Changed Marathon Trials numbers

IRrelevant! wrote:

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!

Let's review logic 101 for you, buddy. The claim was made with 0 evidence to back it up. I don't have to refute it. I just pointed out that among the leaders and the OT qualifiers, there is no such evidence. Feel free to provide some evidence to prove the claim, because otherwise it's just another bs claim by some anonymous guy on the internet. Oh, but I need to provide a statistically significant correlation to disprove it, huh?

And the weather for Chicago 2006 was hardly bad marathon weather. I was there.

You're the one trying to claim that it isn't true. You haven't disproved the claim with what you've tried to use so far. Yes, the wind was a hindrance to the runners in 2006 at Chicago, regardless of your feelings or presence.

I never said it was. You are assuming that I mean using the same resources for the same population. I am asking how does moving the standard to 2:19 increase interest?

Where did I say that they go out of there way? If you assume that letting them pay their own way to the trials and putting water bottles on the table for them is going out of the way then your standards are low. They don't go out of their way now, the races at which people are chasing the standard are the ones that go out of their way now.

The money or resources that reducing the field to 65 is going to save.

Please answer my question. How does moving the standard to 2:19 increase interest and participation in USATF sanctioned events?

If it does not move resources or money to another event then how again does moving the standard to 2:19 serve to increase interest and participation.

not a sell out wrote:

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.

I care about all of those. It is not an all or none. At any of those levels I have friends competing I care more. Is that really so hard to believe?

fat and out of shape wrote:

Prove it. Where can I find the results?

Do you mean the results of my over-11-minute high-school two-mile time or my under-2:19 marathon time?

If you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, I promise that I'll overlook the fact that your marathon PR is worse than mine. (Although I might be kind of upset if your two-mile PR in high school turned out to be slower than mine. A few months before his death, I was talking with Ron Daws, the author of the old cult classic "The Self-Made Olympian." He was always very proud of the fact that he made the 1968 Olympic team, and almost broke 2:20, despite being really slow in college. We had a good-natured discussion about who had been worse in college. I won.)

I wouldn't know and where is it written that OT qualifier standards are set with an aim to "increase interest" among "the masses"? They are what they are, why assume ulterior effects?

It was a question, apparently you have no answer. You indicated that USATF would be supporting "the masses" by keeping the 2:22 B standard.

Didn't you just say that they let "them pay their own way to the trials" and put "water on the table for them"? Where would there be a financial savings in excluding that?

It's a question that is based on an assumption that I don't share with you. I wasn't aware that either moving the standard to 2:19 or keeping it at 2:22 would serve such an end. Where did you dig up such a correlation?

The difference is negligible, inconsequential at worst. It will neither increase nor decrease "interest and participation."

mjlaye wrote:

I care about all of those. It is not an all or none. At any of those levels I have friends competing I care more. Is that really so hard to believe?

I can't figure out how it could possibly matter whether or not YOU care and are there?

I get your point on Boston, the weather is highly variable in April. But, even on the odd chance that the weather conditions are perfect, I don't think you're going to get a lot of unfair qualifiers, if any. I'll look for some of these older results - the one example cited was 1994 with Kempainen running 2:08:47 at Boston 1994, when his other marathons were 2:11-2:12, and Ndeti running 2:07:15 when he was a 2:08-2:09 guy. OK, that's probably aided, but again it's not like 2:30 guys are going to be booking their tickets to take advantage of the course.

In any case, much like cross country, I think qualifying by time in the marathon is not the way to go. Even if you normalize the courses under some uniform standard, the weather and distribution of hills will always make the results not comparable. Even year to year on the same course can be significantly different (Chicago 06-07). I like the idea of having a marathon series where you can earn slots "on the course", and make the time qualifiers a really high bar (like I said before, Olympic A standard might be good). I also think that would draw some attention to the sport, as it might warrant mention in the national news when athletes claim OT slots at NYC, Boston or Chicago, rather than some guy running 2:19 and winning Rocket City.

I'm aware that a lot of record quality courses exist, but take a look at the qualifying from this past year. Especially in the sub-2:19 category, there were a host of qualifiers from the '06 Austin race, Boston and NYC, plus a couple from other nonstandard courses. When those are taken out, the list looks like Chicago was the de facto Trials, minus the two big guns that ran London. Now, where do you think those qualifiers are going to go? LA, or Houston? My money is on Chicago for most of them, making Chicago almost the sole proving ground.

Boston is certainly not aided to the extent that some of the others are, but cool temps and a strong tailwind can be worth a couple of minutes there.

I agree that, when you take out the aided courses, Chicago looks like the best bet. That's been true for a long time. Houston is decent, but the weather in Houston is pretty unpredictable in January. Phoenix in January, as long as the start and finish lines are close enough. Other than Boston and London, I'm not sure which races are good in the spring, around April or May. San Diego would be good, but the Rock 'n' Roll race isn't close to record-quality. Perhaps L.A., although that's a little earlier in the year. In the summer months, Grandma's is actually an aided course, but I wouldn't be surprised if the committee lets it in. In the fall, Twin Cities has generally been an excellent race with pretty fast times. Marine Corps isn't bad (aside from the hill at the very end), but it's been a while since the competition there has been strong.

