Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

Looks like Akron has the financial guarantee. Selection committee might want to have a closer look at the specifics of the guarantee. But, assuming it is legit, I'd throw them back in the mix. I do have a question though....When was it decided it would be two different sites? Now I can see money coming into the mix and it's not necessarily a good thing.

I think New York would have enough pull and $$$$$ to put up a good argument for a late fall race. Even though Twin cities is only a few weeks earlier, I think the time frame works against them. Boston has the best date and if Dave McG. is behind the bid or on board, then they would be best equipped to handle the event.

Akron has some enthusiastic people and a "trial run" in 2007 would be a must. Can they find a fast enough course to keep everybody happy?

Ray wrote:

Akron has some enthusiastic people and a "trial run" in 2007 would be a must. Can they find a fast enough course to keep everybody happy?

This sounds like BHam all over again. Yes enthusiatic, yes "trial run" the year before, yes multi loop course (different the people's course), yes same boring event.

You're right it does sound like Birmingham. Why the boring label?

What is your alternative?

Do not extend the time, we are already behind in distance running as a nation, we cant go making it easier for people to get into the trials. 2:30 is weak. That's about 5:43 pace......there are plenty of not good college runners that could run that with ease......myself included, i have a goal of running 2:21 and if i reach that and get into the trials i will be extremely happy, but it would be like basically handing me acceptance into the trials by extending the time to 2:30. By extending the time to 2:30 we would basically be saying that it is ok to be behind every other nation and for us to be horrible as a distance running nation.

Now some people might try to flame me for saying we are horrible right now since Meb and Deena did great, but that's two people. We have way fewer americans running under 2:20 these days than back in the 70's and 80's.

I WILL BE PISSED IF THEY EXTEND THE TIME TO 2:30, but if they do i might as well go get my qualifier the week after they do.

For a little dose of reality (and I know it 's a post Olympic year), look at the TFN top ten American's list for the marathon and half.

Men Top 20

2:21.49 , 65:15

women

2:44.09, 78:14

One word....ouch!

Ray wrote:

You're right it does sound like Birmingham. Why the boring label?

What is your alternative?

100 runners, 100 spectators.

ok, I again agree, so I'm going to guess you're pro NY and Beantown.

If New York gets the bid and doesn't change to a spring date, then someone is getting a kickback. The advantages of having all of the press in town in no way off sets the disadvantages of a fall marathon. I think that we have some young guys that could use that extra 6 months for development. If the powers at be are really interested in presenting the BEST team in the marathon, then it should be run in the spring. I however doub t that that is really of any concern to USATF, although they will claim that it is.

Depends on the setup. I have yet to see any facts.

i have a friend who didn't run in college. He wasn't good enough. He came from a small HS that I think didn't even have a XC team. He taught himself how to train and worked his way up to about 15:55 for 5k when he was 22-23. And he was working pretty hard at it.

After college was over (in Graduate School actually) something snapped in him and he just got his shit together and WILL NOT BE STOPPED! He runs 12-14 times a week and about 110-120 pretty regularly (averaged 97 a week in 2004). He got down to 15:03 and 32:06 (bad race) last year just before his buildup to a fairly major March marathon.

He had done 1 or 2 marathons before but they had gone badly. this time it went pretty well and he went out around 5:35-40 for 20 miles and then slipped a little. To his surprise (two guys had been in front of him and they dropped out or something) he ended up winning it in 2:31:XX. He struggled mightily in the last mile, but had been easily on 2:28:XX pace until the last 2 miles.

He will be back to try again.

His long-term goal is to run as fast as he can at distances from 1 mile to the marathon, and hopefully qualifying for the OT.

My point is that here is a HS 10:20 two-miler who had no aspirations at first for college running (because he had no illusions either!) and then he gets into it more and does a lot of racing from 5k to 10 miles and becomes committed to it. THEN HE REALLY gets into it and trains like a pro and

takes about A MINUTE off his 5k alone and wins a marathon.

He isn't staying in the sport because HE CAN get into the OT marathon. He isn't quitting the sport because he is 10 minutes from qualifying right now. He is running because he likes it and even though he may not have 2:15 talent, he continues to run (at age 26) with a wife, a dog, and a house, and a full-time job. He continues to run because he likes running and he likes getting better and he likes winning races, even if they aren't huge ones. He also likes finishing high at the bigger, faster races.

If he determined that he had no chance at 2:22 and they were not going to slow the standard, he wouldn't get pissed and say someone is keeping him out of something that he needs to keep running. He would likely accept that nature made him a 2:23+ marathoner and that he had tried his best to accomplish something that he wan't going to be able to do.

