Yes let's select a team that will suck in the heat in Paris.
You have to run fast to qualify. Fast runners are fast in any conditions. Mantz and Young finished 1-2 in the hot humid New Haven 20k a month ago, and then went 1-2 for Americans in Chicago.
You don't have many marathon opportunities, and yet the olympic standards is really fast. Why would we run the trials in conditions where it's impossible to run fast? Other countries piggy-back off races in good racing conditions. For example Great Britain has made London marathon their trials race, Japan holds their selection in good conditions. Kenya selects based on who runs fast times throughout the year in good conditions. Why are we dumb enough to make our athletes run a marathon in 75-80 degrees? It will not be that hot in Paris. Average lows will be 60, and average highs 78. The marathons start at 7:30 or 8:00 in the morning, it will be about 65 degrees during the marathon. In Orlando at 12:20pm-2:40pm it will be around 75 degrees.
So the conditions will not be hot in Paris. With such a fast time standard we should have our trials in a time/place that the standard can reasonably be achieved.
Yes- our the best runners will make the team regardless of conditions.
Is Kenya having a trials race that mimics the course and conditions in Paris or are they going to send their fastest?
I believe the goal is to send competitors that's capable of running in the conditions they're most likely to face at the time. The goal isn't simply to qualify under most ideal conditions then get to the Olympics and have nothing but DNFs due to the heat. Having qualifications is to eliminate people that won't do well at the meet. People that run well under the projected conditions are who you want selected and you need to discover that now. I wouldn't vote for a time change. I wouldn't be satisfied with catering to pro athletes that don't want to run because the weather isn't ideal for them in competition. Adjust or be eliminated.
This makes sense but only if we're guaranteed that the top 3 go to the Olympics.
You have to run fast to qualify. Fast runners are fast in any conditions.
Tell me you're clueless without telling me you're clueless. Sit back down, son.
Calling him clueless is off base.
The cream typically rises to the top- our team will be 3 runners with a lot of marathon talent- there are great runners who run better in certain conditions; but the problem here is that the qualifying process puts us at risk of sending fewer than 3 runners if, say, a 2:12 guy won and wasn't ranked high enough to make it.
Could we send the ones who had the times? In that case, why have the race at all if it's under poor conditions? Just send the guys with the times and rankings.
I think most people outside of Florida (or at least idiots like Max) don't understand that there is a non-zero chance that noon on some random February day is going to be incredibly warm and humid. I have definitely run in February races down here where it was miserable with a 6:00 AM start time.
If you're the CEO of an organization, you need to be concerned with risk management and avoiding worst-case scenarios. It's probably going to be plenty warm at 9 AM -- I just don't understand what there is to be gained with a noon start...
Tell me you're clueless without telling me you're clueless. Sit back down, son.
Calling him clueless is off base.
The cream typically rises to the top- our team will be 3 runners with a lot of marathon talent- there are great runners who run better in certain conditions; but the problem here is that the qualifying process puts us at risk of sending fewer than 3 runners if, say, a 2:12 guy won and wasn't ranked high enough to make it.
Could we send the ones who had the times? In that case, why have the race at all if it's under poor conditions? Just send the guys with the times and rankings.
I'd think that US "fans" would have learned how some athletes are good in the heat after Rupp and Seidel performances at the Olympics, but here we are...
You have to run fast to qualify. Fast runners are fast in any conditions.
Tell me you're clueless without telling me you're clueless. Sit back down, son.
I guarantee I've run way faster than you, so you can go sit down. If you're American and faster than me, I will probably know who you are. I highly doubt you're one of those people. If a the fastest runner in the world shows up to the start line in any conditions, they're still going to be a favorite to win the race. Hot weather doesn't make a slow runner suddenly the favorite to win a race. Hot weather makes everyone run slower than they normally would. If it was 75 degrees in Chicago over the weekend, Kiptum would not have run 2:00:35, but he still would have won the race.
I'd guess it's because their financial incentives and expected finish times are far more heavily scrutinized than in Tri or Ultra, where the exact time is not a major consideration.
I don't really care what time they run it but I would LOVE a well-edited 30- or 60-minute highlight show. If you got someone who knew what they were doing to show the start, some significant splits, contenders who drop, some break attempts, etc., then the finishing mile or whatever, you'd still have plenty of time for commercials and human interest stories. Maybe you could time it to coincide with the expected finish, pulling out highlights from the earlier action. I'd much prefer that to 2+ hours of watching the same 12 people run and slowly string out. I like the slow drama of the marathon, but most of it is like watching paint dry.
6am? So literally no one will watch this event both on TV or in-person. Sounds great for the sport. How about all of the shoe companies partner up and drop every single athlete that signed petition, since they clearly don't care about doing anything to market the sport, actually create value for these companies, etc.
How American is it that a bunch of "pro" runners want to soften anything remotely challenging for fear that it might be uncomfortable?!?
Anyone who has run in Central Florida in February knows the sun will cook you, for sure, at noontime. Late afternoon, can be quite nice, however, and is probably best for fast times.
Tell me you're clueless without telling me you're clueless. Sit back down, son.
I guarantee I've run way faster than you, so you can go sit down. If you're American and faster than me, I will probably know who you are. I highly doubt you're one of those people. If a the fastest runner in the world shows up to the start line in any conditions, they're still going to be a favorite to win the race. Hot weather doesn't make a slow runner suddenly the favorite to win a race. Hot weather makes everyone run slower than they normally would. If it was 75 degrees in Chicago over the weekend, Kiptum would not have run 2:00:35, but he still would have won the race.
Will I see you in Paris, though?
Anyway, why don't you post more and expose your lack of knowledge on this even more. I'm amused, I'm sure others are too.
Why not run it in the morning and then show a briefly edited cut at noon? The live televised races *always* miss the big breaks and important stories. Showing it on TV 6 hours laters means you can focus on the important stories in the race and make for more compelling TV. You wont miss the major breaks.
I'm so tired of races cutting away for commercials/human interest story/wheelchair race/rando interview and coming back to a race where major breaks were made and favorites dropped out and there's no explanation. If we televised football like this, no one would watch it. So why do they do it with running??
Let's think outside of the box. .What's wrong with 8pm? No heat from the sun at that hour. Someone can crunch the numbers on dew point but growing up in Texas running at night was my favorite time to run.