Changed Marathon Trials numbers

Don't blame NYRR. They never complained about hosting. This was only an excuse provided by Glenn Latimer in an attempt to make the race more elite. This decision (not to be confused by discussion) will not improve the top runners. Ryan Hall will not train any harder knowing that it now takes a 2:19 to qualify. This decision was simply to eliminate guys so that Glenn could act as if he has something to do with change.

"The people who say this is a good idea have no idea what it is like to run in the trials."

I am OK with the tighter standard. I ran the USOTM in 1996 and 2000. Would have run neither if the proposed new standard were in effect.

But in the interest of full disclosure, until November 2006 I had NEVER made a goal of getting into the race. I just set out to run as well as I could. If I get in, great, if not, I didn't belong.

(I did goal up on the 2007 trial becuase in November 2006 I ran in the high 2:20s despite a head cold, and I thought I had an outside shot of making it into my hometown trial...obviously no go).

After the next Trials when they have 30 something runners they will try and "fix" it again.

I can pretty much guarantee you that a number of guys who thought they had an outside chance at 2:22 will now quit training seriously. These are the same guys who run up front at local 5k and 10k road races and inspire other runners both young and old with their performances at these events. The main problems I have with this decision are 1) it does nothing positive for the sport but does have the potential to negatively impact it, and 2) it was made quickly without a lot of input. Lowering the standard from 2:22 to 2:19 will not raise the bar and help US distance runners get faster. It has no impact on the top runners who really have a chance to make the Olympic team. 2:19 is no different to them than 2:22. It does have an impact on 2:24-2:30 guys, and while those guys may never make an Olympic team, they do inspire others with their fast times and therefore they are good for the sport. A lot of those guys will quit now. Way to go USATF.

Like many on the board I do not agree with the tighter standard with the times but I can live with it. However, I think the real problem is the list of marathons that count as qualifiers. How can they sat that NYC and Boston do not meet the standards but will still be include because they are not considered to be fast. This is based on personal opinion?

This is where I see the USATF getting into hot water. If they exclude a course like California Internation Marathon or something similar I call bullshit. Just because NYRRC and BAA are powerful does not mean that their marathons should be included. If they want to implement standards for the course there should not be any exceptions!

The real problem wrote:

. How can they sat that NYC and Boston do not meet the standards but will still be include because they are not considered to be fast. This is based on personal opinion?

Well, NYC and Boston have been run lots of times by the world's top runners, and haven't produced any obviously enhanced times. There aren't any other "nonstandard" marathons that can say that, as far as I know.

No. I think he probably meant people like you.

agapius mackwamba wrote:

BAck in the day, the trials standard was set at the 100th best performance from the year 2 years before the games. In 1980, it was Bill Gavaghan (apologies if misspelled) who ran 2:21:54.

Why not use this idea again?

I think that worked well on the men's side in 1980 and 1984, in part because there was a spread of only about ten to twelve minutes between the fastest runners in the world and the 100th fastest American. On the women's side, the lack of depth meant that the Olympic trials qualifying standard was over 2:52, about 30 minutes slower than what the fastest women were running, and the loose standard created a flood of qualifiers (like 51-year-old Marion Irvine) to come in. The women's standard -- at least, the B standard -- has remained very soft ever since. People have different ideas about whether that's good or bad; personally, I think it unnecessarily degrades the achievement and is ultimately counterproductive to the goal of producing more competitive American runners.

I've also wondered whether that would be the way to go on the men's side. There are a number of advantages. Disadvantages, from my perspective, include the lack of predictability in qualifying standard (I know that I was rather discouraged in 1983 when the 2:19:04 standard was announced) and the possibility that the 100th best American time in 2010 will be very slow (say, 2:25), and you end up with several hundred runners in the trials (as happened on the women's side in 1984).

If the primary goal is to increase the level of competition among American runners, then I believe (contrary to some of the views expressed on this thread) that tightening the standard is the right move. People really do step up their game when higher standards are in place, even though they may have believed that they were previously pushing themselves to the limit. Although there are many runners who have unrealistic expectations about how much they can improve, there are many others who underestimate their potential. When I was 17, I ran a mile in 5:22, and I couldn't imagine running any faster. Fifteen years later, I could string together 26 miles at a considerably faster pace. There were many times along the way when I thought that I had reached my "genetic" capacity, and I was wrong every single time.

