Is it true the 2024 OT standards will be 2:12 M and 2:32 W..?

no need for a trials wrote:

Comparable non-African countries that don’t have a Trials (Canada, GB) continue to have increases in depth and development and more depth at the top. Having a Trials is costly. Setting soft standards for “development” and creating local “feel good stories” has no bearing on selecting the Olympic Team.

lol ... outside of just a few recent athletes, UK and Canada, haven’t seen any development since 1970 -1985; national records were stalled out and their top level athletes were a joke.

So it comes down to you that you just don't like the fact that someone who really does not have a chance at an Olympic berth can participate in a race with those that do. Based on your language "i.e. poser" to refer to those with little chance, this really makes you mad. Not sure why. Many of the most successful sporting events are designed around letting "posers" in (for instance say the Olympics). How about the NCAA Bball tournament - none of those 15/16 seeds are gonna win why let them in. Or closer to home, why have 31 teams in NCAA XC. Etc etc.

You really miss a goodly portion of why this sport is great if all you do is focus on the top few.

But that is not my argument why the standards should be kept reasonable . There are plenty of people like you, and they are perfectly welcome to nor read about, look at, or care about in any way those not in the mix at the front - it should make no difference in your enjoyment of the event - the coverage will focus on those people anyway. But there are many more that do care, take away these other runners and you lose them. By keeping them in you get both audiences. If you care about running at all as a sport - you should want it appeal to the broadest audience. The track trials are different as there are significant logistical and practical difficulties to expanding the fields - this outweighs any benefits. The marathon trials are unique in as the costs are few and the benefits far outweigh them.

Oh, and please never complain about how the US has no depth in distance races as its attitudes like yours that drive off that depth. I will never understand people who deride the pursuit of excellence (and the minimal rewards available) as stupid and a bunch of posers. It just seems silly that nearly everyone should settle for mediocrity or worse yet just give up.

divisive daughter wrote:

That is NOT even a proposal.

The most stringent recommendation that I’ve seen has been 2:18–63:00 and 2:42–73:00

Keep in mind that Men’s LDR comes up with the Men’s Standard and Women’s LDR decides the Women’s Standard

The silliest argument is wanting them to be equal and then blame women. The Men can make their standards whatever they want. If the Men’s standards are too difficult it is because that is what the MEN wanted.

It's not because it's what the MEN want. It's what some old school thinkers on the LDR want.

This article was really good. This is a somewhat complex issue but there are definitely ways to boost the number of qualifiers and make it easy on race organizers.

Clearly you’re not following these countries.

I know LRC isn't representative on this kind of a topic. Everyone I know in the running world basically knows or knows of someone locally who has run 2:18 or 2:44. Do you think Galen Rupp cares if the standard is 2:19 or 2:25? Making the standard 2:05 is not going to make us a better marathoning country than Kenya. The US is quite good at the marathon compared to other countries (arguably top-5?). 2:19 is still a good time even if it's not winning a global medal. We have a duty to invest in the top end of the sport and in sub elite development. I believe you can have it both ways. I'd put the men's standard back to 2:22 & leave the women's at 2:45 or move to a top-500 marathon times list to get to 1,000 total runners. It wouldn't affect the winners one bit. Maybe, with a tiered system, you charge some of the field and pump that money right back into prize money. There are ways to be creative without just saying America isn't good at running, put the marathon trials on a track with 12 people.

let's just do what Britain does and only let people go to the trials who are top-8 in the world or have the potential to get to that level as demonstrated by whatever's convenient at the time.

no need for a trials wrote:

Comparable non-African countries that don’t have a Trials (Canada, GB) continue to have increases in depth and development and more depth at the top. Having a Trials is costly. Setting soft standards for “development” and creating local “feel good stories” has no bearing on selecting the Olympic Team.

2016 Olympics

Men: US 3rd, US 6th, CAN 10th, CAN 23rd, USA 33rd,

Women: US 6th, US 7th, US 9th, CAN 24th, CAN 35th

2012 Olympics

Men: US 4th, CAN 20th, CAN 22nd, CAN 27th

Women: US 10th, US 11th

2008 Olympics

Men: US 10th, US 11th, US 22nd

Women: US 27th

2004 Olympics

Men: US 2nd, US 12th, US 65th

Women: US 3rd, US 34th, US 39th,

These are not "comparable". Canada has had one person in the top 20 at the Olympics since the 90s. One.