If a male has run 24:30 for 8km or 31:00 for 10km, and they are not getting slower each year because of age, then they have shot at a 2:22 marathon. This is just a fact.

I doubt that many 32:00 10k'ers think that they would stay in the sport and train for a 2:29 marathon just for a chance to be pack fodder in an Olympic Trials. They may stay in it and train for many other reasons (like my friend), but the OT's are not enough.

Some of you need to realize that if someone has run since age 14 and by the 5th year of college they have run 15:20/32:00 on the track then they are not likely to ever run fast enough to make a dent at the National Class level. And if you have run for the same period and you have reached 14:00/29:00 then running a 2:22 marathon is a walk in the park. Some of you seem to be suggesting that lowering the standard to a regional-class level would bring these All-American level distance runners who would otherwise quit the sport (since they can't make a living off of running at that level) to stay in it and pursue the marathon. It won't.

They can't make a living off of 2:20 marathoning either and that is as far as they will likely go. I don't see how slowing the standard will affect any of this. The slower guys (if they WERE attracted to keeping running) would not have any affect on the depth of marathoning at the National class level and the faster guys would not have the way paved for them to get faster any more or less. As has been pointed out ad infinitum, these guys have no trouble qualifying for the OT and there is no shortage of fast marathons for them to continue to get better.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Why stop at 2:30? Why not 2:40 , 2:50, 3:00?

For starters, because that wasn't what Mark was proposing? I'm sure that he anticpated some of the "purists" writing horrified replies similar to your, though.

Did anybody else happen to notice the list of U.S. male marathon performers from 2004? Mind you, this was an Olympic year on top of everything else, and yet we were only able to produce 164 men under the proposed 2:30 standard...

Think about that for a moment: 164 men in the entire country! How did that go again? Weekend warriors? Wanna-bes?? Lesser runners???

Be realistic! wrote:

Did anybody else happen to notice the list of U.S. male marathon performers from 2004? Mind you, this was an Olympic year on top of everything else, and yet we were only able to produce 164 men under the proposed 2:30 standard...

Think about that for a moment: 164 men in the entire country! How did that go again? Weekend warriors? Wanna-bes?? Lesser runners???

Yes, that is exactly how it went. On the international level, they are wannabes and lesser runners. The trials are supposed to pick the 3 guys who represent us at that level

If only 164 guys can beat a slow time, it is still a slow time. To anyone competing in the Olympics, that should be a jog.

waitaminute wrote:

Yes, that is exactly how it went. On the international level, they are wannabes and lesser runners. The trials are supposed to pick the 3 guys who represent us at that level.

If that's the case, then we should do what some other guy suggested. Just use the Olympic standards for the trials, both A and B. If 2:30 people shouldn't be in the race, the 2:22 dudes don't belong there too.

Be realistic! wrote:

Think about that for a moment: 164 men in the entire country! How did that go again? Weekend warriors? Wanna-bes?? Lesser runners???

No, YOU are the one who needs a dose of reality. 164 runners under 2:30 only illustrates how pathetic we've become.

Mark,

I think your idea makes a ton of sense. One additional benefit from a 2:30 standard is the interest it could create in any number of towns around the country. The high school coach who still trains or the local sub-elite who is at or near that standard can create interest in the sport around his town or area. If a few junior high or high school kids get inspired to stick with the sport because their coach is going to (or even just trying to qualify for) the Olympic Trials, it benefits the sport. Some of those kids who stay with it just might turn out to be great runners someday.

So in addition to the post-collegiate runner who runs in the 2:20's on his way to 2:15, the 30-50 year old who tries to get to 2:29:59 at the end of his career can be a big boost to the sport.

Bump it up

dmm13 wrote:

I think your idea makes a ton of sense. One additional benefit from a 2:30 standard is the interest it could create in any number of towns around the country. The high school coach who still trains or the local sub-elite who is at or near that standard can create interest in the sport around his town or area. If a few junior high or high school kids get inspired to stick with the sport because their coach is going to (or even just trying to qualify for) the Olympic Trials, it benefits the sport. Some of those kids who stay with it just might turn out to be great runners someday.

I agree completely! However, many of the "old school" hard-liners amongst us apparently still feel it would be sacrilegious to add another 8 minutes onto the "B" standard. On the other hand, there were a grand total of 22 young men who ran under the Olympic Trials "B" standard in 2005. Sounds like a rather lonely race, doesn't it?

Coincidentally enough, it looks like the USATF has recently updated their web page to reflect additional provisional qualifiers...

This is certainly a step in the right direction, although a 2:22 marathon performance is a lot closer to a 30-minute 10K effort than it is a 28:45.

as far as the date goes, does anybody care that 90% of the athletes asked at usatf distance events over the last year wanted it to be in the fall?

Let's do it.