Changed Marathon Trials numbers

bayarean wrote:

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.

post. of. the. day. lmfao.

bravo.

Proof? wrote:

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.

Why? It's simple. Because those guys have jobs and families and are making tons of sacrifices in the hopes that they might qualify for the Olympic Trials. Silly or not, it's a major goal for many decent but not elite runners, and it keeps those guys involved in the sport. Now that the standard is 2:19:00, many of those guys are gonna realize they don't have the natural ability to run that fast and that all the sacrifices they're making aren't worth it when 2:21:59 is not that much different than 2:24:30. They're not gonna get up extra early and have their bodies ache head to toe just to knock 30 seconds of a 2:22:15 PR. They're gonna walk away. As someone else said, more local heroes gone.

my perspective wrote:

Now there will be fewer of those local guys

Do you have anything at this point to back that statement up?

just a bad move wrote:

Proof? wrote:

Why?

Why? It's simple. Because those guys have jobs and families and are making tons of sacrifices in the hopes that they might qualify for the Olympic Trials. Silly or not, it's a major goal for many decent but not elite runners, and it keeps those guys involved in the sport. Now that the standard is 2:19:00, many of those guys are gonna realize they don't have the natural ability to run that fast and that all the sacrifices they're making aren't worth it when 2:21:59 is not that much different

than 2:24:30. They're not gonna get up extra early and have their bodies ache head to toe just to knock 30 seconds of a 2:22:15 PR. They're gonna walk away. As someone else said, more local heroes gone.

I love it! If they drop the time to 2:15 even more will drop out, and I'll become a local hero. If the only thing keeping you in the sport is trying to qualify as cannon fodder for the olympic trials marathon, then you may as well move on.

It's not so much the 2:19-22 guys who are hirt by this. They will continue to work hard, and many willmake the leap. It is really the 2:25-30 guys who will have a hard time justifying the enormous sacrifice of trying for 2:19.

Many of these guys would not qualify under either standard, and would not be a factor inthe OT even if they did. But do they matter to the sport and should USATF want to induce them to keep pushing? Yes. It is a no-brainer.

These guys keep the pressure on the low 2:20 guys, and motivate and push the top runners in their local areas. I kind of see it as the same concept of having a JV guy on a college team who has an outside chance to make the top seven, but probably won't. He isstill is a cog in the machine, and pushes other guys to be better.

Would Sell have accomplished what hedid without each of those Hanson's guys creating the competitive environment that they did? Who knows. But why take a chance on discouraging some of those back-end guys who pushthe front-end guys?

The decision seems really short-sighted, and for what real gain? To save a little money for the race organizers? Come on, USATF.

USATF has simply professionalized the Marathon. Simply put, USATF is saying, commit, full-time to the Marathon, or you do not deserve the opportunity to represent our country alongside the World's best.

I am a bubble guy with a full-time job and a family, and this new standard just made it simple for me. Perhaps now the Marathon is not the ultimate goal. Perhaps I will continue to just race US Championships but forsake the Marathon. Heck, this might make me a better, faster runner.

The Marathon is not for everyone. 2:19:00 is not for everyone. I will leave it for those prepared to play.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I was the top runner on my college team all four years of school. I never once felt pushed by the scrubs on the JV team running half a lap behind me during mile repeats. I didn't hear footsteps from someone who ran 27:00, just like Ryan Hall doesn't hear footsteps from someone running 2:22.But don't worry. If you want to think that you and your JV mates are making a difference in the world, go ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Oh, snap wrote:

I kind of see it as the same concept of having a JV guy on a college team who has an outside chance to make the top seven, but probably won't. He isstill is a cog in the machine, and pushes other guys to be better.

Where did you go to school?

just a bad move wrote:

Proof? wrote:

Why?

