2015 USA Half Marathon Qualifying Standards

Here's the thing though: that 1:08 guy is not, in any sense of the word, competing in the race. He's essentially running a time trial several minutes behind the leaders. He might have other guys to run with, but he's not competing.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. A standard of 1:07 is just as arbitrary as a standard at 1:08. Even if you made the standard 1:09 you're still excluding 1:09:30 runners who are just as relevant to the race as a 1:07 guy.

Uncle Tom Thumb wrote:

1:08 guys are no more "good for the sport" than 1:38 or 2:08 guys. They're good for their own egos when they can win something but that's it. USATF is right not to coddle them.

to preface i totally agree/understand the standards tightening.

2 thoughts:

1) who is more likely to do things like register with USATF + a local club, support the local USATF association by running in road & XC series races, attend USATF coaching and officials certification clinics, attend meets like the USATF champs, volunteer to help at local races, volunteer to coach at a local middle/high school/college, etc.? a 1:08 guy, a 1:38 guy, or a 2:08 guy? obviously the 1:08 guy. yet you say 1:08 guy is no more good for the sport than slower runners who could care less about doing the things listed?

2) why is it always assumed on the boards that sub-elite guys are doing things "for their ego"? crazy thought here...maybe they are just serious about running because it's fun for them and they enjoy it as a hobby?

this sentiment probably coming from washed-up/overweight/out-of-shape/formerly fast but now 1:15+ guys jealous that they can't devote more time then running because of their crappy stressful job, wife & kids, or whatever. it's pathetic. worry about yourself & lay off people doing what they enjoy, running or otherwise. it's not hurting you one bit if Joe runner is out there cranking out 90mpw & running 1:08 HMs.

jamie whincup wrote:

He might have other guys to run with, but he's not competing.

Your definition of competing is pretty sad. I bet you're someone who has never reached their full potential because of that attitude. It's ALWAYS a competition, regardless of what place you're in. Whether you're trying to run a PR or break into the top 50 at a US Championship, you're always competing for something. By your definition, we should just have those guys hold hands and skip across the line together because they're all about the joy and happiness of the run and crap like that.

JustSomeDude wrote:

jamie whincup wrote:

He might have other guys to run with, but he's not competing.

Your definition of competing is pretty sad. I bet you're someone who has never reached their full potential because of that attitude. It's ALWAYS a competition, regardless of what place you're in. Whether you're trying to run a PR or break into the top 50 at a US Championship, you're always competing for something. By your definition, we should just have those guys hold hands and skip across the line together because they're all about the joy and happiness of the run and crap like that.

Then let's allow 1:30 HM guys to run. And 1:40 guys. They're competing too, so they have every right to compete at the US championships.

Look, like I said before, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Some people will always be upset because of where that cutoff is.

A 1:08 half marathoner can always find a competitive race. It's not like the USA championships is the only place to run fast. I just don't see the obsession with wanting to run a certain race in order to finish a mile behind the winner. It's an ego stroke for these 1:08 guys and nothing more.

Crazy that a sub69 got you in and hotel paid and now you need sub 65!

Jamie Wincup Wrote: The line needs to be drawn somewhere. A standard of 1:07 is just as arbitrary as a standard at 1:08. Even if you made the standard 1:09 you're still excluding 1:09:30 runners who are just as relevant to the race as a 1:07 guy.

This ^^^

I don't agree w/ the changes, but still, the line has to be drawn somewhere... They can't change the standard from 1:06:45 to 1:06:46, because a 1:06:46 marathoner is complaining to the meet manager, if he does let him in that's between those 2...

Look at the IAAF and US Champ standards, as people get faster, as they are now, the standards get faster, that's just how it works

However, we do need to give people who are sub-elites training really hard some type of pay off, because think about it, even if they show up, they aren't making money, depending on where they live they could be loosing money, even out, and still run a minute PR

Xenostreams wrote:

I'm ok with them tightening the men's standards. I always though they were kinda easy.

