Sorry Mark, I strongly disagree. Anyone who runs a marathon at 5:43 pace does not belong in the Olympic Trials.
Sorry Mark, I strongly disagree. Anyone who runs a marathon at 5:43 pace does not belong in the Olympic Trials.
To the idea that 300 runners is too much I say the 2004 number(DK/NS) is too small. Let the course and host city dictate the size. Give the A&B standard folk the same as the past and let the rest pay there way... need an extra bus to get them to the line....use school busses(with the little seatsOH NO!)suck it up Jill your runnin'the trials. Race director could charter a contract tour bus company and pass the full charge to the "added runners"...oh to much $$$$....suck it up Jack your runnin'the trials.
At the Trial wear a plain Tee at home Run all around town with RAVENS COOKIE SHOP SENT ME TO THE OLYMPIC TRIALS plastered to your butt. Freddies Ford-a -rama gets the sponsor ad on your tush in the local area...he don't care that you did not wear his logo in EastLye NY for the race
just that it works in his marketing area.That a local team can fundraise one runner from their area to Olympic proportions just tells the youngsters they can dream.
malmo wrote:
Sorry Mark, I strongly disagree. Anyone who runs a marathon at 5:43 pace does not belong in the Olympic Trials.
Trials Malmo, USA Trials! This is not the Olympics, Plus if you got more runners trying to beat you, hell it will make the competition much stiffer when u got 300 runners after you.
BRING THE STANDARD TO 2:30 AND WE WILL HAVE A GOLD MEDAL WINNER JUST LOOK AT SHORTER!
Orville Atkins wrote:
I still think that the trials should be limited to the top 100 marathoners...The trials are to pick a team not to train marathoners.
You have made some valid points, and expressed them quite eloquently. However, what we are proposing is not "training" marathon runners per se. A better way to describe it might be building for the future, and if we can effectively accomplish both at the same time, why not?
The simple fact of the matter is that we have fallen behind the rest of the world (and particularly the African nations) in world-class distance running over the last 20-25 years. When Alberto Salazar set the American Record in the men's 5000m at 13:11.93 in 1982, he was only five seconds off the world record. However, Tim Broe's 13:11.77 this past July was still good enough to propel himself onto the U.S. All-time "top 10" list 23 years later, but he found himself 34 seconds slower than the current WR! In that same 23-year time frame, the Kenyans and Ethiopians have completely rewritten their "top 10" lists in the 5,000m (amongst other events).
You can attribute our declining fortunes in men's distance running to several contributing factors, many of them culturally based: surfing the Internet, the advent of Cable TV, video game consoles, etc. There are many potential distractions that didn't exist in the U.S. 20 (or more) years ago, and my old coaching mentor has even suggested that you can find many potential first-rate distance runners competing in ESPN's summer "X Games" every year! The system is broken, Orville. Why should we only "pick a team," when we have the opportunity to accomplish so much more (and that same team is performing significantly worse than their countrymen did 30 years earlier)?
The bottom line is that we are playing catch-up against the rest of the world, so anything we can do to close the gap and enhance our future corps of distance runners would seem to be well worth the effort. Remember how many little girls started becoming interested in soccer once Mia Hamm and her friends won the World Cup right here in the USA? What we are proposing is a much more low-key version of that same type of publicity, allowing youngsters across the country to excitedly watch their neighbors/older brothers/class mates qualify for the Olympics Trials marathon because they ran a 2:29. That may seem rather idealistic on the surface, but if adjusting the men's OT "B" standard by 8 minutes plants the seed within young minds to qualify for the 2024 Olympic marathon, then our sport will reap the benefits for many years to come.
We just open up the trials to anyone who has the money for the entry fee? No time standards.
Make it a true "anyone can win race"...of course we will seed the runners so that big belly Billy doesn't trip Meb or Abdi etc. But then anyone who wants to run can.
If the RD wants to pay expenses for a few athletes, they can. Otherwise, get there the best way you can - good luck.
