Changed Marathon Trials numbers

I completely agree with 800 dude. For those of us working 60+ hours a week, it is tough enough to make the 2:22 standard. Now they want us to "step it up a notch". I am sorry, but dropping another 3 minutes for those of us who do not list distance running as our career path is very difficult to grasp. Don't get me wrong, I will try for the 2:19 barrier, but I am not impressed with the USATF's decision. They are not being realistic for the working marathoner. Not all of us are able to quit our jobs and run for a living. I would not mind paying my own way if I met the 2:22 mark. If I meet the 2:19, the USATF better pay my way...they continue to make it harder for the working marathoner to achieve his dream.

\"First thing to note, is I was a \"B\" standard guy this year, I was ready to run about a 2:17-2:18 that day, got sick about mile 12, blew up. The reason I mention that is before I qualified last year I had an injury stricken college career, just graduated w/ a M.S. degree and was onto a full time job. I hit a qualifier in my 1st race over a 10k. Now a 2:21 isn\'t good, I know that. But, that stupid little \"B\" standard exposed me to so much and opened up tons of doors that were closed.\"

It would be a real Let\'s Run board thing to do to say, \"You stink!, you get a B qualifier and blow up and you think you have the right to comment.\" I only wish I was anywhere near your speed at your age. I have a parallel story with Boston, and their easing of their standards several years back. It gave me the impetus to get out there and try to make a number that I wouldn\'t have chased without it being hung out there.

\"I personally don\'t care on the new time being 2:19, as with the competitive nature of this sport, my goal is run faster and improve over the next few years. BUT, none of this would have happened if I didn\'t get a chance to toe that line on November 3rd.\"

I suspect that you\'re really saying something different than you actually said, my guess is that you meant to say, \"I would not have achieved what I did without the belief that I could be toeing the line on November 3rd.\"

\"The other thing I want to mention is between me and a different close friend (also a shitty \"B\" guy) we had about 35 people between the 2 of us fly into NYC. We\'re not cool guys, so I\'m assuming it was close to this number for other runners. I should ask Ritz or Sell but I would guess the race experience is enhanced by having another 40-50 qualifiers around.\"

I suspect that, especially with the Trials before race format, bringing a big group into the host city just magnifies the shortage of hotel rooms. I also suspect that the guys up front are only racing against perhaps a dozen guys, and your presence there has NO impact on them.

\"USATF\'s decision probably isn\'t the best for our sport.\"

There, we\'re in total agreement. Dangling a carrot out there, even if it\'s merely the right to compete in the nation\'s most selective marathon, is, in my opinion, a strong motivator for many runners. While I applaud the concept of tightening the standard (if the quality of the fields seems to warrant it), I also believe that keeping an unpaid \"B\" standard does an excellent job of dangling that carrot. Thus, I think the combination of tightening the \"A\" standard and eliminating the \"B\" standard will result in many fewer runners chasing the Trials as a personal goal, and will, over time, weaken the pack at the front of American racing.

as a "B" qualifier, I think the standards should be tightened to the Olympic standards. 2:15 as an "A" qualifier and 2:18 as a "B". It can be done by anyone who has a chance to make a difference in the race. If I get cutout in 4 years, so be it. At least I tried to be a competitor and not an "also ran". The trials are not for everyone. I say we keep it that way.

Why should those who are "working 60+ hours a week" be a consideration at the OLYMPIC trials? Maybe the "working marathoner" needs to reassess and adjust his dream.

Secondly wrote:

Why should those who are "working 60+ hours a week" be a consideration at the OLYMPIC trials? Maybe the "working marathoner" needs to reassess and adjust his dream.

i'd like to see some consideration for the working sprinter, too. and the working high jumper. let's not forget the working race walker, either. ;)

i understand how runners (especially marathoners) would want to protect the status quo. but i've always found it odd that the marathon trials became this big participation type event for sub-elites (and well below that). if someone could tell me why the marathon deserves the privilege of this many participants in the trials, i'd like to hear it.

gonzo wrote:

Do you want the strongest Olympic team the US can send or do you want boatloads of people in the Trials?

New Zealand has, or had, a 2:12 marathon standard. If no one qualified, they didn't send anyone.

This is New Zealand's 2007 Marathon List. I sure hope that MLDR can turn us into that.