But leave the womens standard alone. 2h44m was hard enough as it is.

The women's standards are still MUCH easier to achieve than the men's standards.

1:07/2:21 vs. 1:17/2:42.

It's a no brainer.

sorry, you got trolled....

Pikachu wrote:

Xenostreams wrote:

I'm ok with them tightening the men's standards. I always though they were kinda easy.

But leave the womens standard alone. 2h44m was hard enough as it is.

The women's standards are still MUCH easier to achieve than the men's standards.

1:07/2:21 vs. 1:17/2:42.

It's a no brainer.

oh no, haha :D :D

The faster standards don't help or hurt the outcome of the race up front and it saves the race organizers some $$$, so I get it. Who it hurts are the sub-elites. I know a guy who ran the US Half Champs this year and came in with a mid-1:08 PR. He left the race with a low 1:07 PR. Not sure he could have done that elsewhere and getting some help with the entry fee, hotel, etc helped a guy like him who doesn't have the money to travel to whatever race he wants. It's certainly not the responsibility of USATF or the race organizers to help sub-elites, but a little support for those guys was nice and it's too bad this year's budget and standards don't allow for that.

Xenostreams wrote:

I'm ok with them tightening the men's standards. I always though they were kinda easy.

But leave the womens standard alone. 2h44m was hard enough as it is.

Pikachu wrote:The women's standards are still MUCH easier to achieve than the men's standards.

1:07/2:21 vs. 1:17/2:42.

It's a no brainer.

No they aren't. Using the Mercier calculator, 1:17 for a woman equates to 1:05:34 for a man. 2:42 equates to 2:17:52. The women are getting jipped.

Anyone should be allowed to run - it's a freaking road race in Houston of which they can handle tens of thousands of runners.

If the race is that beneficial to 1:07-1:09 guys as it apparently is their only chance to race people, how do they not have the money to travel to this one race?!

This post pretty much right on. As a 1:07:44 guy there's only a handful of half marathons every year where I can count on having people to run with. I'm not saying I can win those races, but guys like me are pretty much stuck in no man's land between the Africans/Pros and the slightly slower sub-elites as the poster quoted said.

I don't mind the bar being raised to where it is right now. Once I ran sub-68 the next goal was sub-67 anyways, and now there's just a bit more incentive to get there so I can give myself a good chance at going sub-66 in Houston next January.

Thanks to the previous poster for putting some context to this whole discussion.

Everyone is talking about a "1:07 guy", "1:06 guy", "1:05 guy". The whole point is that people need the opportunity to race in a competitive environment to get the best out of themselves - something the USATF should foster. A 1:08 guy might be knocking on the door of 1:07 or 1:06 and there's limited places to do that. Maybe they get smoked by a pair of Africans or they win by minutes over the local crowd. Many of those people will gladly pay to mix it up at a national championship race, even if they're in the back of the pack.

I'm not sure how many people will end up qualifying for the race with the new standard - but we don't know that yet. But if it's limited to 50 guys/girls, then that would be a shame. If races were limited to only the people who have a chance to win ... it would be dumb. Races aren't run just for the winners. Even a Diamond League race has people setting good national records in the mid-pack - where else should those people be running?

I completely understand what you're saying, but I think you're overinflating the importance of one half marathon race. So a 1:08 guy goes to Houston and pops a 1:07:30. So what? I'm glad he set a PR, but to act as though a national championship is the only place to run fast is ridiculous.

In your ideal scenario above, you're talking about sub-elite runners paying their way into the USA HMC. Presumably they're also paying for airfare and hotel. If they can do that, they can choose any HM in the US to run. There are great, competitive HMs everywhere.

I agree - Like I said (or tried to), we'll have to wait and see how many people actually qualify and compete. If the field is too small, I think it would be a waste of a good opportunity to get many of the country's best sub-elite together. One thing that's hard for these guys and girls is to know which events will be worth shelling out the travel money. If you can have a fast destination race in January, when people aren't racing many other places anyway, I think it would be a good thing.