If the standards for this Olympic Trial were 2:12/2:32, only 18 men and 30 women would have qualified. I think a better standard should aim to have about 100 men and women qualify, so based on this year's trial's qualifiers, I think a good standard for 2024 would be 2:17 for men and 2:39 for women. 99 men and 109 women would have qualified with these standards. This does not include a 1/2 marathon standard.

Americans need to go all-in on racewalking.

All thing considered, it's STILL the early-90s performance-wise around here now.

BS wrote:

You really miss a goodly portion of why this sport is great if all you do is focus on the top few.

Amen!

I’ve run the trials twice and ran just under the A standard to qualify both times. I also had a number of teammates who qualified with the B standard.

I had no shot of making the Olympics (nor did any of my teammates), but being in the race helped my development as a marathoner (and I finished top 15!) and turned my family into fans of the sport. The Trials experiences were something I will always cherish.

Think of the guys like Trent Briney who came out of nowhere to finish 4th in 2004 after running 2:18 or :19 to qualify. Now a huge jump like this rarely happens in one race, but so many runners continue to run all with the goal and honor of qualifying for the trials. So keep the standards “soft.” The more the merrier!

Actually, no. My feelings aren't a part of this, but yours clearly are. It plainly makes you upset that people who imagine themselves to be far better athletes than they are might not get to race with true Olympic hopefuls.

It's a reasonable statement to observe that runners in the 2:19 and 2:45 range aren't elite. You appear plagued by this bizarre idea that most of the runners who eventually run truly world-class times (let's say under 2:10 for men and under 2:25 for women) work their way up through the ranks to get there, and need encouragement like soft standards to trick them into reaching their potential.

The logistics etc. would be far easier with a race that resembles a real OT rather than an OT plus the fulfillment of a "look at ME!" quest for 90% of the field. I am not going to complain if they keep these standards or even slacken them; I'm just making a mathematically realistic assessment here,

What did the recent Olympians you are familiar with run in their debut races? How many worked their way down from B-standard type times? You clearly do not think like a world-class runner.

If your rationale is "Other sports are arguably too permissive," rather than "Look at these Olympians who never would have made it if not for weak Q-times," then you've made no point at all except to blindly champion inclusiveness for its own sake. Are you between 25 and 30, by chance?

I don't just focus on the top few. This is a discussion about one event, FFS. I just have different ideas than you do about how the sport should handle aspects of its "elite" arm.

That was helpful. Do they die? Or do they just fall off my personal radar?

The only audience for people running B-standard times are people who want to be just like them, guys in the 2:20s and women in the 2:50s. You're deluded if you think _anyone_ tunes into the Olympic Trials to watch the pack runners other than their friends and family and associated wannabes (and I use that term with love) desperate to also one day take part.

You make it sound like these same runners don't have any other marathons to run other than the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. How self-absorbed and pathetic a concept is that? You can actually _win_ plenty of marathons in 2:25 and 2:55 and maybe even get money; what's wrong with those? Not enough TV coverage for you and your backward baseball hat or green hair or oversized navel ring?

Did I complain about that? Where?

If you can somehow show the existence of runners who would have been Olympians but gave up because of attitudes calling for a more stringent definition of excellence, feel free.

My contention here is that there are few to no occult sub-2:10 guys or sub-2:30 women who would react to a standard in that range with, "Aw geez, no way." Olympic runners are a rule are pretty driven people by nature.

You are really obtuse, and I don't think it's intentional. Serious question: How is any of what I have written derided the pursuit of excellence? Have you seen any suggestions here from me that people should give up trying to improve?

Actually, here's my core question. If you think running has few inherent rewards, then why are you a runner? If you really feel like quitting just because 2:18/2:44 sorts don't get enough love, then you're in the wrong sport. period.

