Changed Marathon Trials numbers

I have just finished reading the entire thread and I have no strong opinion either way. I can tell you that the only reasons given for a change or defending the change (this is over all 25 pages).

1. Smaller field is better for Race Organizer.

2. Perhaps this will motivate athletes to run faster.

It is fairly obvious that the second reason is just an excuse to force feed us the first reason. If we accept that this will make us all train harder then supposedly we will have 130 guys running sub 2:19. That means that the field size will not be any smaller and that was the first reason for the change. If we have 130 guys running sub 2:19 then that will be just as difficult for the Race Organizer as 130 guys running 2:22.

So the one thing that has been made clear by the folks that proposed a change.

THE RACE ORGANIZER IS MORE IMPORTANT TO MLDR THEN THE ATHLETES ARE.

.....THAN THE ATHLETES ARE.

Sorry.

Ante up wrote:

I don't understand the arguement that lowering the qualifying time to make the olympic trials will drive all the 2:20-2:25 guys out of the sport. There is no monetary support for these guys either way. Under the old standard just making it to the olympic trials guaranteed you nothing, now...nothing's changed. If you aren't making it financially already the change has no additional bearing.It is one race every four years, hardly something to base your whole program around (unless you're running sub 2:15).

I see your point, but a 2:25 standard would provide a tremendous non-monetary incentive for all the sub-32 minute 10k runners to continue training and competing seriously after college. Some of these guys, inevitably, will develop into contenders for spots on the Olympic team.

Absolutely correct. Additionally, the race organizers can't handle a 130 person marathon. These are our fearless leaders.

Not as realistic as you think wrote:

Again, check your facts. Briney ran 2:21:10 in Chicago and then went on to finish 4th at the Trials in 2:12. I was talking about 2004, not this year.

You're not alone. Nobody can offer a reason why this was needed or is a good thing for the sport. That is why I think it should not have been done. I also think that's why the decision was made in the manner it was, and that reflects very poorly on USATF. Is it the end of the sport as we know it? Certainly not. Does it likely do more harm than good? Yes.

With all due respect to Briney's 2004 performance, I still stand by what I said. Yes he did have breakthrough race those trials but he certainly was not going to make a difference even if Dan Browne or Alan Culpepper had given him their spot. He wasn't going to medal. He wasn't going to make top 10 or even top 20. Not a chance. It need not be taken as a slam on the man to acknowledge the obvious.

While it is no skin off my back if they go back to the old standard, PLENTY of people have offered reasons why this was done. You just don't like them. Personally I am fine with limiting the trials to those who actually have a chance of earning the US a medal. This is not a competition designed to reward "participation".

You want exposure for the sport? Win a medal. Meb and Deena got us more exposure than letting a million Trent Brineys into the race would. The fact remains that even the 2012 trials will be allowing in dozens of guys who don't even have a prayer of making the Olympic Standard. That's the wrong kind of exposure.

I am sitting the fence about whether I think the 2:22ish group should be using the OT as their motivator. I recognize this has been the case historically (I took a shot at it). But I think there should be something different motivating this group in the future. I think the majority of the angst here is because USATF is trying to move us to this future before having established a new motivator, which is a BIG mistake.

The more I read about peoples' histories before they became solid marathoners, the more I think we need to keep the 32:00 10k guys in the sport after college.

There are countless examples of people who kind of sucked (a relative term) before going on to be pretty good marathoners. Avocado's Number has stated he was an 11:00 2 miler in HS (not even fast enough for the NFL!) And he went on to run under 2:20 (I didn't see an exact time so maybe even 2:18?). Sell famously didn't crack 10 in HS and has gone 2:10 so far...

Nobody knows what they can do for a marathon until they have trained for it for a few years. We lose many of our best marathoners the day college gets out and they are on their own without a coach, any support, and any reasonable goal to shoot for. If we really want to see the depth of the 70s and early 80s, it isn't going to happen because USATF moved the standard from 2:22 to 2:19. It's going to happen because a whole bunch of 32:00 type guys start training their butts off in search of something.

Why are these 32:00 guys important? If you read any of the threads from the old-school guys they often cite the competition they had in their races as a big factor. You couldn't go to any reasonable sized marathon and walk away with it in 2:25. You had about 5-10 guys going 2:20. You had to be on top of your game. These guys who are not olympic caliber were keeping all the races honest. Maybe they were 5th-10th place all the time, but at the same time nobody won a marathon with anything slower than 2:20.