NZL Men

2:17:20.2 Scott Winton 1977 30 Sep 2007 Toronto CAN

Jonathan,

Great read. I totally agree. Consider this Jason Lehmkuhle wouldn't have made it into the trials this year under the "new standard". He has a good shot at running the marathon if Dathan goes 10 and KK is injured.

common wrote:

What I take issue with are the assumptions in your post: 1. Those without the requisite talent who train at a high level are somehow wasting their time, and are inadequate in their personal, family, and professional lives because of said training. 2.That training at a high level to achieve a goal is not somehow part of, and, in fact, is contrary to, living a well-rounded and satisfying life.

Eric,

Take another look at what I said: "I'm pretty sure that most 2:30 marathoners would be better off spending more time 'training' to be good husbands, fathers, doctors, teachers, and so on, and less time training to qualify for the Olympic trials." I'm not saying that hard training is (necessarily) a waste of time, or that hard training is incompatible with a well-rounded and satisfying life. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm saying that, for MOST 2:30 marathoners, training for the SPECIFIC GOAL of qualifying for the Olympic trials is probably going involve a lot of time that would be better spent on other things. It's taking a big gamble on a long shot that has a very small pay-off in the end.

Marty Liquori and John Parker, in their wonderful book "Marty Liquori's Guide for the Elite Runner," devoted the first chapter to what they called "The Decision." Here is an excerpt:

"[T]he decision to undergo serious training should never be taken lightly. No one knows better than those who have been at the top of the heap. For them, the aching questions 'One more race? One more season?' are not in the least rhetorical.

"A commitment to serious training means that no matter what else you are in this world -- doctor, lawyer, Indian chief -- first of all you are a runner. If you are unable to live up to that standard, your running is not truly 'serious' and you can expect your race results to show it."

From your blog, I gather that you are a 2:33-2:34 marathoner, at least 34 years old, training well over 100 miles per week. If you have decided to make the commitment to train at that level because you are trying to qualify for the Olympic trials, then I can certainly understand why you would be defensive about that decision. For most 34-year-old 2:33-2:34 marathoners, I'm confident that it wouldn't be a good decision. But whether it's the right decision for you depends on many other things that may or may not be part of your life.

When I was a 2:33-2:34 marathoner, I made the decision to train for the specific purpose of qualifying for the Olympic trials. And I did eventually qualify for the trials. Was it worth it? I don't know. I do know that my training, coupled with my professional duties, would have been incompatible with being a good husband or father.

Frank Shorter once said that, with running, "You have to do it for the thing itself." If you're doing it to achieve a particular competitive goal -- to achieve a particular merit badge -- then you're taking a big risk with a large part of your life, so give it some thought.

gonzo wrote:

Do you want the strongest Olympic team the US can send or do you want boatloads of people in the Trials?

New Zealand has, or had, a 2:12 marathon standard. If no one qualified, they didn't send anyone.

So if the standards were different would our Men's US Olympic Marathon team be different this year? Who would it be?

get a grip. wrote:

Bring some knowledge wrote:

Kind of wishy washy aren't they?

What, if they don't maintain the status quo of the past 16 or so years they're supposedly "wishy washy"? Whatever.

Maybe I can't read or you can't type but I don't understand what you are saying. There WERE different standards this year (see 10K & 5K standards) they haven't been the same.

MattyP wrote:

as a "B" qualifier, I think the standards should be tightened to the Olympic standards. 2:15 as an "A" qualifier and 2:18 as a "B". It can be done by anyone who has a chance to make a difference in the race. If I get cutout in 4 years, so be it. At least I tried to be a competitor and not an "also ran". The trials are not for everyone. I say we keep it that way.

That would have put 33 guys in the Trials. Have you run a Marathon with 33 runners in it? This isn't track people (not you) need to stop comparing the two.

I'm surprised, actually, that an Old School (ie., early '80s Boston, with 2:50 and below qualifying times, sub-3:10 for masters) hasn't happened. It's a great idea. With all the pissing and moaning about how Gallowalkers and the sub-6:00 crowd have slowly deconstructed the high purpose of the serious amateur sport some of us once knew, why doesn't somebody just go out and do this. Why doesn't Flotrack? Why don't the Hansons folks, just for the heck of it?