Taking a minute off the qualifying time is not the biggest issue - it's more about the general sub-elite development that people have been talking about.

Actually, there is a good chance guys in the 66-68 min range end up running time trials at a lot of medium-sized half marathons despite what appears to be strong fields up front. Here are some stats for some of the most competitive half marathons in the U.S. over the last year or so:

(Date, Race, Site, # of finishers between 66-67, # of finishers between 67-68)

6/2013 - RnR San Diego - San Diego, CA - 2 - 2

6/2013 - USA HM Champs - Duluth,MN - 20 - 11

7/2013 - RnR Chicago - Chicago, IL - 0 - 1

8/2013 - America's Finest City - San Diego - 1 - 1

9/2013 - RnR Philadelphia - Philadelphia, PA - 8 - 4

10/2013 - BAA Half Marathon - Boston, MA - 0 - 2

10/2013 - RnR San Jose - San Jose, CA - 2 - 2

11/2013 - Monumental - Indianapolis, IN - 0 - 2

11/2013 - RnR Las Vegas - Las Vegas, NV - 3 - 0

11/2013 - Philadelphia HM - Philadelphia, PA - 2 - 2

1/2014 - USA HM Champs - Houston, TX - 4 - 12

2/2014 - Gasparilla - Florida - 0 - 1

3/2014 - RnR Dallas - Dallas, TX - 3 - 2

3/2014 - Shamrock - Virginia Beach, VA - 0 - 2

3/2014 - New Bedford HM - New Bedford, MA - 1 - 4

5/2014 - Indy 500 Mini-Marathon - Indianapolis, IN - 6 - 4

6/2014 - RnR San Diego, San Diego, CA - 4 - 3

6/2014 - Garry Bjorklund Half - Duluth,MN - 6 - 4

7/2014 - RnR Chicago, Chicago, IL - 2 - 1

I know I missed a few others like RnRs, OUC, St. Louis, Chicago Half, etc... But the basic takeaway from these numbers is:

1. A lot of these races have a ton of people up front in the 60-65 range, but a surprisingly little number of guys in the 66-68 range. Races like RnR San Diego, Monumental, Gasparilla, Philadelphia (not the RnR) produce 8-10 guys under 63-64 minutes consistently, but less than a handful of guys in the 66-68 min range at least half the time.

2. A lot of the guys who end up in this range are actually 62-65 min guys who had bad days or are just doing a workout so the number of people an actual 66-68 min guy can run with are even less than shown.

3. There are only 5 races on that list with 10 or more finishers in the 66-68 min range, 2 of which were USA HM races.

So yeah, there ARE other races where guys like me can find people to run with, but not as many as one might think. Half of the time you will show up to a RnR where the times were fairly competitive the year before and completely end up in no man's land. (For example, if a sub-70 guy had shown up in New Orleans this year expecting to find at least a halfway competitive field due to the 2013 one) I am lucky in the sense that I have a fairly established career so I have the financial freedom to travel to a few of these "riskier" races on my own dime and often combine these with a mini-vacation. However, for guys just out of college looking for competitive races and can only travel 1-2 times a year their best bet is usually a USA championship race.

I'm not a numbers guy ... so that's exactly what I was thinking about. Good post.

Last year I had to beg and plead just to be let into the race because my 67mid PR at the time was from 2012 (outside of their 1.25 YEAR WINDOW) and then I went to Houston and ran 65low. I just wanted entry to the USA Champs! I wanted the competition, weather, and flat course.. Luckily, I didn't end up having to pay much of my way to get there but I would have been willing to.

I can certainly understand them not paying for hotel/travel for someone with almost no chance at being in the money. But at least LET PEOPLE INTO THE RACE to compete. Why limit the field to sub67?