GWT wrote:
"The US is not competitive in the men's marathon!" Perhaps you could check the most recent Top-10 Olympic marathon results for us and report back?
The 2020 Olympic Marathon field will have 80 entries.
Of the top 100 marathons by males in the world this year, none of them represent the USA.
So yes, the man is correct. The US (right now) is not competitive in the men's marathon.
Another reason I do not like this decision is that it highlights our mediocrity in the men's marathon. None of this would be a problem if the men were not so slow. Currently there are approximately 223 men marathoners in the world that have hit the Olympic qualifying standard (2:11:30). Kenya has 85, Ethiopia has 65, Japan has 22, Uganda has 7 and others from misc. countries. The United States has 2. Therefore the USATF had to find a way to "lower" the standard if we wanted to send three runners. Let's face it a men's marathon of this low of a caliber should not be designated by the IAAF as a Gold Medal level.
USA Privilege wrote:
GWT wrote:
"The US is not competitive in the men's marathon!" Perhaps you could check the most recent Top-10 Olympic marathon results for us and report back?
The 2020 Olympic Marathon field will have 80 entries.
Of the top 100 marathons by males in the world this year, none of them represent the USA.
So yes, the man is correct. The US (right now) is not competitive in the men's marathon.
Currently the US has 10 athletes who are in position to be selected for the Olympics by IAAF ranking.
https://www.tokyorankings.com/mensmarathonolyrun wrote:
Another reason I do not like this decision is that it highlights our mediocrity in the men's marathon. None of this would be a problem if the men were not so slow. Currently there are approximately 223 men marathoners in the world that have hit the Olympic qualifying standard (2:11:30). Kenya has 85, Ethiopia has 65, Japan has 22, Uganda has 7 and others from misc. countries. The United States has 2. Therefore the USATF had to find a way to "lower" the standard if we wanted to send three runners. Let's face it a men's marathon of this low of a caliber should not be designated by the IAAF as a Gold Medal level.
The USA would have sent 3 men no matter what. Please inform yourself on the situation before posting. Thanks.
olyrun wrote:
Another reason I do not like this decision is that it highlights our mediocrity in the men's marathon. None of this would be a problem if the men were not so slow. Currently there are approximately 223 men marathoners in the world that have hit the Olympic qualifying standard (2:11:30). Kenya has 85, Ethiopia has 65, Japan has 22, Uganda has 7 and others from misc. countries. The United States has 2. Therefore the USATF had to find a way to "lower" the standard if we wanted to send three runners. Let's face it a men's marathon of this low of a caliber should not be designated by the IAAF as a Gold Medal level.
This is my stance on this entire issue as well. Well stated.
It's not that the top 3 finishers in the Oly trials is bad or boring or unfair, it's that the world has decided not to use this system and the USA wants to keep it for nostalgia reasons and mediocre quality of runners reasons. The USATF could have rallied to move the marathon trials to a faster course so it is more likely that the time standard was hit. This would also create a more competitive and exciting race if people were not only going for fast times and potentially taking risks to do so, but also force the runners who already have the standard to race fast as well.
Let's face it, watching the olympic men's marathon would be just as fun if we only had one marathoner representing versus 3. Watching Abdi and Ryan Hall drop out when we never expected them to finish was a total bummer and nothing to be proud of.
read what Letsrun thought of that as well:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4750634I agree with what seems to be the majority here. Some combination of IOC and IAAF actions have attempted to thin the crowd somewhat in Olympic track and field. I actually don't mind the idea. I mean, how uninspiring is it to see someone on TV barely finishing a race when the event you're watching is supposed to be the best vs the best. Then an influential nation who's marathoners are a joke pressure/threaten/bribe to allow the 300th, 400th, and 500th best marathon performers to attend the Olympics.
I remember back in my childhood my dad (pre-email) sent a telegram to the US President saying that was the first time he'd been ashamed to be an American. Hard not to feel the same way now.
Does this mean Rupp will drop out of Chicago. Doesn’t need the standard anymore. Why do three marathons in a year when you can do two. Especially coming off surgery.
Westside wrote:
I’m happy the iaaf allowed this status but this is where letsrun is confused. The U.S. is not competitive in the men’s marathon! We only have two guys that can hit the standard and out top guys are performance ranked way far back. The women are competitive.
I’m glad they granted it to us but other countries should be pissed. Total snowflake move.
You just simply aren't correct.
1) We already have two guys with the standard. Ward and Fauble.
2) Rupp is going to get the standard. So that's three.
3) If the Trials hadn't already been picked for February before the new rules came out, then several more would definitely get the standard in NY (there were 4 AMericans in the top 10 last year, 2 of whom weren't named Ward/Fauble) by getting top 10. So add in two more and we're up to at least 5.
4) Anyone ranked in the top 400 in the world in the marathon will get in on world rankings. So add in Bernard Lagat, Elkaneh Kibet, Brogan Austin, Chris Derrick, Parker Stinson, Andrew Colley and Shadrack Biwott and we up to 12 but maybe some of those would be the same guys getting top 10 in NY.
In conclusion, the there would be 10-15 men eligible to run in the Olympic marathon. Letting us send any three that we want isn't a crazy or unfair idea. Most likely the top 3 will come from that list but if not, we're covered.
