abcrunning wrote:
Why such discrepancies?
For women 2:37 is almost recreational level. Elite women are running consistently sub 2:20 is like allowing guys running 2:25. So pathetic getting exited cuz some chick runs sub 2:30.
How many American women are sub 2:20 right now? Or will be in the next year or so? I guess the top 3 will be the only 3.
As long as we accept 2:18 as the US qualifying time, the US will never really compete with the real world marathon studs. It may be better for the US men not run the Olympic marathon. Yes the United States will have a few run under 2;10, but it is nothing like the constant 2:04 runners from the real marathon runner producing countries, Until, the United States is a 2:04 or better marathon factory, we might as well stay home. Until than, the US men can just focus on pacing the fastest women marathon racers.
This guy gets it.
2:18:00 for men = 88.15% = 2:32:05 for women
2:37:00 for women = 85.39% = 2:22:28 for men
Clearly, there are fewer women running than men, in the general population. So, if the standards were equalized with respect to the top performances (as age grading would do), then we'd end up with fewer women than men qualifying.
If, on the other hand, the standards were set so as to try to equalize the number of qualifiers (men and women), they would end up being even more dramatically different to one another than they are now (or, especially, as they were).
My guess is that whoever sets these things was trying to strike a balance between these two approaches.
As someone who has gotten within a minute of an OTQ while working as a full time medical resident, this is beyond frustrating. What is wrong with encouraging sub elites to train for reachable goals? Some of those sub elites could be the elites of tomorrow, but now we'll never know. This is a dagger to the heart that will kill my desire to keep trying. 😞
COVID is the big unknown here. Training groups have fallen apart. Boston can't find enough runners (0 seconds for the cutoff this year). The number of qualifiers might be way down, and the field may be historically small. How does that boost interest in our sport?
Runner with a career outside of running wrote:
COVID is the big unknown here. Training groups have fallen apart. Boston can't find enough runners (0 seconds for the cutoff this year). The number of qualifiers might be way down, and the field may be historically small. How does that boost interest in our sport?
How is this building interest in the sport and for whom? This seems like a cliche line, a weak argument against an unpopular decision, and the equivalent of crying, "Won't anyone think of the children?!".
Can someone please explain how having more competitors and slower standards makes the sport more popular? Do TV networks not care about 150 runner fields but suddenly go nuts over 250 runners? If 200-300 post collegians don't make the Trials due to a harder standard, do Nike or New Balance go belly up? Do middle school kids decide not to go out for high school track? Does the local 5K industry disappear into the ether?
Does anyone have a quantifiable answer?
It’s the Olympic Trials. Distance Standards should = OQ like the 100-400 are.
Runner with a career outside of running wrote:
As someone who has gotten within a minute of an OTQ while working as a full time medical resident, this is beyond frustrating. What is wrong with encouraging sub elites to train for reachable goals? Some of those sub elites could be the elites of tomorrow, but now we'll never know. This is a dagger to the heart that will kill my desire to keep trying. 😞
1) This race is to select the olympic team. Plenty of male elites are ridiculed here when they “bomb” and run 2:14. It needed to happen.
2) I do hope you hit the time but whatever happens, history shows that stricter cut-offs make everyone faster at the end in striving to meet the OT qualifier. You might surprise yourself in the next few years.
Sure.
In terms of building a strong team, you won’t find the few we actually want if we gatekeep support infra for only those that have already achieved. If we want to develop top tier talent we’ve got to also develop mid tier talent.
For every X (let’s say 100) men that can run 2:30 we seem to get about 1 that can run 2:20. For every 100 that can run 2:20 we get about 1 that can run 2:10.
If we don’t encourage a strong running culture in that 2:10-2:20 range we will rarely if ever find a 2:05 guy. If we want to podium regularly on the world stage we probably need several dozen 2:05 men at any given time to give us a shot.
Unkle Carmine IX wrote:
Can someone please explain how having more competitors and slower standards makes the sport more popular? Do TV networks not care about 150 runner fields but suddenly go nuts over 250 runners? If 200-300 post collegians don't make the Trials due to a harder standard, do Nike or New Balance go belly up? Do middle school kids decide not to go out for high school track? Does the local 5K industry disappear into the ether?
Does anyone have a quantifiable answer?
There was more buzz and media coverage of the 2020 trials than any previous marathon trials. A lot of that was centered around stories of the sub-elites running gunning to qualify, particularly on the women's side. The energy of the OTQ chase put energy into the sport. Whether that was sub-elites who doubled down on their running to chase the standard, clubs and groups that grew in part because the standard was an achievable goal, and the aforementioned buzz that came from the large numbers of qualifiers.
Now, the women's standard in retrospect was obviously soft compared to the men's. But it would have been nice if USATF had acknowledged the positivity that came with the 2020 trials rather than treating it as an anomaly, never to be repeated again.
runspired wrote:
Sure.
In terms of building a strong team, you won’t find the few we actually want if we gatekeep support infra for only those that have already achieved. If we want to develop top tier talent we’ve got to also develop mid tier talent.
For every X (let’s say 100) men that can run 2:30 we seem to get about 1 that can run 2:20. For every 100 that can run 2:20 we get about 1 that can run 2:10.