Why? It's simple. Because those guys have jobs and families and are making tons of sacrifices in the hopes that they might qualify for the Olympic Trials. Silly or not, it's a major goal for many decent but not elite runners, and it keeps those guys involved in the sport. Now that the standard is 2:19:00, many of those guys are gonna realize they don't have the natural ability to run that fast and that all the sacrifices they're making aren't worth it when 2:21:59 is not that much different than 2:24:30. They're not gonna get up extra early and have their bodies ache head to toe just to knock 30 seconds of a 2:22:15 PR. They're gonna walk away. As someone else said, more local heroes gone.

Well, I certainly won't push so hard in the marathon anymore. I went to the limit and beyond to get 2:22, came close, but destroyed myself in the process and have run like crap for the year since. There's no more left to go for 2:19.

If the marathon trials are REALLY for pros, and only for Olympic selection, why 2:19? Why 65-85 guys? No, in that case, we would make our standard the same as the IAAF Olympic standard and be done with it. If it's only 10-15 guys then so be it, they're the only ones with a legit shot anyways.

B standard guys paid their own way. That looked like a pretty cheap way to bolster up-and-coming guys to make the sacrifice after college and see if they can get up with the big boys over a few years. If it had been 2:19 when I got out of college, I would have said forget it and never done as well as I did. I can look at my wife with a straight face and ask for all the sacrifices it takes on her part to enable me to go for 2:22. I can't do that for 2:19 so it isn't going to happen. Better off working on my 5K or half marathon PR (which may not happen anyways without a hard marathon training cycle of 110 mpw+ to back it up).

My PR is 2:23:57 in St. George, 2:30:32 on a record-eligible course. I live in Utah, finding a reasonably fast record eligible course requires travel. I have a family to support, 5 kids. I found a way to run 125 miles a week, get enough sleep, see my family, and still have enough for my needs, but I cannot randomly spend money on travel to marathons. I always try my hardest in training and in racing, always train, eat, and sleep to the best of my knowledge and ability. This year I tried to make the OTQ in St. George, laid everything on the line, still missed it.

I do not know how you say that a higher qualifying standard makes you train harder or race faster. While I do believe you should always shoot for the stars, and I do, I set my eyes on running sub-2:10 and constantly think of ways to understand and overcome my limitations to get there, if I go to a race, I am already giving it all. I have nothing left. I see a guy ahead of me, I know passing him will give me a few hundred bucks of prize money, I know I could us it, I tell myself to go, and the body does not respond. Every marathoner who reached that state would tell you this. You can only will yourself that far, you have to be more fit in some way to run faster. To arbitrarily say to somebody that he would have run a minute faster had he just tried hard enough reflects a lack of understanding of what running at your limit is like.

I do agree, though, that if we call it Olympic Trials, and those participating in them Olympic hopefuls, they need to have a realistic chance of making the team. 2:22:00 guy in St. George is not an Olympic hopeful by the current Olympic standards. However, the current US Olympic mentality, or in other words, if you are not the best you are a loser, is not healthy for the sport and for our culture in general. America is what it is because enough people try. To do better in the world scene of marathoning we need to do something to encourage more people to try their hardest. Unfortunately for a while the false hope of being an Olympic hopeful was that driver for many runners. It is gone now. I think it is a good thing in the long run. I hope we can find a way to replace it with something better that does not arbitrarily draw the line at 2:22 or 2:19 or any other time and drop you from the status of glory into the loser oblivion.

What I disagree with, is your assertion that "it is gone now". It's not gone. It's harder, yes. Look, the majority of us and by us I mean guys who are actually reading this thread, were going to go after the standard whether it was 2:25, 2:20, or 2:15. The main point is to try and become the best you can be. Yes, they've taken away one of the major things that this category of runner gets: respect of making the trials and being construed as elite as a 2:21 guy.

It is what you make of it.

Maybe you were never pushed directly by the jv guys, but I bet the 7th man was. In turn so was the 6th and on down to you the four year number one - unless everyone else on your team just sucked compared to you. If so congrats for being the big fish in the small pond.

