You can't look at the winner to determine how much the wind aided the time. The winner and top few places are the few people in the race who might have run a tactical race and not run a time trial.
If you look at the results of the wind-aided Boston from 1994(?) where Bob Kempainen PRed as well as a whole host of other people you will see how much the course was aided because of the wind.
The year that Kempanin ran 2:08 (and finished 7th) was ridiculous. If you watch the film you can see debris in the road that is blowing by the runners. I ran a PB by nearly 5 minutes. I tell everyone that I have run sub 2:20 even though I know that I could have never done it on any other course.
This list of people who would have been in this year's trials under the new system...elminates non-qualifying marathons and people over 2:19. The Moulton brothers are gone since Austin 2006 would not have qualified. You could make a strong argument they would have qualified elsewhere. You could also argue that a few others would make it in under the half marathon time. But here's the list. The biggest news is that *Jason Lehmkuhle*, the fifth place finisher this year and second alternate would not have been at the Trials.
James Carney unattached / New Balance 27:44*
Josh Rohatinsky unattached / Nike 27:55*
Daniel Browne unattached / Nike 28:11*
Matthew Gonzales unattached / Nike 28:22*
Westly Keating unattached 28:24*
Edwardo Torres unattached / Reebok 28:28
Khalid Khannouchi unattached / New Balance 2:07:04
Ryan Hall unattached 2:08:24
Abdi Abdirahman unattached / Nike 2:08:56
Meb Keflezighi unattached / Nike 2:09:56
Brian Sell Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:10:47
Alan Culpepper unattached / Nike 2:11:02
Peter Gilmore unattached / MarathonGuide.com 2:12:45
Mbarak Hussein unattached / Nike 2:12:53
Dathan Ritzenhein unattached / Nike 2:14:01
Simon Sawe unattached 2:14:09
Clint Verran Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:14:12
Ryan Shay unattached / Saucony 2:14:58
Chad Johnson Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:03
Mike Morgan Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:11
Kyle O'Brien Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:13
Brandon Leslie unattached / Brooks 2:15:20
Luke Humphrey Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:22
Miguel Nuci Transports Adidas Racing Team 2:15:34
Jason Hartmann unattached / Nike 2:15:50
Jacob Frey unattached / Saucony 2:16:44
Nick Arciniaga Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:16:58
Martin Rosendahl Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:17:05
Chris Lundstrom Team USA Minnesota 2:17:34
Michael Reneau Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:17:46
Michael McKeeman unattached 2:17:50
Cecil Franke unattached 2:18:13
Fasil Bizuneh unattached / New Balance 2:18:14
Steve Meinelt unattached / Reebok 2:18:15
Chris Graff unattached / Asics 2:18:18
Joe Driscoll ZAP Fitness 2:18:40
John Lucas Team XO 2:18:50
David Ernsberger unattached 2:18:56
New York City has a separation from start to finish of approximately 12.56 miles placing it under the international requirements of 50%. Because the trials are a qualifier for the Olympic, international standards apply.
So how many of those guys do not have substantial help from a sponsor or club.
Maybe...
John Lucas Team XO 2:18:50
David Ernsberger unattached 2:18:56
Michael McKeeman unattached 2:17:50
Cecil Franke unattached 2:18:13
Miguel Nuci Transports Adidas Racing Team 2:15:34
?
SOS wrote:
The biggest news is that *Jason Lehmkuhle*, the fifth place finisher this year and second alternate would not have been at the Trials.
as pointed out already, not true. he achieved the half marathon time.
We've been through this many times now, Jason Lehmkuhle would have qualified. His 1/2 @ Houston would have gotten him in.
pleas stop using this as an example. It's not one.
Observation wrote:
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.
A number of people who qualified at slower than 2:19:00 were in the top-50. A number of people who qualified at faster than 2:19:00 finished behind those guys or DNF'd. Changing the standard to 2:19:00 will not make the race any more competitive. It will just mean fewer people line up. My guess is the times for the top-50 finishers will remain about the same. Also, you could make the standard 2:15 or 2:45, and there would still be the same 10 or so guys with a legit chance of making the team. It's always been that way and always will.