In fact, the point would be to keep prize money to a minimum. It would be purely a subcultural/coterie thing. Scout out a fun location--out and back on a country highway. Get some TV coverage, if possible, or merely Flotrack coverage. Pick an off time of year. Late January, perhaps. And strict qualifying standards: sub-3:10 for masters runners, sub-2:50 for everybody else.

Call it the Old Boston Road Race.

Marty Liquori and John Parker, in their wonderful book "Marty Liquori's Guide for the Elite Runner," devoted the first chapter to what they called "The Decision." Here is an excerpt:

"[T]he decision to undergo serious training should never be taken lightly. No one knows better than those who have been at the top of the heap. For them, the aching questions 'One more race? One more season?' are not in the least rhetorical.

"A commitment to serious training means that no matter what else you are in this world -- doctor, lawyer, Indian chief -- first of all you are a runner. If you are unable to live up to that standard, your running is not truly 'serious' and you can expect your race results to show it."

wow...that brings back memories. I used this book 'as my coach' training pretty much on my own in the early to mid 80s, after college, running 100 mpw, while married and working and was able to achieve a 223 marathon, a 107 1/2, and alot of 10ks between 30 and 31 minutes; (plus a 14:42 5k on the track). The morning 6 miles was easy to do before work, but in the winter months, when I would get home at 5:30pm, tired and it was already dark and cold, with no one (but Marty's book), to hold me accountable to get out the door to run...it was tough....but I wouldn't trade those 5 years for anything, looking back. (I retired from serious training/racing at age 30). Marty was even so nice as to answer my letter (before email) asking a couple of questions specific to the training plan.

10K standard is still there and a half-marathon standard has (rightfully) replaced the 5K standard. However, the B marathon standard has been around for many editions of the OT marathon.

my coach.... wrote:

wow...that brings back memories. I used this book 'as my coach' training pretty much on my own in the early to mid 80s . . . .

Same with me. When I mention the book, I always make sure to say that it was written by Liquori and Parker, because a lot of the writing sounds as though it came straight out of the mouth of the guy who wrote "Once a Runner." In fact, it may be the best-written book on training that I've ever read. A great collaboration by a very smart world-class runner and an excellent writer (who was also a darned good runner in his own right).

get a grip. wrote:

10K standard is still there and a half-marathon standard has (rightfully) replaced the 5K standard. However, the B marathon standard has been around for many editions of the OT marathon.

The B standard was introduced for the 1996 trials. In 1992, the only alternative standard was that past members of the U.S. Olympic marathon team didn't have to run a qualifier. I suspect that that standard was put in place to allow Al Salazar in, since he didn't have a qualifier but was very serious about trying to make the team again. Same with Tony Sandoval. Salazar, Sandoval, Benji Durden, and Kyle Heffner all took advantage of that alternative and participated in the race, but all of them dropped out. (Sandoval lasted the longest, dropping out at the halfway point.)

Avocados Number wrote:

I'm pretty sure that most 2:30 marathoners would be better off spending more time 'training' to be good husbands, fathers, doctors, teachers, and so on, and less time training to qualify for the Olympic trials.

Well, they should lower the women's qualifier to 2:25 then, because the rest of them should be in the kitchen.

OK, just kidding. I more or less agree that it's not necessary that the Olympic Trials be the developing ground for the young guns, or a semi-attainable goal for the working-class crowd. BUT, I would think it's incumbent on the USATF to find a suitable way to replace what they've taken away from the sub-elites with this decision. That is not an easy thing to do, and I have to say I've got no confidence that it will happen.

For those of you saying people will step it up and just as many will qualify, note that the intention is to make the race smaller, so even IF that happens (which I doubt) the standards will just be re-raised until the field shrinks. And remember that when you have 150 spots you might have 1500 dreamers, but when it shrinks to 50 spots you probably only have 200 dreamers.

Pete Gilman wrote:Consider this Jason Lehmkuhle wouldn't have made it into the trials this year under the "new standard".

Yes he would have. He ran 1:02:51 at the Houston Half-Marathon. Under the new scheme a 1:05 half-marathon is worth exactly the same as a 2:19 marathon (full expenses paid to the Trials by the organizers).

David Monti, Race Results Weekly

Dave, that is true assuming Glen decides that Houston is an allowable course. Does anyone else wonder how exactly Glen got so much power in our sport? What are his running credentials?