Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

[quote]Run5k wrote:

"to help develop the sport" Complete crap. The sport is not going to be developed one iota by adding 2:30 marathoners into a once-in-4-years trial race. All that does is force the timing people to hang around longer.

Funny how with all these efforts to "develop" the sport, it is a pale shadow of what it was back when there were ZERO efforts to help develop it.

Frank Shorter didn't win the Olympic gold medal because there were 2:30 marathoners in his trials race. There were 2:30 marathoners in the race because there were so few other major marathons for 2:30 guys to try to reach a level where they might actually compete on the world stage. This is not the case today

And yes, there is a HUGE difference between 2:22 and 2:30. THAT is the reason why so few 2:30 guys ever make it to the next level. Applying the principles of outcome-based education to marathoning isn't going to "develop" a damn thing except more international mediocrity.

waitaminute wrote:

"to help develop the sport" Complete crap. The sport is not going to be developed one iota by adding 2:30 marathoners into a once-in-4-years trial race. All that does is force the timing people to hang around longer.

What a coincidence...that's exactly the type of positive perspective that has helped contribute to the truly impressive collection of American Olympic and WC marathon medalists throughout the last 20-plus years!

I'm someone is flirting with 2:30 and I do not want the qualifying time changed. There has been talk of how a 2:30 will keep people in the sport and there are races that are now setting those times as a qualifier for sub-elite status, like NYCM, Austin, Twin Cities and Chicago to name a few. Those are your stepping stones. The trials is the next step up and the qualifying times should be tougher just like the Olympics qualifying times are tougher than the US trials.

Stop rewarding meritocracy!

I say we do this:

1. Move the Trials "A" standard to the Oly "B" standard. Why pay for someone's expenses if they haven't already made the "B" standard?

2. Move the Trials "B" standard to the 100th best time the year before the qualifying window opens up rounded up to the nearest minute. That way you have somewhat of a guarantee that you'll have a decent size field. Who wants to sponsor a race with a 20 man start (21 qualified under 2:18 at the last trials).

Now, I understand one of the reasons why USATF has kept with the set 2:20/2:22 standards is so athletes know far ahead of time what to shoot for. This is why you set the standards when the window opens up, which is usually 2 years before the trials. Now, if you don't want to bother with the mess of finding the top 100 US times then just set the "B" standard 5 minutes slower than the "A" standard, which is the Oly "B" standard. So, that would give you standards of 2:18 and 2:23 and you wouldn't have to mess with it EVER again because the trials standards will just simply be based on the Oly standards.

Alan

Run5k wrote:

What a coincidence...that's exactly the type of positive perspective that has helped contribute to the truly impressive collection of American Olympic and WC marathon medalists throughout the last 20-plus years!

The thinking which has created the problem in marathoning is EXACTLY this rewarding of mediocrity which you propose. Don't force them to reach a tough goal and they never will.

moxie wrote:

Stop rewarding meritocracy!

I think you meant stop rewarding "mediocrity" not "meritocracy". Totally opposite meaning.

Unless you were being facetious.

moxie wrote:

I'm someone is flirting with 2:30...Stop rewarding meritocracy!

Was Reverend Spooner your English teacher?

waitaminute wrote:

moxie wrote:

Stop rewarding meritocracy!

I think you meant stop rewarding "mediocrity" not "meritocracy". Totally opposite meaning.

Unless you were being facetious.

Thanks, mediocrity is what I meant. That's the last time I use Word to check my spelling and just clicking away at change.

It should have read.

I'm someone is flirting with 2:30 and I do not want the qualifying time changed. There has been talk of how a 2:30 will keep people in the sport and there are races that are now setting those times as a qualifier for sub-elite status, like NYCM, Austin, Twin Cities and Chicago to name a few. Those are your stepping stones. The trials is the next step up and the qualifying times should be tougher just like the Olympics qualifying times are tougher than the US trials.

Stop rewarding mediocrity!

It's clear that this argument is going nowhere. It has been stated many times that nobody expects a 2:30 guy to shock the world and make the team.

I stated before that I would not post again. The reason I decided to post one more time is because I would like to point out another retarded analogy that is being used.

The Olympic Trials is not analogous to the Masters, the World Series, the Superbowl or any of the major league championships. The Olympic Games are. The same people who are making these analogies are the ones who are claiming they are not being elitist ego-heads by desiring the standard stay at 2:22. If anyone else calls the Trials "the big dance" I am calling you out on this hypocrisy. The Trials is just one big race. For the developing runner it is a big milestone. Something more meaningful then showing up with Oprah at the Boston Marathon. For the hopeful medalist it is just a speedbump.

Somehow the people who have qualified for the trials are under the impression that they are professional runners who are as good at what they do as a Masters golfer is. They're not. They are like minor league ball players unless they are contending for the team.

And I agree with the above poster who says the sub-elite qualifier or whatever he is talking about is a suitable substitute goal instead of lowering the trials standard. My point all along is that somehow in order to keep more people in the sport there should be an intermediate step to the trials. In the absence of such a step, lowering the trials standard would be something that could keep people going for it...