For some odd reason, the 2:22 OTQ has been the brass ring everyone has grabbed for. If USATF wants to raise the standards (which is a positive thing at face value), they should do it without eliminating the brass ring. My feeling is the provisional qualifier is a great interim idea, and over the longer term, USATF should move to promote its marathon championship and use place-based qualifiers from that (and maybe while they are at it they can practice managing a 100+ person marathon so they can handle a field size over 65).

yes NYRR has no idea how to handle a larger group...ok

the coddling continues...from giving everyone a ribbon when playing sports to grade inflation to the slowing down of the US marathoner...if we are worried about keeping people in the sport lets give everyone who wants it a free ride to college where most can finally get into a high(er) mileage area and better coaching..I ran under 10:00, but I was never going to be Brian Sell, Trent Briney or Avocados Number..I kept in somewhat shape..16/33 and be healthy...

the line has to be drawn somewhere...2:19 is a good place to do it...its not as if we are breaking new ground...just going back to the old status quo...

a bit of a stretch but I guess it comes from the relaxing of standards from the back (7-8 hour time limits) middle (now BQ's in 315/320 for most) and OT qualies..lets just move it to 225, everyone pay their own way, host it in Butte, MT where hotels are $49 so its affordable

MLDR,

Thank You. Now I can stop chasing 222.

To hell with running! If I only had

a time machine. I'm going skiing this

weekend.

Cheers!

Where did I say anything about relaxing standards? I simply stated that USATF should create a competitive venue for sub-elite marathoners. They are the governing body after all. They put on youth track, Junior Olympics, elite competition, masters track, and everything in between. Where are the races for 25-35 year old guys who are not professionals? The local turkey trot?

And yes, NYRR is very adept at putting on large races. So why is USATF so concerned about 65 vs 130 people in a race? The truth is it has nothing to do with the size of the race, it was just a poorly manufactured excuse to justify an unpopular decision. I would respect that decision a whole lot more if they actually had the nuts to just say "2:22 isn't good enough". It has nothing to do with field size.

I am all in favor of the OT getting tougher. I don't think they should shrink it to a 30 person race though. I think they should be working to get marathon running to the point where they can have a 100-150 person race with the slowest guy being 2:19.

The way to do that isn't to take the wind out of the sails of a lot of 2:22 runners. Before they hiked the trials standard they should have promoted an alternative venue of competition. That's all I am saying. Give the sub-elite something else to goal up to before taking away their goal.

Think of it from this perspective: if running were still amateur like back in Prefontaine's day, and suddenly after years of training for one goal (the Olympic gold) the Olympics were cancelled, how long do you think Prefontaine or most his peers would have kept on killing themselves? For right or wrong this is what is going through the minds of a few hundred sub-elite marathoners right now.

hmm.how about the US Marathon Championships as a good place to race for everyone? Since the so-called elite are chasing the big paydays..and 2:12 - 2:14 typically wins it..its the perfect venue for the 2:19-2:22 to be involved and still feel like they are part of the race..

this will be like 1984 when they had 200 people reach the standard...

sigh...

Sell would've QUALIFIED IN '04 with his 63:53 half in '03 and Briney got a 65:05 in '04 before the trials so he was 5 secs away and if the trials berth was on the line he would've found those extra 5 seconds.

Thank you for playing... better luck next time. Please think before you post.

I love how people talk about how "blah blah blah wouldn't have been in the race with the new standards." You don't think at least 8 out of the 16 (out of 30) would've dug deep and found a way to get an extra couple of secs off their 10k, half or marathon time to get in? Or change the course they ran in so that they could get the qualifier?

This reminds me of how sports announcers would say, "if they only hit that field goal 2 quarters ago, they'd be up by now." The problem is that if they hit the field goal, the game COMPLETELY CHANGES cause everyone's mindset would have changed... you can't assume shit from the last trials cause I'm sure a couple of people "shut it down" once they knew they had the standard in the bag.

You disregard a few things that people have brought up in this thread:

1. There is now less margin for error if someone blows up and has a bad race to still make it.

2. Do we really want our top MARATHONERS focusing on half-marathon times? That strikes me as horrible for development.

Competitive races for nonprofessional 25-35 years old marathoners:Chicago MarathonCalifornia International MarathonBoston MarathonNew York City MarathonGrandma's MarathonTwin Cities MarathonHouston MarathonRichmond MarathonDetroit MarathonAny one of the Rock'n'Roll MarathonsLos Angeles MarathonBaltimore MarathonShall I continue? Surely one can chase his dreams at one of these events.And of course this doesn't include the numerous competitive half marathoners, 15ks, 10ks, 10 milers, 5ks, well you get the idea.

