myself included.

xenonscreams wrote:

xenoscrems wrote:

What they really need to change is the women's standard. Based on participation levels I would argue that 2:40/2:55 (A/B) would be fair and bring us up to the men's level.

Nice try, but I think everyone knows 2:18 for men is faster than 2:43 for women, myself included.

No it's not- the IAAF set the standards of 2:18/2:43 to be equivalent. What's not equivalent is the 1:05/1:15 HM standards- 1:15 is tougher. What will happen is more men will pursue the 1:05 standard, and there will be more men at the 2016 Trials (as evident by tallying the number of men vs women who met these standards at the 2012 Trials).

If USAT&F wants to market the 2016 OG trials race as THE BEST OF THE BEST the tighter standards seem a good idea.

I agree that the National Champs should be a lot looser to get the best of the rest on the line too. BUT if The Trials also acts as National Champs one out of four I can live with a smaller field. But with 65 or so men already having at least a B I think by the time the 16 OG trials goes to the line we'll see closer to 100 entries.

Actually, 120 men from the 2012 field would meet the new standards (vs 109 women), so I predict at least 130-140 men and 120+ women.

As a mid-2:20s marathoner who currently has no chance of making the trials, it's frustrating to see the women's B standard at 2:43 when the men's is 2:18.

The women's WR is 109.8% of the men's WR time (2:15:25 vs. 2:03:23). By that logic, the women's B standard should be 2:31:30. That's faster than the current women's A standard. I understand men's marathoning is much more competitive, but give me a break.

I have no problem with the men's B standard being 2:18 if USATF truly wants to make the Trials an elite event. I would just like to see some consistency.

Yes, I realize different governing bodies set the men's and women's standards.

Buddy, read post above. The IAAF says 2:18 and 2:43 are equivalent, so USATF men's and women's committees ARE trying to be consistent and equal by adopting these standards. Based on the standards, there would be 120 men vs 109 women from the 2012 Trials. The men absolutely do not need to be complaining.

The men are not complaining. The Boys are.

Lets put in other terms fellas. If you can run within 2 and a half minutes of the Women's WR then you have earned an opportunity to try to represent the USA in the 2016 Olympics.