if you can't run sub 2:20, you have no chaance, so why show up @ Oly Trials?

Okay, I'm only twenty and have never ran a marathon, but I think I can shed some light on this argument. Obviously nobody is going to reach a consensus on this so let's all just agree to disagree. Now, I would say that yes the current standard is not really that fast at all, I mean look at Paula and Deena. SHit they are women. But I offer a different view,

I say that the marathon trials are different than the track and field events. I think that we would be better off having the 2:22 standard because it includes a decent amount of people, if you think that it's dangerous to have as many people as there were in this years race you are just a pussy and stupid, its' a race, nut up. The reason that it is a good thing to have these 2:22 "wannabees" in the race is that incase nobody noticed we are not exactly the top marathon or even long distance country in the world, far from it. Letting that range of runner in gives people like myself and others who are looking ahead at the marathon for our future think :"hey, if 2:22 is possible, why not 2:15, or faster?" (I'm aware that there is a huge difference and most people can't make that jump) It's all about taking baby steps, especially when dealing with something like the marathon. And plus, what the hell is it hurting to have these "snails" in the race? If you can tell me for one second that there is any elite runner who was bothered by them, then change the race. BUt there wasn't, the field thins out real quick, it gives the top runners a chance to deal with having to run with people. Often times nowadays there are other runners in a race when you go to the finish line.

Plus, having all these people in the OT is good pr for the sport, and there's nothing wrong with helping out our sport which doesn't get hardly any attention outside of serious runners.

mentor_of_young_runners wrote:

USATF made the right decision. This is the olympic trials, it is supposed to be for the elite. At this point, 2:21 or 2:22 (whatever the old qualifying time is) is NOT competitive. The trials is not some feel good event for all the sub-elites. They don't want to let you run so you can brag about it to your grandkids years down the line. All the Jason Mayeroff-types, although fast in their own right, are not worthy of competition. With such a resurgence of American distance running, USATF did the right decision by ENCOURAGING faster times, not DISCOURAGING it by letting more and more slower folks join the field.

Just an opinon

In that case the new standards should be..

100m 10.10

200m 20.20

400m 44.44

800m 1:45.75

1500m 3:37.00

5000m 13:30

10000m 29:00

400mh 49:50

How about this for improving interest in our sport. I think they should slow the time down to maybe 2:38 or so. If you don't hit the A time you pay a $150 entry fee. Now the guys that local people actually see at the races and on the roads training can spread the word. How can this be bad for the sport - encouraging everyone to chase a goal - but have it be something that the top local guys can achieve. We all know the non running public is only interested in the Olympics. Why not give them something to talk about and maybe raise interest in the young runners in a community. Sure these guys know they don't have a chance to win the thing but it would definitely raise awareness in the sport throughout the country. What would be the downside? And if you are going with the competive argument why not set it at 2:14 because if you can't run that - you don't have a chance at the Olympics.

THE BEAUTY of the ncaa basketball tournament is that everyone is given a chance. they don't just pick the top 15 teams that have a shot a winning. they give 65 teams a shot. if you are the best you better prove it, and to all comers.

i agree with radically dropping the time down to 2:38 or something like that. if you are really concerned about your elites then have there be a certain time you have to hit in order to stand in front few rows. i think that putting this out there as something more people can chase will raise a lot more excitement for the sport. i'm sorry, but if you continue to drop the time you are going to see less and less people show up, generate less and less interest among those who feel they don't have a chance. do you have any idea how many late-bloomers there are out there, that will never run because of stupid facist elitist bs like this?

The standards are already difficult in the other events. The marathon is the only event that allows runners with above average times to compete. I don't think anyone would agree with you that a 20.20 200 is equal to a 2:19 marathon, the qualifiers in the other events are already elite.

I don't remember if it was this thread or another one, but I like the idea of setting a number of participants and then having runners duke it out for those spots. For example, saying that there are going to be 120 runners in the OT and just pick the fastest 120 who want to run do it.

you have to look at the standard in terms not only of getting the best team (which is utterly unaffected by having a 2:19 or a 2:20 or a 2:21 standard, although it might be affected by disallowing a 5k qualifier, since you thereby rule out some fantastic debut marathons) but also in terms of the effect on stimulating elite marathoning in this country. by setting it at something approachable for a lot more people, like it was, you got hundreds or even thousands of excellent runners into the attempt to get a qualifier, and out of all of that striving for it, you will improve the depth of american distance running. it's a sport requiring patience, hard work, health, and other qualities, so you want as many as possible to promote competition and to get those few outstanding athletes who can stay healthy. just look at what we had in the early eighties--when 200th place in the nyc marathon was roughly 2:20 and 2:46 got you 630th place. the old standard was promoting that kind of development, precisely because it seemed attainable for a lot of guys who had run 2:25-2:30.

The reason why we have slower marathon standards is for field size. It wasn't long ago that we would only have a couple handfuls of sub 2:19 guys:

2000 US Men's List:

2:07:01 Khalid Khannouchi 28 NY (1) $105,000 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:12:00 David Morris 30 NM (7) $17,000 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:12:42 Eric Mack 26 CO (8) $12,000 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:13:55 Josh Cox 25 CA (10) $4,000 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:15:10 Mark Coogan 34 WI (13) $0 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:15:30 Rod De Haven 33 WI (1) $75,000 Oly Trials Pittsburgh 07-May

2:16:14 Peter De La Cerda 29 CO (15) $0 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:16:18 Peter De La Cerda 28 CO (2) $25,000 Oly Trials Pittsburgh 07-May

2:16:54 Mike Dudley 30 OR (2) $3,000 Cal Int'l Sacramento 03-Dec

2:17:04 Mark Coogan 34 MD (3) $20,000 Oly Trials Pittsburgh 07-May

[10]

2:17:10 Terrence Mahon 29 PA (4) $4,000 Motorola Austin 20-Feb

2:17:11 John Sence 30 OH (3) $2,000 Cal Int'l Sacramento 03-Dec

2:17:15 Rob Reeder 25 CA (1) $3,000 Las Vegas Int'l 06-Feb

2:17:15 Scott Larson 30 CO (4) $17,000 Oly Trials Pittsburgh 07-May

2:17:33 Gary Stolz 29 CA (18) $0 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:18:03 Brian Clas 28 NY (1) $2,500 Philadelphia 19-Nov

2:18:30 Eddy Hellebuyck 39 NM (5) $15,000 Oly Trials Pittsburgh 07-May

2:18:31 Steve Wilson 41 FL (7) $2,000 Motorola Austin 20-Feb

2:18:31 Keith Dowling 31 CO (19) $0 LaSalle Bank Chicago 22-Oct

2:18:38 David Scudamore 30 CA (6) $10,000 Oly Trials Pittsburgh 07-May

[20]

2:18:46 Gary Stolz 28 CA (7) $9,000 Oly Trials Pittsburgh 07-May