If we don’t encourage a strong running culture in that 2:10-2:20 range we will rarely if ever find a 2:05 guy. If we want to podium regularly on the world stage we probably need several dozen 2:05 men at any given time to give us a shot.
I would change that to "If we don’t encourage a strong running culture in that 2:10-2:15 range we will rarely if ever find a 2:05 guy.
The half marathon standard was already pretty difficult to get so they made it.....harder? The women's standard was a bit soft, especially in the age of super shoes, but potentially cutting the field by 80%? Doesn't make much sense but whatever.
Runner with a career outside of running wrote:
As someone who has gotten within a minute of an OTQ while working as a full time medical resident, this is beyond frustrating. What is wrong with encouraging sub elites to train for reachable goals? Some of those sub elites could be the elites of tomorrow, but now we'll never know. This is a dagger to the heart that will kill my desire to keep trying. 😞
Point 1: We have historically had a weaker OTQ standard for women. And a lot more depth in the marathon at the world class level on the female side. I believe those two points are directly related.
Point 2: Desi Linden first qualified for the Olympic trials with a 1:12:10 half in 2008 after running a 2:44 full. She would not have qualified for the Olympic trials under the current standards.
Runner with a career outside of running wrote:
As someone who has gotten within a minute of an OTQ while working as a full time medical resident, this is beyond frustrating. What is wrong with encouraging sub elites to train for reachable goals? Some of those sub elites could be the elites of tomorrow, but now we'll never know. This is a dagger to the heart that will kill my desire to keep trying. 😞
This race is for selecting who to send to the olympics. Not give you an incentive to keep doing your hobby. Find an other race to train for like the rest of us.
LarsL9 wrote:
Runner with a career outside of running wrote:
As someone who has gotten within a minute of an OTQ while working as a full time medical resident, this is beyond frustrating. What is wrong with encouraging sub elites to train for reachable goals? Some of those sub elites could be the elites of tomorrow, but now we'll never know. This is a dagger to the heart that will kill my desire to keep trying. 😞
This race is for selecting who to send to the olympics. Not give you an incentive to keep doing your hobby. Find an other race to train for like the rest of us.
Also, this is great to give sub elites the possibility to say, with pride, that they competed at OTQ. It doesn't carry the same merit when there are 200 hobby joggers on the start as well.
Called it. Figured the standards for men would tighten very modestly, but the women's standard would tighten closer to the 2020 A standard.
darkwave wrote:
Runner with a career outside of running wrote:
As someone who has gotten within a minute of an OTQ while working as a full time medical resident, this is beyond frustrating. What is wrong with encouraging sub elites to train for reachable goals? Some of those sub elites could be the elites of tomorrow, but now we'll never know. This is a dagger to the heart that will kill my desire to keep trying. 😞
Point 1: We have historically had a weaker OTQ standard for women. And a lot more depth in the marathon at the world class level on the female side. I believe those two points are directly related.
Point 2: Desi Linden first qualified for the Olympic trials with a 1:12:10 half in 2008 after running a 2:44 full. She would not have qualified for the Olympic trials under the current standards.
This guy gets it. The. US womens side of marathoning has been much more interesting the last 8-10 years and it is related to the standard. More females thought they had a chance and stuck with it....therefore more thrived. Now how many will say forget it? The "make it tougher and they rise " only works so far. This will affect womens marathoning longer than 2024 and is short sighted by USATF.
How is this building interest in the sport and for whom? This seems like a cliche line, a weak argument against an unpopular decision, and the equivalent of crying, "Won't anyone think of the children?!".
Can someone please explain how having more competitors and slower standards makes the sport more popular? Do TV networks not care about 150 runner fields but suddenly go nuts over 250 runners? If 200-300 post collegians don't make the Trials due to a harder standard, do Nike or New Balance go belly up? Do middle school kids decide not to go out for high school track? Does the local 5K industry disappear into the ether?
Does anyone have a quantifiable answer?[/quote]
I'm in favor of loose standards. I think 2:22/2:45 guarantees most recreational runners knowing of someone in their community who is going to the Trials. What kind of coverage did you consume before the 2020 Trials pre-race? There were so many stories about runners in the women's field working full-time jobs, raising children, etc.
I think that's better for the sport than tightening standards which, on the surface, are tougher on the women.
If the goal is to simply select a team then 2:18/2:37 are meaningless. Why not 2:13 & 2:30 at that point? Why not run it on a track?
The marathon isn't like track racing in the US. Casual runners run the marathon instead of the 800 + 1500. They understand the race. Plus you don't have constrictions on the road. Galen Rupp does the Chicago Marathon every year. It doesn't matter to him that people are gonna run 4 hours. Why should it matter if people are going to run 2:20? The front end race coverage will be the same.
Yes and no one outside of the small group of distance running men care about Galen Rupp. Ask anyone outside of your male running circle and no one has heard of him. Mens marathoning is boring in the US.
This is why our sport never grows. We finally had communities investing in their athletes for the OTQ chase, learning about the sport along the way, now that will be significantly diminished.
Yes cut the standard but cutting it to less than 90 women does nothing but make less people watch and tell 80% of women to not even bother.