Amby Burfoot says: do away with the Olympic Marathon Trials

Step 1 is to get rid of the repetitive loops, single loop please or a figure 8 style course! Step 2, stage the US Marathon trials in NYC and LA ;-)

As an advocate of a 2+1 system (again, the +1 is based on metrics/points and NOT a selection committee), I thought it would be interesting to see what third-place finishers actually do in the Olympics.

You have the finisher, (Place among USA finishers), then place overall.

Starting after the boycott.

1984 John Tuttle (3rd) DNF

1988 Pete Pfitzinger (1st) 14th

1992 Bob Kampainen (3rd) 17th

1996 Keith Brantley (1st) 28th

2000 Mark Coogan (Didn't Qualify for Olympics)

2004 Dan Browne (3rd) 65th

2008 Brian Sell (3rd) 22nd

2012 Abdi Abdirahman DNF (1 of 2 DNFs)

2016 Jaren Ward (2nd) 6th

2020 Abdi Abdirahman (3rd) 40th

So, third-place finishers were the third American in the Olympics (or didn't qualify) 60% of the time. They only cracked the overall top ten once, and were top eleventh to twentieth overall two times (three total top-twenty finishes in ten chances).

Would the +1 do better in many of those years, or even be a different runner than the one who qualified? Well, that's hard to say. But it is fair to say that we aren't getting a lot of results from our third-place finishers the way we are doing it.

On the women's side there is a stronger argument to be made that the third-place finisher can do quite well among both the other Americans and overall:

Again, it is third-place athlete (place among Americans in the Olympics), place overall

1984 Julie Isphording (2nd) 36th

1988 Cathy O'Brien (3rd) 40th

1992 Francie Larrieu Smith (2nd) 12th

1996 Anne Marie Lauck (1st) 10th

2000 Anne Marie Lauck Did Not Qualify

2004 Jen Rines (2nd) 34th

2008 Blake Rusell (1st) 27th (Other two USA women Did Not Finish)

2012 Kara Goucher (2nd) 11th

2016 Shalane Flanagan (1st) 6th

2020 Molly Seidel (1st) 3rd

So, the third place finisher was the third American or Did Not Qualify only 20% of the time. They finished in the top ten overall three times and eleventh to twentieth twice more (a total of five top-twenty finishes).

The trials in NYC were the best. The weather was excellent. The three loop course in Central park was challenging for the runners and great for the fans. Houston trials were also great, although they could have done a better job on the course and got rid of the 180 u-turn. LA was awful. I am biased, but I would make Houston the permanent home for the trials because it is centrally located, weather is reliably good and the cost for hotels, travel, and race day logistics are the best.

Thank you for sharing. This proposal is certainly much better than Amby’s but I still think we should keep our current system as is.

The Trials should mirror the Olympics. I believe one of the reasons Team USA track and field routinely dominates the medal count is our athletes are battle tested at the Trials. They have the experience of going through the pressure cooker of the Trials, and that prepares them for the pressure of the Olympics.

Yes, it is cruel that a top athlete can have an off day, get sick or injured, etc and consequently not make the team, but the same thing is true at the Olympics. To win a medal at the Olympics, you have to perform on the day. The same should be true for qualifying.

Interesting food for thought. It'd also be fun to have cross country as part of the process.

All good points. The obvious counter point is Molly Seidel. No one would have picked her for Tokyo team and yet she brings back the bronze medal.

I'd almost wonder if a hybrid system would be best. Maybe have a trials, but call it a US championship that heavily influences voting. Only let former US Olympians vote on the team, and they vote the evening after the US Champs. With recency bias, the race would heavily influence the vote but give a chance to great athletes that couldn't perform on the day. And still, if someone comes out of nowhere (Seidel in 2020 or O'Keeffe in 2024) at the race they might make the team. I think this would be the best option overall.

Amby's contributions to running are impressive but his example of Christine Clark is not one of them. Not even close.

I was Christine Clark's coach in 2000 when she won the Trials. It's true she was not one of the favorites going into the Trials, but she finished 3rd at the '99 US Marathon championships 5 months before the Trails. She finished 3rd in a 1/2 marathon behind Deena Kastor a month prior to the Trials.

She dominated the Trials that very hot 80+ degree day in Columbia on a very hilly course. She beat Kristy Johnston by over 2 minutes. Unfortunately her 2:33.30 time was 30 seconds off the "A" standard that would have allowed the US to send 3 runners to the Olympics as the winner was guaranteed a spot. The IAAF had changed the standard a few months before the Trials which left only 2 women with the A standard going in. Given the heat and the hilly course I would guess Christine would have run high 2:30/low 2:31 on a mild day and flatter course.

That prediction was borne out by her 2:31 finish in Sydney which at the time was the 3rd best finish for an American in the marathon behind Samuelson's gold in '85 and Anne-Marie Lauck's 10th in '96. The Sydney race conditions was another challenging day that Chris again outperformed her best prior time in a high pressure race just like in the Trials. She was not the best American marathoner before 2000, but for that year she clearly was.