It's an utter joke that with the so-called advances in training, etc..that we are bitching over going back to the old standards..if there were only 60 people in the race (there will be 150+) so be it..does a guy like Wardian need to be in the Trials..it was just another marathon for him and a way to make some side $ by leading out the opening miles, he just was accepted into WS100 for 2008

When it used to be ok to go 4 to a room and gas money, no everyone wants airfare, per diem, free entry to run 2:23 or try to reach the B standard

hell all henry needed was some alcohol and a hooker to run fast...be like henry..train your ass off, expect nothing...

sweathog wrote:

The guy who ran Boston's CR ran an almost identical time at Chicago later that year.

So what?

masters fattie wrote:

It's an utter joke that with the so-called advances in training, etc..that we are bitching over going back to the old standards..if there were only 60 people in the race (there will be 150+) so be it..does a guy like Wardian need to be in the Trials..it was just another marathon for him and a way to make some side $ by leading out the opening miles, he just was accepted into WS100 for 2008

When it used to be ok to go 4 to a room and gas money, no everyone wants airfare, per diem, free entry to run 2:23 or try to reach the B standard

hell all henry needed was some alcohol and a hooker to run fast...be like henry..train your ass off, expect nothing...

I agree with your sentiment and I suspect a lot of trials hopefuls do. I think the main thrust of the prevailing gripe is "Give us a race that means something".

A big problem for this class of runner is finding an appropriate competition. You're not invited to any of the elite events. You go to a large marathon and it's a huge pain in the ass just to get a decent starting position. You go to a smaller marathon and have one or two guys to compete against.

We need a competition that has something at stake and that will bring together as many 2:10-2:40 marathoners as we can get. Could we as a group agree to congregate at a marathon once a year and have ourselves a good race? Maybe the USATF marathon championships? Maybe something else we develop by ourselves at the grassroots?

Sasha Pachev wrote:

I do not know how you say that a higher qualifying standard makes you train harder or race faster.

Obviously, there are limits. Perhaps you have come close to yours. But most people, including most guys who run around 2:25 for the marathon, have never come close to running up to their potential.

If the trials qualifying time had been 2:30, and were now being changed to 2:25, there would probably be at least as many guys talking about how horrible this is, and how their dreams have been crushed, and how their genetic limitations will always prevent them from ever running under 2:25. Some of them would be right. Many of them would be wrong.

I'm not suggesting that any particular person should even try to wring everything out of his talent. In fact, for most people, I think it would be a big mistake, because really hard training REQUIRES that some other parts of life get compromised, squeezed, or eliminated, and I don't think that it's a favorable trade-off for most people. But most people would be surprised by how much harder they could train, and how much faster they could race, if they really, desperately had to.

I won't renew my USATF membership.

Oh wait I never had one.

Er, why did you exclude any who would have qualified with the 1/2 marathon standard, including Lehmkuhle?

IRrelevant! wrote:

sweathog wrote:

The guy who ran Boston's CR ran an almost identical time at Chicago later that year.

So what?

If you were paying attention, the guy claimed that Boston had a huge wind advantage that year. The results don't back it up. Closer to home, how about these "aided" results in that same race from US Trials qualifiers:

Brian Sell: 2:10:55 Boston, 2:10:47 Chicago

Clint Verran: 2:14:12 Boston, 2:14:23 Chicago

Luke Humphrey: 2:15:23 Boston, 2:15:22 Chicago

Peter Gilmore: 2:12:45 Boston, 2:13:13 NYC

There are others, but I think you get the point by now. In fact, there were only 2 A qualifiers from Boston 2006 that didn't make an A qualifier in another race inside of the window: Meb and Culpepper. Do you want to question their qualifiers?

Someone else brought up the 1994 race, which I have to admit I don't know much about as that was before I was thinking about marathons. But, I'm guessing the results will stack up pretty similarly. Boston has had a long history of producing fair times, and I'm really not sure why people are disputing that.

Also, in practice there aren't many marathons that are used to qualify for the Trials, and if you remove the St George, Austin et al plus Boston and NYC then you're basically down to a couple of races, and it will be totally dominated by Chicago. I just don't see why you would do that.