Did the 2016 Marathon Trials Standards Change?

wow ok this makes me think of trying to qualify in an entirely different light...gonna think of this when ever i b*tch & feel sorry for myself prior to a hard session...

Proud of my past wrote:

The men are not complaining. The Boys are.

Lets put in other terms fellas. If you can run within 2 and a half minutes of the Women's WR then you have earned an opportunity to try to represent the USA in the 2016 Olympics.

stats 101 wrote:

Buddy, read post above. The IAAF says 2:18 and 2:43 are equivalent, so USATF men's and women's committees ARE trying to be consistent and equal by adopting these standards. Based on the standards, there would be 120 men vs 109 women from the 2012 Trials. The men absolutely do not need to be complaining.

Pal, I read the above post. I am quite literate.

It's absolute B.S. to think that 2:43 and 2:18 are equivalent for the genders. The only way they can be considered equivalent is if you consider it equivalent if the same number of American men and women can achieve the standard. A woman that is 28 minutes off the women's WR is not the same caliber of runner as a man that is only 15 minutes off the men's WR. Plain and simple. The depth on the women's side just isn't there compared to the men's side.

No, they ARE equivalent. You can't use a linear comparison (x minutes off the World Records), as you did, because the women's population violates the assumption of following a normal distribution- they're times exponentially drop off/skewed to the right. Consequently, you have to use a non-parametric measure such as "rank ordering" to compare times.

There's 42% women/58% men in the marathon according to the 2012 USA Running stats. Even if there was 50/50 participation, I very much doubt the women's population would approach a normal distribution so you could make a linear comparison. Furthermore, other than the marathon, women's depth is actually LARGER in the 5K-HM, and yet you still couldn't make a linear comparison.

stats 101 wrote:

No, they ARE equivalent. You can't use a linear comparison (x minutes off the World Records), as you did, because the women's population violates the assumption of following a normal distribution- they're times exponentially drop off/skewed to the right. Consequently, you have to use a non-parametric measure such as "rank ordering" to compare times.

There's 42% women/58% men in the marathon according to the 2012 USA Running stats. Even if there was 50/50 participation, I very much doubt the women's population would approach a normal distribution so you could make a linear comparison. Furthermore, other than the marathon, women's depth is actually LARGER in the 5K-HM, and yet you still couldn't make a linear comparison.

Believe it or not, I have taken a college stats course (and did just fine). I see where you are coming from, but the problem is that the issue doesn't have to do with participation levels alone. It has to do with the number of men and women training intensely for the marathon.

The reason the women's distribution is skewed right is that there aren't as many women training at the same level/intensity as men. There are more men "chasing the dream" than women. Look at the participation on pretty much any sub-elite training club. There usually more men than women participating on club teams.

For the populations the way they are now, then you're right, they are equivalent times. HOWEVER, that is not to say that a woman running a 2:43 marathon is as big of an accomplishment as a man running a 2:18 marathon. That is ALL I was ever trying to say.

Also, please prove to me that the women have greater depth at 5k-HM. I don't believe it for a second.

WiT wrote:...But with 65 or so men already having at least a B I think by the time the 16 OG trials goes to the line we'll see closer to 100 entries.

Fact check...there are currently 41 men who have achieved the A or B standards, not 65. 26 have times from marathons, ranging from Dathan Ritzenheim's 2:09:45 from Chicago to Carlos Trujillo's 2:17:48 from Fukuoka. 15 of the qualifiers have done so in half marathons and do not yet have a marathon time that meets the standard. 63 women have run qualifying times so far (only 10 of those have only hit the half marathon standard so far). A buddy of mine keeps an ongoing list, he gets all credit for my statistics.

I agree with you that in the end we should have 100+/- men who hit the standards. 120-125 wouldn't surprise me. With ~24 months until the Trials race much remains to be seen. I suspect we see a bunch get it this weekend in Houston.

I agree with Journeyman here. If the standard is lower people will only strive/train so hard to reach the lowest desired outcome. This is obviously not true across the board because of many factors but outside of the people actually paid to do these I think this is probably a common theme. And this has played out in other races with qualifying times (Boston over the years).

Stats101 is simply pointing out a Self-fulfilling prophecy on the women's side and treating it like it's occurring in a vacuum.

Journeyman wrote:

HOWEVER, that is not to say that a woman running a 2:43 marathon is as big of an accomplishment as a man running a 2:18 marathon. That is ALL I was ever trying to say.

Also, please prove to me that the women have greater depth at 5k-HM. I don't believe it for a second.

Yes it is as big of an accomplishment- actually slightly harder for women (109) than men (120 from the 2012 Trials), cause of the slightly harder HM standard. How about you provide support for the notion that women don't train at as high on an intensity? Rather than continuing to be demeaning, how about a better explanation, such as greater biological diversity with women at the top (hormonally/lower body fat/anatomically built like men) vs further down, and then men are more homogenous. We see that taking steroids has a much greater impact with women than men, and few women may naturally defy the norm.

Also, check out Running USA's annual stats. Even if you have 60% women/40% men rratio, there's bound to be similar numbers of women vs men training at similar intensity/mileage, yet I guarantee if you go down performance lists, there won't be a linear gap- it grows. Go to ARRS to look at 5K-HM performance lists.

stats 101 wrote:

xenonscreams wrote:

Nice try, but I think everyone knows 2:18 for men is faster than 2:43 for women, myself included.

No it's not- the IAAF set the standards of 2:18/2:43 to be equivalent. What's not equivalent is the 1:05/1:15 HM standards- 1:15 is tougher. What will happen is more men will pursue the 1:05 standard, and there will be more men at the 2016 Trials (as evident by tallying the number of men vs women who met these standards at the 2012 Trials).

I do not believe the IAAF position is that 2;18=2:43 but that these are the times designed to achieve the desired field sizes for each gender. they are not a parallel of excellence of performance in any way. The times came from the lists of actual times run by x number and y number of each gender. In no way is the IAAF saying they are equivalent in any way other that producing desired field size. If it ends up that there are more women with Qs and qs than planned it's because the 2:43 was not the right time to go with. Not because of a mistaken believe that it was equal in excellence to the men's time but just that an unexpected number bettered the cut-offs.

I think the "A" standards are appropriate, but I would like to see a slow "B" standard of 2:30 for men, and 2:55 for women. This will give the local marathon winners a chance to run in the trials. Kind of a reward for hard training and keeping the sport going.