12344321 wrote:

Where are the races for 25-35 year old guys who are not professionals? The local turkey trot?

rankler wrote:

You disregard a few things that people have brought up in this thread:

1. There is now less margin for error if someone blows up and has a bad race to still make it.

2. Do we really want our top MARATHONERS focusing on half-marathon times? That strikes me as horrible for development.

As someone who's read the entire thread, I haven't disregarded anything.

1 -> the bar is raised: of course there's less margin for error - that's why there's a longer qualifying window of almost 2 years. Plus we're probably catching up to the IAAF who lowered the "B" standard from 2:20 to 2:18 a few Olympics ago. Should we start whining because the IAAF didn't take into account our feelings??

2 -> my definition of "top MARATHONERS" will still be "A" standard sub 2:15 types (sub 2:15 on a non challenging course unlike the NY trials course) who would blow away the rest of the field and would focus on being "competitive" (open to interpretation) on a world scale... plus a 1:05 is easily "better" than a 2:19 (although we all know the Marathon is a different beast). THERE USED TO BE A 5K QUALIFYING TIME THAT IS NOW GONE. Better to have people focus on a fast Half than a fast 5k. Would you rather have people focus on a fast 5K? (while 13:40 is "better" than a 65:00, there's less of an applicability to a good marathon).

Plus I assume most marathoners would use a half as a measure of what they could do in a full. Why did we have so many Trials runners running in half marathons a month or so before the trials? It's a logical (and brilliant) move.

pick from the list wrote:

Competitive races for nonprofessional 25-35 years old marathoners:

Chicago Marathon

California International Marathon

Boston Marathon

New York City Marathon

Grandma's Marathon

Twin Cities Marathon

Houston Marathon

Richmond Marathon

Detroit Marathon

Any one of the Rock'n'Roll Marathons

Los Angeles Marathon

Baltimore Marathon

Shall I continue? Surely one can chase his dreams at one of these events.

And of course this doesn't include the numerous competitive half marathoners, 15ks, 10ks, 10 milers, 5ks, well you get the idea.

12344321 wrote:

Where are the races for 25-35 year old guys who are not professionals? The local turkey trot?

I am not in disagreement at all. I really do think it is more appropriate for a sub-elite marathoner to focus on something other than the trials.

I figured someone would respond with such a list. And such races are great competitions for sub-elite marathoners.

There is only one problem and I will illustrate it with an analogy at the high school level. Which one of these gets you out the door every day in HS?

A. "I got 7th at XXX invitational (say in a time of 4:15)"

B. "I qualified for state"

In my analogy, A is by far the more difficult accomplishment. But B is what everyone shoots for during their entire HS career (unless they have gotten so good they can go for the win).

This is where I mean the USATF should step in and create something meaningful to aim at. Do a better job of promoting the marathon championships, do a better job of promoting regional championships. The only reason you have "dreamers" pursuing the OT marathon is because there is a concensus view that this is the most worthy goal.

masters fattie wrote:

hmm.how about the US Marathon Championships as a good place to race for everyone? Since the so-called elite are chasing the big paydays..and 2:12 - 2:14 typically wins it..its the perfect venue for the 2:19-2:22 to be involved and still feel like they are part of the race..

this will be like 1984 when they had 200 people reach the standard...

Yes. I 100% agree. Now find a way to get everyone on the same page so this is the new "brass ring".

yikesish wrote:

Briney got a 65:05 in '04 before the trials so he was 5 secs away and if the trials berth was on the line he would've found those extra 5 seconds.

You could not be more wrong on this one. Trent was no where near 65 minutes for a half marathon. He was a 67 minute half marathoner that was extremely happy to get under 2:22 in Chicago. Only then did the Hansons allow him to stay with their group (there were others that were dismissed after not reaching that same standard). Trent then trained extremely well for the upcoming Trials. He ran his 65:05 within a month of the Trials. He would have never run that time had he not qualified for the trials already.

I have to put in my 2 cents, mostly because I was told it wasn't such a bad thought. I didn't read all the pages, so maybe someone else said it already. Here it goes...

We are biased of course, but I think this year's trials went very well with well deserved hype. I saw lots of runners and nonrunners that were actually interested in this year's trials. I believe one of those reasons is the number of athletes from a great number of areas. If I'm a little kid in, say, Cumberland, MD and one of the local runners makes it to the trials...along with all the press and what not...I'm going to think to myself "Hey. I can do that to." And so I'll run with those hopes and who knows what happens. What's the other option? Ignorance of an obscure sport? Just when I thought we were entering another running boom....sad

This is a non productive decision made by a man that is out of touch, although he believes the opposite. He even went so far as to say that this entire thread is coming from 2 or 3 people. That comment was made about 200 posts ago. I don't know if he still holds that same ignorant thought.