Changed Marathon Trials numbers

Quitter wrote:

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.

Good! See ya!

You sure have all the knowledge? "most people would be suprised by how much harder they could train, and how much faster they could race, if they really, desperately had to." What? What is your PR for the marathon? Is that all you can wring out of your self?

The list I would like to see is who wouldn't have qualified b/c of an aided course. What percentage of qualifiers this year ran their qualifying time on a course that is no longer eligible under the new rules? Anybody have that info?

bayarean wrote:

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

Um, so what exactly is wrong with that?

Just a Number wrote:

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

bayarean wrote:

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

Exemplary of incredibly simplistic thinking, at best.

It's not entirely accurate. "Working stiff" marathoners are by all means welcome at the Trials, they just have to run 2:19 to get there. I don't see why 2:22 is a perfectly acceptable time for a 40 hr/wk worker to attain, but 2:19 is somehow out of the question.

IRrelevant! wrote:

bayarean wrote:

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

Um, so what exactly is wrong with that?

IRrelevant! wrote:

Um, so what exactly is wrong with that?

USATF is suppose to promote Athletics in the US. If you think that moving towards a professional only race helps to promote athletics to the masses then fine. However, many of us disagree.

Now tell me how exactly this helps promote athletics in the US when only professional runners can run. I for one will care less come OT time when I have less friends racing.

fat and out of shape wrote:

You sure have all the knowledge? "most people would be suprised by how much harder they could train, and how much faster they could race, if they really, desperately had to." What? What is your PR for the marathon? Is that all you can wring out of your self?

It's under the new qualifying standard, and on a record-quality course.

And no, it wasn't all I could wring out of myself, although it wasn't bad for a guy who couldn't break eleven minutes in the two-mile in high school.

And you?

mjlaye wrote:

USATF is suppose (sic) to promote Athletics in the US. If you think that moving towards a professional only race helps to promote athletics to the masses then fine. However, many of us disagree.

Now tell me how exactly this helps promote athletics in the US when only professional runners can run. I for one will care less come OT time when I have less friends racing.

So, you care little about the sport itself and its competitions?

What, exactly does a 2:22 marathon have to do with "the masses"? What % of "the masses" really gives a poop about guys who are chasing 2:22, over and above guys who are chasing 2:30 or 2:45 or even 3:00? Where were you and your fellow nattering nabobs of negativity to promote the sport to "the masses" with respect to runners who are a lot slower than 2:22? It's self-centeredness at its finest is what it is.

just a bad move wrote:

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.

Um, they chose to "have jobs and families", didn't they? I'd figure that, despite anecdotal examples to the contrary, that most guys would be of the Joe McVeigh mold. If their ONLY reason to continue in the sport is to make the OT, then they aren't really "heroes" and the sport would survive just fine in their absence.

Crap sample size, doesn't indicate any correlation nor does it refute the claim. Did you forget the crap (cold & wind) conditions at Chicago in 2006 that hindered runners? Goodbye credibility!

Now that they have also reduced the number of courses you can use to qualify I am even more in favor of ditching time standards and having people race for position to get in the trials. This is ultimately the best way to guarantee someone didn't catch a tailwind at Boston or something like that.

IRrelevant! wrote:

So, you care little about the sport itself and its competitions?

What, exactly does a 2:22 marathon have to do with "the masses"? What % of "the masses" really gives a poop about guys who are chasing 2:22, over and above guys who are chasing 2:30 or 2:45 or even 3:00? Where were you and your fellow nattering nabobs of negativity to promote the sport to "the masses" with respect to runners who are a lot slower than 2:22? It's self-centeredness at its finest is what it is.

Show me a program that the USATF is putting in place to support the masses in place of funding 60 extra trials competitors. Your comment about my self-centeredness is IRRELEVENT. Show me that this decision moves the USATF more towards encouraging the masses rather than away from it. Will the money do towards club events? Help fund the designated elite clubs? Put on an additional road race or cross country race? There are plenty of examples of how they could spend this money so just find one and tell me.

I care very much about this sport both on the competition side and getting the masses involved. I'm still supporting my sport by volunteering as a youth cross country coach and helping put on several local races. I'm active in my club rather then merely saying I support these runners through an anonymous message board. How exactly does posting on a message board help those people?

So do you not care about the NCAA meet? Footlocker meet? Olympic track trials? Golden League? THE OLYMPICS? I don't know, maybe you have friends racing at all of these.Again, nothing is stopping "amateur" runners from running the Olympics Trials marathon. There's no box on the entry form you have to check that says "I don't work 40 hours per week." The standard is simply three minutes faster than it was this year. I for one think runners (both "pro" and "amateur" will rise to the standard. I suppose you think it's just coincidence that the majority of runners were right around 2:20 and 2:22 at the last trials.

mjlaye wrote:

USATF is suppose to promote Athletics in the US. If you think that moving towards a professional only race helps to promote athletics to the masses then fine. However, many of us disagree.

Now tell me how exactly this helps promote athletics in the US when only professional runners can run. I for one will care less come OT time when I have less friends racing.

1. How is doing something to encourage the slim segment that would chase 2:22 truly a way to "support the masses"?

2. Why should USATF go out of its way to do anything for those chasing 2:22 but not for those chasing 2:30, 2:45, 3:00, etc.?

3. What goddamn money are you talking about??

4. Posting to this message board doesn't help anyone other than yourself, typically.

Prove it. Where can I find the results. I have been watching it seems to me you have all the correct info. Put your time where it should be out there?

Trying to kill the messenger reflects poorly on you. A# is bonafide, don't be a bonehead.

Prove it. Mine isn't under the new but is under the old. I have an interest in it staying this way so others in the future may have the opportunity to experience the dream?

Why don't you answer the question posed to you, first, since your question was answered?