It may take a while to get people weaned off aided courses, and perhaps get people refocused on something like a national championships race, but I think they're moving in the right direction.

Boston "aided" thoughts...

I ran at Boston 1994 as well as many other times. I also attended twice as a spectator. It's "aided" in terms of geography and topography.

But assuming that US 2:18-2:30 runners are Adam Smith-ian rational actors, the fact that we see so very few of them run Boston relative to other non-aided courses tells you something about how "fast" that "aided" course is.

That said, WHEN the tailwind conditions apply, then and only then it's "aided and fast". According to my personal data set, it has been "aided" pretty rarely.

1994 -- Make no mistake -- it was absolutely a wind-aided marathon. the greatest conditions ever for a marathon. felt a powerful tailiwind for all but about 3 minutes of the race

1996 -- (spectator) cold, gusty, generally headwind...

1997 -- cold, a dusting of snow occasionally, persistent 10-20mph headwind

1998 -- great weather, 50s-60s, moderate tail/crosswind 5-10mph, few gusts to abt 15

1999 -- hot (up to 73 degr F), sunny, no wind

2000 -- (hearsay, was not there) cold, with unrelenting 20-25 mph headwind

2001 -- a little cold, swirling crosswind thru 21, headwind thereafter

2003 -- (spectator) cool-to-moderate, threat of high heat never materalized, don't know abt wind but times indicate not a tailwind

2004 -- crazy hot. slight tailwind made it worse.

2006 -- great weather but no tailwind that I noticed.

2007 -- Nor'easter. Bad cold, rain, ridiculous headwind.

Now, how "aided" was Boston in 1994? I ran both NYC 1993 and Boston 1994.

NYC was a tough day to run -- bright sun day and the temps peaked at 67 F. Boston had the greatest conditions ever.

Let's compare differentials of people who ran both

Kempainen -- 2:16 faster at Boston

Espinosa -- 2:50 faster

Barrios -- 3:53 faster

[...and way down the list...]

McVeigh -- 4:09 faster

Some was ambient weather but some also was wind.

We're on page 19 of a topic that merited no discussion in a land far far away. Shame on all of us for letting this Committee and LDR Director dictate the sport.

If you want to go to the MENS trials run faster than Deena Kastor.

Warrior Mentality wrote:

We're on page 19 of a topic that merited no discussion in a land far far away. Shame on all of us for letting this Committee and LDR Director dictate the sport.

And don't forget that Latimer said the vote was unanimous in favor of the change. That certainly tells us a lot about how little the people voting know what the masses feel.

This isn't a reflection of "the masses". The average marathoner must be a 4 hour runner or so, and as others have mentioned, they could care less if the standard is 2:22 or 2:19. To them 3 minutes isn't anything and all the elites are freaks any way.

This thread is on page 19 because 10 people keep posting under different names arguing with themselves and the other dill holes who have personal vendettas against people at USATF or just have an Oedipus complex so they're taking it out on this message board.

This was my second post. The first was the one that you attacked. It appears to be "several" upset campers. My point was directed at thpoint that Latimer indicated that the vote was unanimous. THAT SEEMS ODD. Did all voters really feel this way? or Are all the voters from the same bolt of cloth? Either way, it is not a very strong representation of the people and this thread proves that.

I want to know how Teddy weighed in on this situation? Does Teddy get to vote? If so, maybe that is another place that change needs to take place.

Is it true that the USATF eased the qualifying time for the mile and 5k? If true isn't that the oposite of what their reasoning was for the marathong?

I mean you can put 500 people in a marathon and manage it easily. Yet you put more people on the track which is more difficult. I don't get it?

And what are the credentials of those making these decisions? Have they run under 2:19? Have the coached sub 2:19 marathoners? Have they been a race director for a marathon?

True, it was not a strong representation and this change came out of nowhere. Those are things I don't like and would like to see changed, but only to a certain extent.

I don't think USATF has any obligation to make determining the standards a completely democratic process. Too many cooks in the kitchen??? Too bureaucracy just ties things down.

Perhaps the proper way for this should have been to...

1. announce meeting topics to the public via the USATF email bulletin ahead of time

2. inform us who would be involved in the process so we could call or write and express our opinion so they could carry that into the meeting

3. tell us whether its gonna be a meeting where a final vote is being made, or is it a data-collecting meeting.

Obviously these decisions were made long in advance and this was the final wrap-up. If they already had the times figured out and the list of the acceptable marathons mostly done, then someone has been working on this all along. This meeting was just the final nail in the coffin.

Also, I am curious as to how they ascertained (sp?) the 2:19:00 number? Why not 2:20? Why not 2:18:00? Maybe they were expecting an uproar and were counting on "giving us" the 2:20 number as a sedative all along???

I agreee with you. My question is: CAN THIS BE CHANGED AT THE NEXT CONVENTION?