Pete Gilman wrote:

The people who say this is a good idea have no idea what it is like to run in the trials. They have very little chance to run sub 2:22 and now sub 2:19.

I will add myself to the list of people who can say unequivocally that this statement is wrong.

20 women have run faster than 2:22 some many times, two women ran sub 2:22 22 years ago. A woman has broken 2:22 as a 5th place finisher. 8 women have run under 2:20 including a USAer.

Tell me again what standard of excellence the supporters of looser standards at the trials are willing to set for the young men in this country?

There is some scattered support for the USA Marathon Champs being used to select a finite # of runners to run in the OMTs with an A Olympic standard elsewhere and you get an automatic place in the trials provision. Work on that idea as the proper place for the 2:30 runner to live out a Championship race goal. The idea of being National Class should hold many runners in the sport and be a benchmark step on the way to being World Class.

I personally think it is bogus how the USATF can pick and choose which marathons that break the "rules" but you can still qualify on (i.e. New York and Boston). If the "rule" is good enough to go into affect follow it to the letter.

Bottom line the USATF will get what they want, a 30 man race. What a joke.

sweathog wrote:

The real problem wrote:

. How can they sat that NYC and Boston do not meet the standards but will still be include because they are not considered to be fast. This is based on personal opinion?

Well, NYC and Boston have been run lots of times by the world's top runners, and haven't produced any obviously enhanced times. There aren't any other "nonstandard" marathons that can say that, as far as I know.

You obviously never ran Boston in the years with a tailwind.

I watched the trials on the Webcast, and from my view, after a few miles, it was about an eight to ten man race. I don't think it was ever more than that before the gun went off.

More than half of those who finished that race failed to run under the "B" standard of 2:22. I think this move by the USATF puts the emphasis back on competing well in the actual trials race and not simply qualifying for it.

The CR is 2:07, so it must have been a long time since there was a tailwind. I can see where a tailwind would help on Boston's course, though...

What does the time of the CR have to do with the last time there was a tailwind?? The tailwind (And CR) were actually last year. That's not TOO long ago in the big scheme of things.. but I am really not sure where you were going with your logic?

I think you are missing the point. Boston and NYC do not meet the standards for world records etc. and the criteria that is going to be used to exclude certain marathons will not be used for Boston and NYC and this is not fair. Just because these two marathons are big with powerful backers does not mean they should be include. Standards are standards and if USATF is going to implement a course standard ALL marathons should be included or included based on these standards.

My reasoning is that if a tailwind is such an advantage, it doesn't seem to be helping the world class guys at the front. The guy who ran Boston's CR ran an almost identical time at Chicago later that year.

As far as using exceptions because the races are powerful --- I would say "traditional" --- I don't see any problem with it. If they're setting standards anyway, I don't see the difference between saying "x% drop & y% distance between start and finish" or saying the same thing and adding "except the current NYC and Boston courses." Like I said, both of these courses have proven themselves over many years with top competition to consistently produce credible times, so why should they have to conform to an arbitrary new standard in order to be considered legitimate? Would you think less of someone who qualifies for the Trials at Boston or NYC? Do you think runners are going to flock to these races to get "cheap" qualifiers? I'm betting they'll still go to Chicago.

Thanks David, my google map very rough measurement puts Ft Wadsworth and Tavern on the Green at a tad under 13 miles apart so NYCM is a WR Course even after removal of the World Marathon Majors top 20 boon.

I agree that events like BAA Boston get included in the courses you can qualify on based on years of observation that the aided designation is only because of not fitting into a strict mathamatical mold.

I also like the idea that making a more visible event out of the USA Marathon Champs as a way to keep the 2:20 guys involved in the sport. Make being Top 20 in the USA Champs a gold free entry card into any race under UST&F oversight or something. Same for all on track semifinalists, some reward between making the trials and winning the trials like advancing to finals in the distances or semifinals in the sprints--- a designation similar to college All-American ranking. The All-America team or somesuch.

sweathog wrote:

Do you think runners are going to flock to these races to get "cheap" qualifiers? I'm betting they'll still go to Chicago.

Just to clarify, Chicago is definitely legit. It will just be the "cheapest" remaining course for qualifiers under the new standard, whether or not NYC/Boston are allowed.