Mark, thanks for starting this idea again. Orville and Malmo, I certainly agree that we need to race and reach for higher goals. Certainly Meb did.
But having the time standard to get into the Trials lowered to 2:30 and 3:00 won't lower our ambitions. There will still be plenty of people who will want to make the team, that's there ambition and a few more in the race won't change that. I do believe that the 22 year olds that have just left college with their fitness and speed intact will find those time goals a very good reason to keep up their long runs and stay in the sport. That's what we all want for now, for 2008 and beyond. Sorry, what happened in '64 or '72 can be a learning experience, but that was still then and this is today.
Give those guys and gals a chance to make an Oly Trials, rub shoulders with the studs and studdettes, get inspired. Or at least be able to tell their grandkids about their Trials experience and pass on the love of running and not how they struggled to use their accounting degree when they got out of school and they wish they had an MBA before doing business with Indonesia.
But standards do help, even if it's 2:25 and 2:55, it is a concrete goal and it gives running promotion in Springfield Ohio, or Springfield Illinois or Springfield Missouri, and we need to get the sport (and its promotion) into every nook and cranny of the USA.
kimosabi, the development of charity runners is a worthy goal in itself, however, they do not belong in the Olympic Trials -- except to watch, of course. This is a really really dumb thread that illustrates just how far the collective mindset has fallen.
If you want to run the Olympic trials then train for it. Start today.
As someone on the cusp of qualifying, I would actually be upset if I made the trials by way of a slower qualifying time, and wouldn't feel as though I really deserved to be there.
I definitely wasn't an individual who was within striking distance of the 2:22 after college, but I am now. If someone needs an easier standard to motivate them to keep running, do we really think they have the mindset to be achievers in our sport?
We have some excellent ideas that are very conflicting.
There is a need to increase focus in our sport.
The problem is that we have gotten to the point that many people think that 2:30 or even 2:25 is good. I am sorry and I am in no way an elitist but it is not. The problem is that in today's american psyche everyone wants a trophy. Whether or not they earned the trophy is unimportant. "Everyone's a winner". Bull shit. Show me guys or gals that have made the necessary sacrifices to become an elite distance runner and I will show you people that have no problem with the current standards. How many of the folks that want a 2:30 standard would train at 140 miles a week to earn it? Very few. How many would quit their current job and move to Minnesota or Michigan or one of the other training sites and live off of peanuts to insure their success? Very few. As a matter of fact this board tends to put down athletes that don't go straight from college to a cubicle and in the next breath suggests we lower the standards.
I agree that we need to increase the focus of our sport.
2:22 is not unatainable by most guys that can run 31 minutes for 10k. It is currently not worth it to them to make the necessary sacrifices. The answer is not to enable them to sacrifice less.
Mark wrote:
Firstly, I want to say that we always hear so much about the 1970's running boom and the depth of US distance running in the marathon back then, etc. Well what a lot of people don't talk about is the fact in 1972 the US Olympic Trials marathon standard was 2:30, yes the year we went 1st, 4th and 9th in Montreal. It was from that era of runners that competed in that 1972 trials that many went on over the next 10 years to put US marathoning on the map as those guys improved.
Mark, the 2:30 standard of '72 was a beginning point as there hadn't been a time-to-beat for qualification yet. The standard was also a reflection of the times much as early Boston qualifying times were: floating a concept that represented excellence.
The number of men that broke 2:30 over the next 10 years probably went up 10 fold but that wasn't due to the '72 Oly Trials standard...more due to gestation of the RunBoom. Just as there are 50 ways to leave your lover, there are 50 ways to explain why so many Americans started running and running faster from '72-'82. The guys that made the '72 team and all subsequent teams have not been from the 2:30 talent pool. Lowering the standard may provide for some feel-good moments, and these are okay in their own way but will do nothing to enhance US chances.
I'll throw out again I like setting the OTrials standard at the 100th fastest time for a calendar year previous to whenever the Trials qualifying period starts.