I will readily admit that US running was in a bit of a dip before runners like Deena Kastor or Meb Keflezighi raised the bar. However, it's not Christine's fault she didn't run 30 seconds faster on a very tough day in Columbia to help other runners qualify. Why didn't the other runners prepare better to help themselves. How it is possible so many supposedly "better" runners finished so far behind her?

Watching the race on Saturday and seeing someone like Dakota Lindwurm finish in 3rd reminded me of Christine's run in 2000. Without the event like the Trials would we have seen what she can do at the highest level. Or like Molly Seidel will she win a medal in Paris?

Running fast in the Fall of '22 doesn't mean you'll run fast in '24. Too many runners get early qualifiers and then don't run a marathon for over a year. How can you predict how they will run in a marathon when they don't race them?

The US needs is a VERY high standard for automatic pass to the Olympics. You have to be the best in the world or top-3 at least, like Noah Lyles or Ryan Crouser. If you are slightly injured then perhaps you can skip the Trials, but there should be provision that you must show form before the Olympic entry deadline. If you can't then the Trials 3rd place finisher is in.

Unfortunately the US doesn't have a top-3 in the world level marathoner worthy of that consideration. That doesn't mean a US can't medal, but w/o the Trials to show who is worthy how do we get runners like Molly Seidel or Fiona O'Keefe? In 2000 we got Christine Clark. She wasn't close to a medal, but she was the best we had that year and she proved not once but twice.

I have read with interest over 12 pages of threads including Amby's article. There is a lot that I agree with and also a lot that I disagree with. By my user name I would place myself as a Malmo contemporary (some of Malmo's former AW teammates I know well). Amby presents an opinion. Qualified as a exceptional runner in his day - not by his being the editor of a long since irrelevant running publication. The Olympic Trials Process has served us well for decades. Sure there are exceptions and maybe tweaks that can be made but for the most it has worked. Here is what should never be done:

1. Selection based on anything but head to head competition. Don't care what your PR's are - where they were run - who your coach or agent is - or what your injury history is. What I want to know is: Do you HAVE A SET when it counts. That for me trumps prior performance any day of the week. Prior performances are like a-holes.....everyone has got one. Bring it when it counts.

2. Selection by a third party or ranking system is fraught with disaster. No one wins and everyone has someone else they feels is more deserving. Do the letters BCS bring back fond memories?

3. Trying to simulate conditions at Trials that supposedly mimic the Games. With the exception of altitude (which I believe should never happen again as in Mexico City) let the athletes and coaches worry about acclimating their athletes for the games - NOT A GOVERNING BODY - NOT A TV BROADCAST WINDOW

What escapes Andy is that we have a larger problems than the trials and it is this:

> Since 1972 (52 years) the US men have only medaled 3 times

> Our highest ranking runner on the World List for 2023 on the mens side is 161st

> Since 1984 (40 years) the US women have only medaled 3 times

> Our highest ranking runner on the World List for 2023 on the women's side is 45th

Coming from a country where the selection system has a history of being inexplicable and a times downright malicious, the trials system, whilst not perfect and certainly not pleasing to everyone, is still the fairest system.

Burfoot trashes the current system, but doesn't do into detail on an alternative. Nike owns USATF. Does he naively believe their wouldn't exercise their influence if there was a selection process? Also, goodbye TV money for USATF's once every four year crown jewel the Trials, since there would be no need for them anymore. The Trials aren't about selecting the best athletes. They're about selecting the athletes who perform best under pressure. The same as the Olympics. It's about competition.

He might not have, but I did.

Two qualifiers from the trials (so you don't lose that great race, or any television money, and you still have an "under pressure" race), +1 person who is highest ranked in World Athletics after the trials, and has a qualifying time, and finished in the top 15 at the trials (so they are healthy and have to run it and have to do pretty well under pressure).

I think that looking at the third place trials finishers since 1984 (which I did above) generally shows that we could do better with a 2+1 for the men, but the women who finish third do really well and the system is probably great for them as it currently is.

I don't see that any of this is a problem. It's just a snapshot of reality. None of those stats have anything to do with our system or anything else. It's a big world out there. Would you really expect that the US with 350 million people would out-perform the rest of the world with 8 billion people? That's completely ridiculous. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about Burfoots completely absurd notion that our selection process is flawed, and there is a need to fix what's not broken.

Respectfully, the purpose of the trials is not to 'select the three best' athletes. The purpose of the trials is to create drama, anticipation, story, suspense - to generate interest in the sport and attract viewers and spectators. They are not 'athletes'.... they are brand representatives, entertainers, and influencers.

That's not correct. The purpose of the trials is for the athletes to determine themselves who are the three best.

(1) Stop calling him Burfoot. You're like the same age as him; call him Amby

(2) You're really obsessed with Amby