Waitaminute wrote:

The thinking which has created the problem in marathoning is EXACTLY this rewarding of mediocrity which you propose. Don't force them to reach a tough goal and they never will.

If that's your philosophy, then I will revert back to what was said much earlier in this thread: allowing men with a 2:22 marathon PR into the Olympic Trials still isn't "exclusive" enough, either. After all, they don't stand a realistic chance of making the team for Beijing, right?

Following your school of thought, the OT cutoff should be modified to match the Olympic "A" standard: 2:15:00. That way, we ensure that your "wannabes" aren't allowed into the race, and we are definitely "forcing them to reach a tough goal." Last but not least, it will ensure that the first three finishers all make in into the 2008 games, since they have the Oly qualifier already!

scotth wrote:

Mr Run5k, I think I have the pulse of the sport equal to just about anybody. .

OH MY GOD. You arrogant S.O.B. there are at least a half dozen people in Michigan alone that have a better handle on the pulse of our sport than you do.

Lets face it you ran a marathon someplace between 2:22 and 2:30 and it would eat at your self importance to think that someone with an inferior time would run in an event that you were never good enough to qualify for during your day. And if you try to tell me that your self importance is not number one, look at your above quote.

Citizen Dick wrote:

Somehow the people who have qualified for the trials are under the impression that they are professional runners who are as good at what they do as a Masters golfer is. They're not. They are like minor league ball players unless they are contending for the team.

Any comparisions of marathoning to a skill sport (golf, baseball, etc) will always be flawed. The difference between major and minor leagues in those sports is a matter of consistency, not top end ability. A third rate minor league golf pro can shoot a great score on a major championship course. Happens every year. He may be able to piece together a few good rounds and flirt with the leaderboard. But the reason he is playing for cheap purses on a minor tour is that he can't put together enough quality rounds in succession on the Nationwide tour or q-school or the like, even though he can get in the zone and shoot 66 on a tough course in a big event. Same with baseball. There will always be some rookie called up from AA ball because of injuries on the big club who gets on a hot streak for a few days before the teams figure out how to pitch to him. He can still get some hits of top quality major league pitching; the problem is that he doesn't do it often enough to warrant being above AA. A mid 2:20s marathoner will never get into the zone and run low 2:1x. The limitations of physiology are different than those of skill.

This thread has been a productive exchange about the topic, rather than personal attacks. Why go there now?

Regarding the topic, I think there are more appropriate places to foster development in the sport. The Olympic Trials (in any sport) should showcase the best elite athletes, who are competing for a coveted spot in the world's premier sporting event. A 2:30 marathoner doesn't fit. If we think the Olympic Trials needs more attention, maybe the USOC should hire a marketing firm to promote the best of the US.

Run5k wrote:

Waitaminute wrote:

The thinking which has created the problem in marathoning is EXACTLY this rewarding of mediocrity which you propose. Don't force them to reach a tough goal and they never will.

If that's your philosophy, then I will revert back to what was said much earlier in this thread: allowing men with a 2:22 marathon PR into the Olympic Trials still isn't "exclusive" enough, either. After all, they don't stand a realistic chance of making the team for Beijing, right?

We don't allow men into the trials based on their PR. We allow them into the trials based on what they have done in the previous 3 years (or whatever the exact window is).

By setting the standard at 2:22, we allow for the much faster marathoners who might have had trouble in the past few years, while still requiring them to be reasonably within striking distance of a time with a "realistic" chance. Because even if you've had a few injury-filled years, if you're a 2:10-2:12 guy who has only come within 10 minutes of it in the past 2-3 years, you can still round into shape in time to seriously compete in the trials.

On the other hand, if you've only managed 2:30, it's not going to happen. That's the difference.

Something for nothing wrote:

scotth wrote:

Mr Run5k, I think I have the pulse of the sport equal to just about anybody. .

OH MY GOD. You arrogant S.O.B. there are at least a half dozen people in Michigan alone that have a better handle on the pulse of our sport than you do.

Lets face it you ran a marathon someplace between 2:22 and 2:30 and it would eat at your self importance to think that someone with an inferior time would run in an event that you were never good enough to qualify for during your day. And if you try to tell me that your self importance is not number one, look at your above quote.

The beautiful thing about my posts is readers know who I am.

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether somebody else knows more about what's going on than me...but I'll stick by my comment about knowing the pulse. Per you second thought...I, umm, don't understand you. What's your point? I have run under 2:30.

scotth wrote:

I have run under 2:30.

Someone give this man a beer!

someone wrote:

I doubt any 2:28 guy (me being one of those) really thinks he has a shot, it is more a chance to run it. Maybe set a PB, and create a great memory while doing it. I would probably end up spending $1000 easily after flying my wife as well as other family and friends wanting to be there.

Someone, as a 2:28 guy, why don't you try to obtain the 2:22 standard so you can go to the race, make a memory, set a PB, etc, anyway? Wouldn't you rather achieve the standard rather than having it handed to you?

kimosabi wrote:

I have run under 2:30.

Someone give this man a beer!

The thing is, Scott understands that a beer and a pat on the back is all he deserves for a 2:30. These other daydreamers think they belong in the Olympic Trials.