HOOWIE wrote:
Pranuts Pranuts wrote:
A 2:11 guy is worth no more than $3500 plus travel expenses at Boston.
What’s the point for that measly amount?
If that's the case it's probably a better gig than running the olympic trials. Get paid $3500 and compete in a more competitive/prestigious race or burn yourself out to race 75 people on a loop course in Atlanta for no pay?
Where are you getting the "no pay" in Atlanta thing?
Er... wrote:
Bill Rodgers would have.
Marathon every month wrote:
Why not do both if you don't get top 3?
As I recall he DNFed in Boston in 1976 before the trials (hot weather) then ran the trials in May. In 1980 he won Boston and skipped the trials.
You're
You have no idea how much fun it is to be an athlete at the Olympics. Money can't buy an equivalent experience.
thinking back to the 70s wrote:
Er... wrote:
Bill Rodgers would have.
As I recall he DNFed in Boston in 1976 before the trials (hot weather) then ran the trials in May. In 1980 he won Boston and skipped the trials.
Rodgers sis not run Boston in 1976.
"did", not "sis"
GetPAID wrote:
Had this thought today that the handful of 2:11 guys who may or may not come close to top 3 at the trials, wouldn't make more sense career wise and also for their bank account to instead focus on being top 5 and top American at Boston. I would imagine prize money and a sponsor pay day has to be better than maybe, maybe not qualifying for trials. And then even if you do get an Olympic spot what then? finish in 20th place?
I would assume a weak American field at Boston being only 6 weeks from trials. Thoughts?
Placing well or qualifying for the Olympics can be a huge financial boon to a career. The long-term payback in contract incentives and future appearance fees will make the risk worth it. Most of the guys they should run at the trials.
But my thought would be if you hit halfway to 18 miles if things are not going well then drop out you should strongly consider dropping out and saving it for a spring marathon. This will allow plenty of time to be ready for a solid Boston performance.
In my mind, someone like Desi should consider not running the trials or Olympics and focus on collecting those appearance fees she has left. Unless of course for sponsorship reasons it makes more financial sense to run the trials and Olympics which it may. But her making another Olympic team and finishing top 20 or 10 will not add anything to her career over a couple more high finishes at majors.
If my a 2:11 guy is what?
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
But my thought would be if you hit halfway to 18 miles if things are not going well then drop out you should strongly consider dropping out and saving it for a spring marathon. This will allow plenty of time to be ready for a solid Boston performance.
This. Run the trials, if you aren't in competition for the top 3, just drop out. End of thread.
HOOWIE wrote:
Racing in the olympics/or World champs is basically racing against sanctioned dopers.
which definition of "sanctioned" are you using here. it could be either
I guess I just don't get the prestige of being a afterthought at the Olympics that's even assuming you get there. Most people can't remember legit medalists let alone some guy who will finish 25+ spots back of Kipchoge/Bekele in Sapporo.
I guess the free travel is cool but your not really running for a medal. So why not build a resume with a top 5 at a marathon major vs top 5 at the trials and then your back selling shoes and training plans in two years. I'd have to think Saucony, Asics, Brooks can sell at a top Boston performance vs a way off the back Olympic one to the hobby joggers who are obsessed with Boston.
Title of an Olympian will carry more clout than anything but winning boston
GetPAID wrote:
I guess I just don't get the prestige of being a afterthought at the Olympics that's even assuming you get there. Most people can't remember legit medalists let alone some guy who will finish 25+ spots back of Kipchoge/Bekele in Sapporo.
I guess the free travel is cool but your not really running for a medal. So why not build a resume with a top 5 at a marathon major vs top 5 at the trials and then your back selling shoes and training plans in two years. I'd have to think Saucony, Asics, Brooks can sell at a top Boston performance vs a way off the back Olympic one to the hobby joggers who are obsessed with Boston.
People get contractual bonuses for making national teams. Also, races will pay better appearance fees for the Olympian title. Making an Olympic team is way more valuable over the course of a career than a top 5 a Boston. A Boston win would be another story.
Also, a 2:11 guy dropping out of the trials has no guarantee he will place well in a spring marathon and there is still prize money outside of the top 3 at the trials.
GetPAID wrote:
Had this thought today that the handful of 2:11 guys who may or may not come close to top 3 at the trials, wouldn't make more sense career wise and also for their bank account to instead focus on being top 5 and top American at Boston. I would imagine prize money and a sponsor pay day has to be better than maybe, maybe not qualifying for trials. And then even if you do get an Olympic spot what then? finish in 20th place?
I would assume a weak American field at Boston being only 6 weeks from trials. Thoughts?
This would be wise for someone like McMillan who still does not have a sponsor. A 2:12 in NYC was impressive but he probably won't make the team and won't make any money trying. If he cracks top 5 in Boston or at least top American in Boston, then he could have a decent pay day have more of a resume to get a sponsor. But who knows, maybe McMillan will get a sponsor after his NYC performance.
thinking back to the 70s wrote:
Er... wrote:
Bill Rodgers would have.
As I recall he DNFed in Boston in 1976 before the trials (hot weather) then ran the trials in May. In 1980 he won Boston and skipped the trials.
He skipped it in 1980 due to the boycott.
8th place at boston has no real ring to it wrote:
Title of an Olympian will carry more clout than anything but winning boston
In 1988. Means little today without a medal.
I’d imagine most 2:11 guys hope they haven’t peaked and will try running faster to make the olympics.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
I don't understand why you can't do both. Marathon training includes 20+ mile long runs. So an extra 10k or less wouldn't break the body (physically). There's no reason you can't run the Trials, take a few days to recover and just maintain fitness for 6 weeks until Boston.
You've never raced a marathon before, clearly.
A truly elite athlete should have no problem racing both.
Elite marathon runners are so coddled. One or two races per year is lazy. In order to win the triple crown the horse has to run 3 races in 5 weeks.
Yea yea, shorter distance, faster race, four legs but thoroughbreds, even the phillies, have to watch their weight just like human athletes.
reed wrote:
sbeefyk2 wrote:
I don't understand why you can't do both. Marathon training includes 20+ mile long runs. So an extra 10k or less wouldn't break the body (physically). There's no reason you can't run the Trials, take a few days to recover and just maintain fitness for 6 weeks until Boston.
You've never raced a marathon before, clearly.
Yeah. Everyone has thinks this is doable. Very, very few pull it off. Even when the runners bail out at mile 10-18, it rarely seems to make a difference. There are a few people that seem to be able to pull off running 2 legit hard (not running 5 mins off your PR) marathons close together but they are the exception versus the rule.
I think in the end the chance of making the olympic team (i.e. if you are a 2:11 guy you are probably in the 5% range) far outweighs anything you can get with a top 5 at boston.