Josh Cox was definitely a factor in this year's Trials until he pulled up with an injury to his foot. I don't think he would have made the team, but my guess is if he hadn't had the injury problem he would have been a major player well into the race and therefore may have impacted who did make the team. He would not have been in the race under the new standards. I'm sure there are many other examples of guys who ran very well who would not have been in the race and may have even quit training altogether based on the new standard. Heck, with the rule on the aided courses, Nate Jenkins may not have gotten in since he got his time at Austin and then had injury problems after that.
Some "B" guys have factored in most every year since the B standard was added. On the other side of things, I don't think having "B" guys in the race has ever negatively impacted the race. Looks like a lose-lose situation to me.
Trials are 30%.
Think of the courses you can no longer run? CIM, Napa, Steamtown, Grandmas, LA, New York, Boston, (granted those last two will probably be allowed due to history).
What does this mean? There are no fast marathons on the west coast any more. Home town races will lose those few guys trying to qualify for the trials and it will force everyone to run one race: Chicago. And is this race willing to accomodate all these athletes trying to make the standard? What if the weather doesn't work out and there in only 1-2 shots due to the window?
Things are definitely messed up.
mjlaye wrote:
So how many of those guys do not have substantial help from a sponsor or club.
Maybe...
John Lucas Team XO 2:18:50
David Ernsberger unattached 2:18:56
Michael McKeeman unattached 2:17:50
Cecil Franke unattached 2:18:13
Miguel Nuci Transports Adidas Racing Team 2:15:34
?
Team XO is substantial help.
Ernsberger was with Hansons when he ran 2:18--so substantial help
Transports get substantial help from Adidas.
Could there be a trend to the changed trial times of the early 1980s to the poor performances in the 1990s and early 2000s? I think that this might be a very legitimate scenario to look into.
While intially boosting the 2:18-2:24 crowd to run much better,this could be seen to hinder running that are capable of running 2:24-2:27 that could develop into 2:15 runners. These runners in turn help to push sub 2:15 runners be sub 2:10. This could potentially decrease the overall depth and quality of development in United States Distance running.
I think things work from the ground up and while it might help things in the short term, longterm this could accomplish what happened in the 1990s.
Okay, I'm only twenty and have never ran a marathon, but I think I can shed some light on this argument. Obviously nobody is going to reach a consensus on this so let's all just agree to disagree. Now, I would say that yes the current standard is not really that fast at all, I mean look at Paula and Deena. SHit they are women. But I offer a different view,
I say that the marathon trials are different than the track and field events. I think that we would be better off having the 2:22 standard because it includes a decent amount of people, if you think that it's dangerous to have as many people as there were in this years race you are just a pussy and stupid, its' a race, nut up. The reason that it is a good thing to have these 2:22 "wannabees" in the race is that incase nobody noticed we are not exactly the top marathon or even long distance country in the world, far from it. Letting that range of runner in gives people like myself and others who are looking ahead at the marathon for our future think :"hey, if 2:22 is possible, why not 2:15, or faster?" (I'm aware that there is a huge difference and most people can't make that jump) It's all about taking baby steps, especially when dealing with something like the marathon. And plus, what the hell is it hurting to have these "snails" in the race? If you can tell me for one second that there is any elite runner who was bothered by them, then change the race. BUt there wasn't, the field thins out real quick, it gives the top runners a chance to deal with having to run with people. Often times nowadays there are other runners in a race when you go to the finish line.
Plus, having all these people in the OT is good pr for the sport, and there's nothing wrong with helping out our sport which doesn't get hardly any attention outside of serious runners.
You can add 21st place finisher Josh Ordway to the qualifier list. He did run his fastest at Austin, but also qualified with a chicago time.
You bring up a good point. There were a lot of hometown feel-good articles on this site the week or two leading up to the Trials. I'm sure there'll be the same leading up to the Female Trials. What's bad about that?
OK so Jason would have got in but I wouldn't have qualified. I know I only finished 7th but I feel like that showed that I was at least good enough to be there.
Nate,
Now that you are big time, do you see a problem with 2:20-2:22 marathoners in the trials?
I agree totally...
How many college runners wont even try the marathon now. 2:22 might have been obtainable and they could develop into something of a talent. This is not good for development.
Maybe there will be a "club nationals" which is bigger and better then the trials. Hell, it works for XC!
That's not the real Nate Jenkins you stupid idiot.
Funny as heck wrote:
Nate,
Now that you are big time, do you see a problem with 2:20-2:22 marathoners in the trials?