What does it matter if the standards are too easy? I don't want to watch an Olympic trials Marathon with 12 people in it. No thanks.
What does it matter if the standards are too easy? I don't want to watch an Olympic trials Marathon with 12 people in it. No thanks.
rojo wrote:
Today was the last great chance to qualify for the 2020 US Olympic Marathon Trails as the downhill (34 feet which is worth at least a minute) and point to point Cal International Marathon was run.
With the new shoes and the 2:19/2:45 standards, the number of qualifiers was already at an all-time and then 2019 CIM happened. I just looked at the results. 72 women and 37 guys broke the 2:45 and 2:19 standards.
Does anyone know how many of them were Americans that hadn't previously done it?
Results here:
https://www.athlinks.com/event/3241/results/Event/891887/Course/1723361/Division/1555004/Results
There is NO WAY should CIM be an OT qualifying course. 300FT downhill and point to point both [should] make it ineligible.
epicTCK wrote:
Jambo Cabao wrote:
Standard should be 2:05 and 2:22
I agree, they should be lowered significantly. Perhaps not that low. Try 2:12 and 2:27-8 or so.
You are correct, however there would be very few runners especially in the woman's race. Maybe 2:15 for Men, and 2:30 for woman. Both times are 14-15 minutes over the respective world records.
But anybody can run in CIM, it's not exclusive, so if the advantage is as pronounced as people claim, everyone should race there for the best conditions and fastest course.
Also, as it pointed out in an earlier post, a number of the same guys ran CIM in 2017 and 2018 also ran Chicago in 2019, many of whom ran faster in Chicago.
Everybody should ignore this thread. It's just another rojo trolling for clicks thread...
They should simply make an A Standard and a B Standard Like they do every other track event and limit the field to 24-30 runners.
joedirt wrote:
They should simply make an A Standard and a B Standard Like they do every other track event and limit the field to 24-30 runners.
except it's not financially feasible to close down a complete city for 20-40 runners with whom the majority of the running population could give two rips about since the majority have zero personality and limited interaction, if any, with the 'fans'.
Open it up to 2:25 for men and 2:55 for women; now you'll have throngs of people, definitely more human interest stories, media etc. Think back to when Conover won the Trials; 218 + to qualify, then goes out wins the race. If 218 were the qualifying standard back then, he'd have not even made the cut and there is no story.
Plenty of 220 and 250 types will runs personal bests and who knows where this takes their running careers.
USAs best are at the best five minutes if not more behind the real medal contenders.
USA cannot have it both ways; It's got to be one of two ways;
1) first four under the IAAF Olympic Standard 1-2-3 (alternate) at a World Marathon Majors
or
2) open the field up as in the past and actually have a real event.
Meb, Galen and Denna's medal efforts have been the high water mark, and most like will be. And who knows the legitimacy of Rupp's race with so many questions surrounding NPO and Salazar.
There are A and B standards. They just do not limit the field. A is 2:15 / 2:37. B is 2:19-64 / 2:45-73.
The qualifying standard does not have to meet what gives someone a chance of competing. Not everyone wants to run their PR to qualify for the Olympic Trials. It should be a reasonable race for someone with potential to qualify.
2:19 is not that bad. 2:45 is awful. Why are we sending someone to the Olympics if they are 25+ minutes behind the leaders?
I would say 2:17 is fair. 2:15 is realistic for the fitness of competitors, and giving a couple minutes flexibility for the qualifying race makes sense. I do not see why it matters. It is not a problem to have the Trials that crowded. They only pay for the athletes with an A standard anyway.
2:18 and banning CIM seems like the most possible solution.
Women... Idk if they are just trying to make money or promote popularity of the sport. 2:45 is not what you run if you are capable of competing. Probably 2:35-7 fitness, and at most 3 minutes flexibility for the qualifying race. 2:40 and eliminating CIM is my realistic vote.
Then again, they may have other aims, like encouraging participation to grow the sport. B qualifiers are not funded.
Runnerboy1 wrote:
joedirt wrote:
They should simply make an A Standard and a B Standard Like they do every other track event and limit the field to 24-30 runners.
except it's not financially feasible to close down a complete city for 20-40 runners with whom the majority of the running population could give two rips about since the majority have zero personality and limited interaction, if any, with the 'fans'.
Open it up to 2:25 for men and 2:55 for women; now you'll have throngs of people, definitely more human interest stories, media etc. Think back to when Conover won the Trials; 218 + to qualify, then goes out wins the race. If 218 were the qualifying standard back then, he'd have not even made the cut and there is no story.
Plenty of 220 and 250 types will runs personal bests and who knows where this takes their running careers.
USAs best are at the best five minutes if not more behind the real medal contenders.
USA cannot have it both ways; It's got to be one of two ways;
1) first four under the IAAF Olympic Standard 1-2-3 (alternate) at a World Marathon Majors
or
2) open the field up as in the past and actually have a real event.
Meb, Galen and Denna's medal efforts have been the high water mark, and most like will be. And who knows the legitimacy of Rupp's race with so many questions surrounding NPO and Salazar.
Of course it's feasible if you really want to have it in a major city. Just have a simple out and back course where a highway is blocked off and maybe a loop around a nice park. There is no need for the trials course to be an exhaustive tour of said city. Otherwise it could be held at a smaller city. The organization of trials as it stands now relies on a big track club (NYRR, ATC, etc.) to be able to put together the event. The USATF/IOC could step in and help a smaller city have the event.
There should be around 50 people in each gender qualified for this event. Take the 50 fastest record-eligible times (maybe throw in Boston due to it's legacy) and they get to run the race. There would be no need for standards, people would naturally run as fast as possible.