Scott, just to play devils advocate.....wouldn't a race with 200 people draw more spectator/media interest than a race with 80-90? I fought for a lowering of the women's standard in 2000 and 2004. I also saw the spectator and media support at those trials.
Very sad.
I tried to float an idea by LDR and Associations to increase Association support/interest. The idea was to have a set up similar to that of the Olympic games themselves. The standard would be set at the top 100th time from the Olympic year. Let's say the women's time was 2:45 e.g., that's your standard. Because the bar has been set there, history tells us we'll get 130-150 qualifiers at that mark. I think Orville Atkins would agree with that. Now here is where it gets tricky. Each of the 57associations is entitled to one representative. If there is not a qualified rep a certain time out from the race, the association may choose to support (on their dime) 1 athlete who has met a softened standard. I would suggest that the women's mark be 2:50 -2:52 e.g. The result is a field of about 175-180 runners with media and spectator interest from every area of the country. The field is not significantly weakened and everyone 's goals are acheived (development, association promotion, selecting the team,etc.)
Those that worked hard, got close and didn't get to go (I was one),would be against the idea. Some would say that development doesn't belong in the trials. But hey, if it belongs in the games, why not the trials?
malmo wrote:
kimosabi, the development of charity runners is a worthy goal in itself, however, they do not belong in the Olympic Trials -- except to watch, of course. This is a really really dumb thread that illustrates just how far the collective mindset has fallen.
If you want to run the Olympic trials then train for it. Start today.
malmo: the arrogance you display makes we wonder, why would anyone support your a$$, ok you have done it, ok you set records, ok for once get that head out of your a$$ and support others succeed, you're a hasbeen so now quit complaining and help push this drive others have, if you have no positive feedback, then just step off.
Malmo is entitled to his opinion. If he doesn't agree then he can't respond? Sounds like Bush's cabinet.
Why not charge the non "A" qualifiers an entry fee? The normal marathon fee is around $60. Why not charge the sub 2:30 group $100? An extra 100 runners would be $10,000 to cover the costs of the extra expenses for more runners. I am a 2:31 runner but would definately pay the $100 for a chance at the trials if I make the 2:30 standard.
I'm not sure I agree with your original post (I'm not one for a dumbing down of standards) but you bring up some interesting ideas that merit consideration at least.
I do want to point out a few important things.
1) You say a 2:30 marathon is something achiveable for a talent collegiate runner with significant training (paraphrase). I say if this is the standard then you sould consider the 2:22-2:25 range rather than 2:30. I was nothing special in college, a high 31 minute 10k runner, low 15 minute 5k runner and high 25's for 8k XC. And I never cracked the top 20 at the SEC cross country championships. But soon after graduating I clocked a 2:25:24 for the marathon on a rolling course. My point is a that a good talented collegiate runner already has a decent shot at the 2:22 standard. Certainly a 2:25 standard is very achievable. A 2:30 draws from other groups, namely older 30+ or 40+ yr olds looking for one last hurrah, or good high school runners who should be focusing on shorter races during their youth.
2) You mentioned the standard in 1972 was 2:30. Well since then most world class marathons are won in times about 5-7 minutes faster. So using this math the standard should be 2:23-2:25, not 2:30 again.
3) One last point. You mentioned that the success in the 70's was do in part to the lower 1972 standard. Can you name me some runners who were able to compete in the 1972 trials because of the lower standard (ie. 2:22-2:30 guys at the time) who went on to become US distance running stars. I'm not convienced the lower standard had anything to do with US distance strength in the 1970's. I'd rather credit: Shorter, Moore, Rodgers, Kargdon, Mills, Lindgren, Liquori, Ryan, etc, for inspiring others.
