Changed Marathon Trials numbers

What is the performance equivalent of a 2:19:00 marathon being applied to a half-marathon and 10,000 meters? The half-marathon time of 1:05:00 as well as the 10K time of 28:30 seem pretty tough compared to 2:19:00.

The goal was never to make them equivelant.

As a guy who went from running 37 min 10k's to 31 min 10k's, I can honestly say that I have been inspired by many of the "B" qualifiers, especially those in my area that I have competed against in road races and even had the privelege of training with. I know they'll never make the Olympic team and they know that as well, but the work they do and the times they run has motivated me to get more out of myself. They are normal, everyday guys with families and jobs, which means the rest of us can relate to them. I would hate to see a lot of those guys quit the sport because the carrot they were chasing that kept them in it was gone. I just don't see how taking the standard from 2:22 to 2:19 benefits the sport, but I can see how it hurts it. Bad move by USATF.

I've broken down the 134 Trials competitors according to method of qualification. Here are the results:

35 - sub-2:19:00 (the 2012 standard)

63 - 2:19-2:22

28 - downhill courses (not including Boston)

8 - 10k time

134 runners total

Let's say you have a 50% chance of running 2:16-2:19 (if everything goes perfectly-- training, health, weather, etc.) and a 50% chance of running 2:19-2:22. Under the current system, you're virtually assured a place in the Trials. So, it makes sense to devote a good 6 months to marathon preparation.

Now, you're faced with a 2:19 standard. All of a sudden, in a given race, your chances of qualifying are 50%. Does it still make sense to devote 6 months to single-minded marathon preparation? Or does it make more sense now to forget the marathon and pursue the half standard? You can race the half more often, and the performances are generally less volatile from race to race.

Put yourself in the shoes of a 2:19 bubble guy. I'd say these guys are, if anything, LESS likely to devote themselves to marathon training. After all, 20 guys ran sub-1:05 at Houston this year.

You know what they say about the road to hell...

***

I'd be willing wager $100 that more than 50% of the '12 Trials qualifiers do NOT run sub-2:19 during the qualification window.

I would imagine that entries to the houston half will be going up quite a bit in the next few years. What are some other fast and legal half marathons out there?

I'm tired of reading threads about guys who were inspired by the "B" people but have now lost the motivation.

Its time to reset your motivation! Be inspired by the "B" guy who gets the new standard. Be inspired by your own butt if you get up on a cold morning and actually run. Be inspired by Hall, Sell, a local running legend, or a book.

Quit blaming USATF for the fall of distance running because they changed a qualifying standard.

Wags In Illinois wrote:

What is the performance equivalent of a 2:19:00 marathon being applied to a half-marathon and 10,000 meters? The half-marathon time of 1:05:00 as well as the 10K time of 28:30 seem pretty tough compared to 2:19:00.

shouldn't they be?

Rudolph the reindeer wrote:

Quit blaming USATF for the fall of distance running because they changed a qualifying standard.

I have not added anything to this thread, but I agree totally. "I can't do it" is a good start to not getting there.

Rudolph the reindeer wrote:

I'm tired of reading threads about guys who were inspired by the "B" people but have now lost the motivation.

Its time to reset your motivation! Be inspired by the "B" guy who gets the new standard. Be inspired by your own butt if you get up on a cold morning and actually run. Be inspired by Hall, Sell, a local running legend, or a book.

That just it. The average runner cannot relate to Ryan Hall, Meb, Abdi, Ritz, or even Sell. I do not have an enormous amount of natural ability. I also do not have resources like the privelege of no job, physical therapists, underwater treadmills, altitude, etc. Plus, I don't see Meb pounding the roads of my local neighborhood then heading in to work like I do some of the "B" qualifiers. You say be inspired by local running legends. Well, guess what. Those "B" qualifiers are the local running legends, and those are the guys USATF is basically discouraging with this new standard. Again, I just don't see how this is good for the sport and I don't see why it was necessary to trim down the field when the # of qualifiers is just gonna be 100-200.

Rudolph, It isn't only the standard the USATF is messing up it is all about the roots. Remember back to the B qualifiers and not getting water bottles set out at the trials? The POWER of Letsrun changed that for everyone. What a PR disaster that was. Now this is going to be much larger.

my perspective wrote:

The average runner cannot relate...