Westside wrote:
The U.S. is not competitive in the men’s marathon!
Again, that's just not really accurate. Yes, we're not competitive if you include 100 Kenyans and Ethiopians but at the Olympics they can only enter three.
If you limit the world rankings to 3 per country, the US's #3 marathon is #41 in the world and that's fairly competitive.
That would make us have the 8th best #3 in the world behind the following countrie:
Ethiopia (4),
Kenya (7)
Bahrain (20)
Japan (25)
Morocco (28)
Eritrea (31)
Uganda (37)
USA (41)
You cannot state that ‘Rupp will get the standard’ and expect to be taken seriously.
CheckYourFacts wrote:
Currently the US has 10 athletes who are in position to be selected for the Olympics by IAAF ranking.
https://www.tokyorankings.com/mensmarathon
No, the US currently has one, Galen Rupp. At most, only the top 40 are considered.
That list makes the US look even worse. They only have 1 listed in the top 200.
Other than a health Rupp, we cant compete right now. Luckily Kenya and Ethiopia are limited to just 3 runners. They could easily fill 60 of the 80 slots.
Stopme99 wrote:
Does this mean Rupp will drop out of Chicago. Doesn’t need the standard anymore. Why do three marathons in a year when you can do two. Especially coming off surgery.
Agreed. It would make perfect sense for Rupp to skip Chicago or take his appearance fee and pack it in at Mile 18. There is not a reason in the world for Rupp to run Chicago now.
The U.S. except for Galen is no where near the top of world class men's marathoning. The sooner we accept this maybe necessary changes will be made to improve our situation. The reason the Olympics are so important to U.S. men's marathoning is because the field is greatly diluted ( only 3 runners per country) and in that kind of race we just do not look so bad.
the usatf does not deserve anything. lets run an others put a lot of pressure on the snowflakes and they melted
keep up the good work letsrun.
make track great again.
2. They each have dozens of men going under 2:11:30 each year. wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
If this isn't the epitome of white privilege... Why isn't the Kenyan trials a Gold Label race? Or the Ethiopian trials? Eritrean trials?
1. Kenya and Ethiopia does not have a trials for the marathon.
2. They each have dozens of men going under 2:11:30 each year.
And there is NO REASON the USA should not have MANY going under 2:11.30 every year.
We have 59 Men in our history who have run 2:11.30 or faster, other than Kenya, Ethiopia and Japan, does anyone have more than the USA?
rojo wrote:
You just simply aren't correct.
1) We already have two guys with the standard. Ward and Fauble.
2) Rupp is going to get the standard. So that's three.
3) If the Trials hadn't already been picked for February before the new rules came out, then several more would definitely get the standard in NY (there were 4 AMericans in the top 10 last year, 2 of whom weren't named Ward/Fauble) by getting top 10. So add in two more and we're up to at least 5.
4) Anyone ranked in the top 400 in the world in the marathon will get in on world rankings. So add in Bernard Lagat, Elkaneh Kibet, Brogan Austin, Chris Derrick, Parker Stinson, Andrew Colley and Shadrack Biwott and we up to 12 but maybe some of those would be the same guys getting top 10 in NY.
In conclusion, the there would be 10-15 men eligible to run in the Olympic marathon. Letting us send any three that we want isn't a crazy or unfair idea. Most likely the top 3 will come from that list but if not, we're covered.
1) Correct but enphasis on 2. May I remind you 2 is less than 3.
2) Speculative at best.
3) See point 2.
4) This is the correct argument. But didn't all the ooooh and aaahs started because USATF were actually not clear that they would consider qualifying people with world ranking when they do not have the auto standard?
In conclusion you are correct saying more than 10 guys would probably qualify one way or the other, but there was no need for IAAF to allow a race which doesn't meet the gold label standard (unless they secretely invited some foreign elite mens and womens) to obtain this label. There was just a need for USATF to clarify that they would allow qualification through world ranking provided the guy is top 3 in the trials. Unless you do think Jim Walmsley needs a free pass and should have a shot at the olympic team making his debut marathon at the trials?
Hobby trail jogger wrote:
There was just a need for USATF to clarify that they would allow qualification through world ranking provided the guy is top 3 in the trials. Unless you do think Jim Walmsley needs a free pass and should have a shot at the olympic team making his debut marathon at the trials?
This is the right answer. All USTAF had to do was recognise the ranking list way to qualify. The fact that the IAAF budged on this is pathetic. I'm a non US citizen and I need to jump through hoops to try to gain enough ranking points.
The top 3 at the trials will deserve to go. But it's unfair that they do not have to follow the process that the rest of the world does.
I hate the IAAF so much.
USA Privilege wrote:
GWT wrote:
"The US is not competitive in the men's marathon!" Perhaps you could check the most recent Top-10 Olympic marathon results for us and report back?
The 2020 Olympic Marathon field will have 80 entries.
Of the top 100 marathons by males in the world this year, none of them represent the USA.
So yes, the man is correct. The US (right now) is not competitive in the men's marathon.
*whoosh*
US marathoners also get drug tested out the wazoo. Should a 2:12 - 2:15 be considered "mediocre."