Jared Ward's PR prior to the 2016 trials was 2:14. Desi Linden needed the half qualifier to make it to her first trials after running 2:45 at her debut in Boston. And there are loads of other examples of runners who used the trials as a springboard to becoming a top tier US marathoner. A wide net serves a developmental purpose in a sport where there are a very limited number of spots and sponsorship at elite training groups. Without the trials to shoot for, a lot of really good runners would bag it after college.
I was lucky to get to watch both the 2008 and 2012 trials in person. Yes, there are runners at the trials who clearly have no shot at even coming close to getting a spot. And that is pretty obvious from the first mile. But I really liked seeing these runners out there, giving it all and having a moment in the sun. It is what makes the marathon unique in professional sport. It is one of the only elite competitions that has room to share the stage with different levels of athletes. For the trials, we need more of that and not less.
Not a chance. With the $$$ that they take in from the Peachtree Road Race alone they more than have enough $$$ to cover the cost of the trials.
this was great; thank you
In 1984 before the shoes and all of the silly recovery tools, 10 guys ran under 2:16 at CIM.
The winner was 2:11 in 1984 and 10th place was 2:16. So I’m still calling BS on the shoes and all of the zippy tricks and products.
So would the 2:11 in 1984 run a world record? And if these shoes are so great why are guys in 2019 so slow. They should be running 2:07.
https://www.athlinks.com/event/3241/results/Event/98187/Course/136926/Results
coxswain wrote:
2:19 is not that bad. 2:45 is awful. Why are we sending someone to the Olympics if they are 25+ minutes behind the leaders?
You realize that these are the Olympic qualifying standards? And the USATF can't deny somebody qualified for the Olympics from participating in the trials?
Also, we don't actually send anybody to the Olympics at those times.
One idea would be a capped field for the Trials, rather than a pure time-standard. For example, the top-100 (or 150, or 200) athletes of each gender under 2:19/2:45. That would encourage more competitive racing while still allowing the sub-elite runners a chance to compete in an Olympic qualifying event.
I see where you are coming from and I get it and half of me sort of agrees and the other half sees a benefit to soft times for the event as well as for running in general. One of the differences with North American running vs Japanese or East African running is in the sheer number of sub-elite to elite, but not Olympic level yet runners - many athletes will give it a go if the goals are possible.
If the Trials Qualifiers are fairly fast, you will cut out a lot of athletes who will take the time to train for that cycle with seriousness, knowing that if they train right and race seriously that they could qualify for the Trials. It's their little Olympics. How many times do you read a blog or a bio, "8-time Olympic Trials Qualifier".
One issue that hurts the growth of the sport is the low numbers (of serious athletes). If we make things like regionals, nationals, trials and trials qualifiers, 15K national road champs a big huge deal, then from the potential greater number of participants may rise and potentially more athletes may come out of it.
On any given Sunday in the Rift Valley, 200-300 sub 2:20 guys will show up for a long run or so the story goes. On any given Sunday in the US or Canada or Europe, two will show up.....sorta speak.
So based on the idea of seeding a greater volume of semi-elite to elite runners for the purpose of shaking the tree and seeing who comes out of it - I think it is a good idea. The Ryan Halls and Mebs of the world will still qualify with 10 people behind them or 1000 people behind them. Doesn't matter.
Maybe 2:45 is a bit slow, maybe 2:40, but I like the sub-2:20 number....once an athlete cracks that time they move the goal farther down the field and possibly improve. And the sort of focus required to be a sub-2:40 and sub-2:20 demonstrates what the sport is to people around them - it has a ripple effect.
Athletics Illustrated
Help me out with this one wrote:
How do you figure 34 feet of downhill is worth a minute? That's less than a foot and a half per mile or approximately .02%
I'm not disagreeing, just curious how you figured that out.
Two points.
1) I had a typo in my post last night (it's 340 feet downhill, not 34).
2) Tone is often lost on the Internet. I don't think the ATC is going to go bankrupt. It's called hyperbole. It was meants as a compliment for them paying out so much money.
USATF has to abide by the IAAF's minimum qualification standards for its Olympic Trials qualifications. (This is why in 2016, the standard was relaxed from 2:43 to 2:45). At the time they were set for the 2020 OT, the standards were 2:19 and 2:45.
The IAAF has since changed the standard to 2:11:30 and 2:29:30.
While that change will not impact the 2020 trials, the change will allow USATF to change its minimum qualifying time in the future so long as the qualifying times are not lower than 2:11:30 or 2:29:30
It has been and will forever be argued by everyone on this board what the OTQ should be. Should the OT Marathon be an event that promotes mass participation and could inspire an interested (not not full time) and talented runner to commit fully to running, or an event that focuses on those only who have a legit shot at earning an Olympic berth (i.e. top 50)?
I think one thing is definite though - the 2024 trials will be harder to qualify for because the numbers for this year are pretty high. According to marathonguide.com as of last week there were 215 men and 420 women. Based on rojo's post, I assume this number will increase once updated.
coxswain wrote:
2:18 and banning CIM seems like the most possible solution.
I don't think banning CIM would change anything. CIM is magical because everyone does it and there are 100 people working as a group to hit the standard. Yes, the course probably helps, but ban CIM and the 100 people will just move and OTQ in another location, like Chicago or Houston.
Same with Berlin. It's not that much better than Chicago.. it's just where the men always try and set a WR. Surely they could run the same times in Chicago, as Jepkosgei proved.
1984shoehyoeguy wrote:
So I’m still calling BS on the shoes and all of the zippy tricks and products.
Well the "shoes and all of the zippy tricks and products" clearly equalize for the creeping US cultural laziness, distraction, and loss of wisdom. We have greater access to information than ever before yet we act more idiotic.