There is a certain level of dedication, talent, etc to make it to the trails. I have run 2:42. I think it would cheapen the race if 2:30 marathoners are invited. It would cheapen the accomplishment. Plus, A 2:19-22 marathoner could have a huge race (ie. Briney) and potentially make the team. A 2:30 runner has a huge race, runs 2:25.. big deal.
kimosabi wrote:
malmo: the arrogance you display makes we wonder, why would anyone support your a$$, ok you have done it, ok you set records, ok for once get that head out of your a$$ and support others succeed, you're a hasbeen so now quit complaining and help push this drive others have, if you have no positive feedback, then just step off.
Soryy, kimosabi, you are wrong on all accounts. I'm big on grass roots development, and what I have to say IS positive feedback. The notion of allowing 2:30 marathoners in an Olympic Trials is the negative direction.
In no other sport would anyone suggest that allowing week-end warriers to the big dance adds something to the event. It does not. The NFL playoffs are right around the corner. Would allowing the Kiwanis Flag Football Champion add anything to it? Would allowing softball teams from the Kearney Nebraska Parks and Rec league in the MLB playoffs make them more exciting or meaningful? All in the name of development, you know.
Grass roots development of the sport should go on 365 days of the year. Rewarding those who do not develop is a folly.
More positive feedback for you: quit bellyaching, start training and EARN your way to the Olympic Trials.
To Malmo and Logic,
Some very good points.
Malmo we know you ran 2:12, well my coach was an American who ran 2:11 so I know a thing or two about the level of marathoning you were running at. I don't begin to take lighty those achievements and the work needed to produce those performances.
My entire point was this, we are the ONLY country in the world who has an OLYMPIC TRIALS Marathon, and I am asking what is the point of it if we don't use it to further our sport? Everyone is yelling about lack of depth in the marathon and all I am doing is throwing out a suggestion to get it jump started again, get more young guys involved at the 2:20-2:30 level and then build upwards. This is basically the USA National Championships so lets utilize it.
Honestly, Malmo you just ripped guys who run 2:30, yet in your eyes does a 2:20-2:22 guy really have anymore of a shot at making the Olympic team than a 2:29 guy does? Oh wait let me see, hey didn't Trent Briney actually get 4th in the trials coming in off of a 2:21 effort? He certainly didn't belong there did he? I think he ran 2:12, oh wait isn't that your PR too?
Malmo what is your suggestion, have 10-15 guys in the race who have a legit shot at making the team. It's not quite like running a steeplechase final on the track, a little bit more involved in putting on a marathon and number of runners needed to make it an interesting race.
To Logic, congrats on the 2:25, good work. Hope you keep getting faster. As for my comment on the 1970's. Yes, do some research past Shorter, Rodgers, etc. there are MANY, MANY other guys who were just cracking the seen in 1972-1973 as 2:25-2:30 guys and didn't hit their best until the late 70's, early 80's who went on to run in the 2:15-2:18 range who you've never heard of, but without those guys pushing forward we had no depth. That's the point I'm trying to make is that you have to start somewhere ands I was trying to suggest some options, that's it.
Lastly to Malmo and Logic, how about you make a proposal on how we should best utilize the Olympic Trials marathon? What should the standard be and why?
Mark, I didn't "rip" 2:30 marathoners. They do not belong in an Olympioc Trials. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The rest of your post is a red herring.
"Lastly to Malmo and Logic, how about you make a proposal on how we should best utilize the Olympic Trials marathon? What should the standard be and why?"
Why should we, the Olympic Trials are fine the way they are? Quit trying to reinvent the wheel.
As it its now, the marathon standards are low. Can you imagine any other event where the qualifying standard is WAY lower than the womens WR? They are none. Given the fact that the marathon is tricky -- weather and blowups do affect the best laid plans -- I'm all for the relaxed standards that currently exist.
Anyone have insight to how the folks at the "interested cities"view promoting the trials?
NYC
TwinCities
Akron
Boston
I believe The Rock and Roll Group Elite has a non-city specific bid in also.
NYC in Central Park????Course Record is Tom Fleming 1975-2:19:27. Thats 7+ mins slower than his PB.