If you could abandon the self-absorbed idea that slimming the Olympic Trials in a reasonable way is an effort to specifically persecute people who currently qualify, you might gain a more realistic perspective. The BAA isn't thumbing its nose at slowpokes whenever it tightens the standards for the Boston Marathon.

mr. rager wrote:

I had no shot of making the Olympics (nor did any of my teammates), but being in the race helped my development as a marathoner (and I finished top 15!) and turned my family into fans of the sport. The Trials experiences were something I will always cherish.

At least you admit that your concept of the Olympic Trials revolves around dreams of personal glory, the purpose of the event aside. That's fair! Anyone who makes the standard should absolutely take pride in having done so, and anyone who pops a performance like yours on the day should be even more proud. I would support anyone's decision to run in scuba gear or pull a Chris Barnicle from last time. HOWEVER, the idea that this is something worth keeping around in the sport's elite segment is worth questioning.

This whole thread is funny anyway because the OP seems to be well aware that there is no hint whatsoever of the standards becoming that tough, and he (almost surely a he) is intentionally looking for easily butthurt, good-not-great runners to troll, He sure knows where to look.

NERunner053 wrote:

This article was really good. This is a somewhat complex issue but there are definitely ways to boost the number of qualifiers and make it easy on race organizers.

http://www.fast-women.org/2020/02/10/my-case-for-large-olympic-marathon-trials-fields-in-2024-and-beyond/

It's not a complex issue except for relative slowpokes who want into an exclusive race. As for your "great" article -- is that a parody piece?

"Having a relatively easier standard keeps more women in the sport, or lures them back in, and that elevates the entire field."

This is pure garbage. So is the rest of it. Estrogen needs to be classified as a neurotoxin. No wonder the author chooses to remain anonymous.

Another great move toward narrowing the appeal of the sport; eliminate all those stories in every state about residents who qualified for the Olympic Trials by further limiting the numbers to even less than a few hundred out of 300 million.

I think we should truly make the Trials an ELITE event. So... Make the qualification standards based on the Olympic Standard. I know, I know... 2:11:30 and 2:29:30 would leave too many wanna be elites left out, but that's exactly the point. Make the event an event where only those who truly have a shot line up at the starting line. Look at Japan's trials from last September. Small fields, but great drama, especially in the men's race. I f you want to add on a 1/2 marathon standard I'd say 1:02 for men and 1:08 for women. It will force those who really want it to go for it.

Forget the trials. Just pick Olympic marathon runners from race showings in the year or so before each Games.

Someone blasts one at Dubai? Good. Someone goes 2:09 at Boston? They're in.

In a world where our "fast" guys race twice a year, the Trials are a waste.

Far Worse than Ezra wrote:

No wonder the author chooses to remain anonymous.

old shoe wrote:

I gotta ask is this true; the USATF is going to push the standards to new qualifications of 2:12 for men and 2:32 for the women? Rumor or is this possibly true?

I think 2:17/2:38 is fair. I think the mens time this time around would have been fine in a pre vaporfly era. When it was 2:18 then 2:19 4years ago a reasonable amount hit the standard, the half was too soft then. If you adjust for the shoes then 2:17 will let in a reasonable amount of men. Not everyone has to be competing for a spot on the team but it should be set so 125-150 get in. We don't need to limit it to 30. Also drop the half to 63 flat.

The women's standard is very soft. I think something is wrong when the qualifier is over 30min slower than the WR and 500+ have qualified.

Far Worse than Ezra wrote:

I'm guessing they will drop the B standards and go with 2:15 and 2:37 next time, or maybe 2:19 and 2:37 to make them more equal (which, again, isn't vitally important).

The thing is nothing that you said is vitally important. Even if they'd soften the standards, which they won't, that's not vitally important! The best three guys will make the team regardless of the size of the field, past a certain point since the 30th fastest marathoner could still contend if his qualifying time wasn't indicative of his ability.

It sounds like you're the one hung up on is the prestige of the race. Again, that doesn't really matter, unless you're some 2:12 schmuck who won't make the team but cringes at the thought of being associated with those 2:15-2:19 plebs?

There's no extra cost to USATF for having a large field, unless the course gets too crowded because they let thousands of people in.