I also do not have resources...

Plus, I don't see ....

Again, I just don't see how...

I don't see why...

This decision blows. THe USATF are telling the genuinely amateur, working stiff marathoner that he isn't welcome at the trials.

A lot of guys can run 2:22 and hold down a job...2:19, nor so many. I'd be interested to know how many of the guys in New York with sub 2:19 qualifiers have real fulltime jobs...not shoe store clerks...real jobs.

Is this the message they want to send to the membership....were kicking back here in Hawaii on your dime and telling you that you can;'t run the Olympic trials....full time professionals only from now on.

Idiots.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Tell that to Mark Conover. He ran a 2:18 showing up and winning the trials in '88 I think it was.

Why? It's 2007 and the sport has moved forward in the 19 years since 1988, so what good would telling it to Conover do??

I'm a 2:27 guy and I have to admit that I am initially disappointed that the OT standard has been lowered to 2:19 for 2012. I tried twice within the last year and a half to qualify for the 2008 Trials but fell short. I understand that a standard of 2:19 will make it much less likely that I qualify for the 2012 Trials, but that just happens to be where USATF drew the new line. Whether you're a 2:10, 2:20 or 2:30 guy, you just have to move forward.

The only reason people are married to the "old" standard of 2:22 is because that was the qualifying time USATF decided upon years ago. It's really an arbitrary number that people have become sentimentally attached to over the years because it's been the "elite" standard of marathon running for the last decade. You had to know that the qualifying procedure or standard would eventually change, whether good, bad or indifferent. These things are constantly being reviewed and adjusted given the current landscape. I guess USATF feels Americans are better than the "old" standard, and after a few years it will simply become the norm and widely accepted as the "elite" level, just as 2:20-2:22 had been until a couple days ago. But sure, change sucks sometimes, especially since I'm in that range where another 3 minute drop seems enormous.

I'm a firm believer that people run up or down to the standards that are set for them. I ran DIII XC and track and I always ran just fast enough to qualify for Nationals. However, I honestly believe that if I ran DI, I would have run faster simply because the competitive bar was higher. My goal over the past 2 years was to run sub 2:22 in the marathon for no other reason than it was the OT standard. It was not a measurement of my own ability, but me wanting to reach elite classification in the event.

Moving forward, I think marathoners will look at 2:19 the same way they did 2:22 for all these years. It's, very simply, the new measure of elite success in the event. We'll all be surprised by the number of guys who adjust their goals accordingly and break 2:19 within the next 4-5 years. I might not be one of those guys, but I'll give it a shot. Maybe I'll fall short and run 2:21. That would be disappointing given the new system, but you just can't live in the past.

Why?

just a bad move wrote:

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.

Pete Gilman wrote:

Rudolph, It isn't only the standard the USATF is messing up it is all about the roots. Remember back to the B qualifiers and not getting water bottles set out at the trials? The POWER of Letsrun changed that for everyone. What a PR disaster that was. Now this is going to be much larger.

Time for the POWER OF LETSRUN to take charge again.

Ok, ?, I see your point. You're one of those tough guys that "suck it up and work harder" is always the answer. Well, I have a question for you and anyone else. How is this move good for US Distance running and how were the 2:19 to 2:22 guys bad for it? Improving the sport should be one of USATF's goals, right? And don't say it raises the bar because it doesn't. Sure it may motivate a 2:21 guy to become a 2:18 guy, but it isn't going to increase the number of guys that have a legit shot to make the Olympic team. That will wind up being 10-15 guys like it's always been. All this does is decrease the size of the Trials field, which will in turn decrease the publicity at a local level. I remember seeing literally dozens of articles on eliterunning.com about local runners who had qualified for the Trials. The only way the Trials is going to make a small market newspaper is if there is a local guy participating. Now there will be fewer of those local guys and therefore fewer local heroes that may inspire a young kid who has the talent to one day become a Ryan Hall.

I ran 2:47, 2:32, 2:25, and 2:24. I'm almost 40 and thought I'd go for one last shot at qualifying for the trials. I lost all motivation after reading the new standards.

Just a Number wrote:

I'm a firm believer that people run up or down to the standards that are set for them.

OK then set the standard at 2:05 and have everyone run down to that. Should be a heckuva race!