LarsL9 wrote:
Also, this is great to give sub elites the possibility to say, with pride, that they competed at OTQ. It doesn't carry the same merit when there are 200 hobby joggers on the start as well.
Yes it does carry the same weight.
LarsL9 wrote:
Also, this is great to give sub elites the possibility to say, with pride, that they competed at OTQ. It doesn't carry the same merit when there are 200 hobby joggers on the start as well.
Yes it does carry the same weight.
Why do we need so many people in the trials on either side. Is a 2:19 runner magically going to run 2:09 or a 2:40 woman break out with a 2:25?
2:15/2:33 and make people go after it. You can work and run, people have done it for decades. Especially with so many people working remotely.
The world has gotten faster and our standards have remained the same. It’s more about having enough people on the start line than anything else.
You gotta get people to keep training. They might have a breakout. If they aren't training, then you'll never know. I agree with the big fields, but under 500. Then it still feels special.
Why not take the 500 fastest times either side? Or 250 and 250?
the mad pooper wrote:
LarsL9 wrote:
Also, this is great to give sub elites the possibility to say, with pride, that they competed at OTQ. It doesn't carry the same merit when there are 200 hobby joggers on the start as well.
Yes it does carry the same weight.
So making it less exclusive doesn't change a thing? Make it 3:00, so even more can enjoy the incredible merit of OTQ. Olympic glory for all!
I agree with lowering the standard and feel the times listed are fair. To have the half standard open in 2023 when the trials can actually be in 2023 makes little if any sense. Fall of 2022 should have been included. But to me, the biggest mistake is allowing aided courses. You’re still going to get 20% of the field that “doesn’t belong”.
You’re right on why do we need so many people in the Trials…it looks good on tv at the start of the race, but once the race starts, tv is only going to pay attention to the racing up front and not the life story of the hobby jogger who works 50 hours per week, does his first workout at 3am, yadda yadda yadda.
The purpose of the Trials is to select the Olympic team—nothing more, nothing less!
I would’ve gone straight to the World Athletics standard, or a top 10 finish at a World Marathon Majors, then fill the field to the desired size off a descending order list, so whoever wins the bid to host the Trials has a reasonable idea of the size of the race. No local organizing committee wants to get left holding the bag financially like Atlanta did, because they’re the ones who have to pay to put on the race, and not USATF or the USOPC.
With today's shoe technology the standard should be 2:14 and 2:30.
LRC is a magical place where wannabe anonymous runners claim that 2:20 marathon runners are hobby joggers... There is so much imaginary bravado on this message board that it is comical but at the same time sad. I hope nobody believes the goofs on this message board are in any way representative of the good and positivity that you find in the running community.
Stater of the Obvious... wrote:
LRC is a magical place where wannabe anonymous runners claim that 2:20 marathon runners are hobby joggers... There is so much imaginary bravado on this message board that it is comical but at the same time sad. I hope nobody believes the goofs on this message board are in any way representative of the good and positivity that you find in the running community.
2:20 is absolute trash compared to a 1:46.5 800m runner or 3:37.8 1500m runner, both of which miss the Olympic Trials in track.
I'm sick of guys that ran 2:19.99 in a downhill marathon with alphaflys using their Olympic Trials qualification to sell training plans to soccer moms.
run fan 3357 wrote:
Stater of the Obvious... wrote:
LRC is a magical place where wannabe anonymous runners claim that 2:20 marathon runners are hobby joggers... There is so much imaginary bravado on this message board that it is comical but at the same time sad. I hope nobody believes the goofs on this message board are in any way representative of the good and positivity that you find in the running community.
2:20 is absolute trash compared to a 1:46.5 800m runner or 3:37.8 1500m runner, both of which miss the Olympic Trials in track.
I'm sick of guys that ran 2:19.99 in a downhill marathon with alphaflys using their Olympic Trials qualification to sell training plans to soccer moms.
You sound bitter. I guess complaining on LRC is therapeutic for you.
Gotta say it was neat hearing people say they knew someone who was running in the )lympic trails even if they didn't stand a chance. Open the field to the top 1000 and run them in waves then everyone will know someone who ran.
What is the cost to the host for the runners? Is it free entry and housing for all? I remember hearing Atlanta eating a huge cost last time.
I think the way to keep the trials going and be sustainable is to make a tiered qualification system.
A standard: free everything
B standard: free entry
Lower tier: pay an entry fee like you would at a major marathon
The lower tier would start in a second corral. Make the cutoffs like 2:30 for men and 3:00 for women (or something like that that is fair to both sex)
Use the slower runners to help fund the race. Encourage more participation. Grow the sub-elite and regular fast runner side of the sport
I realize you couldn’t do this as easily with courses that have a bunch of loops. But I think it would be a win for everyone.
AXC wrote:
Unkle Carmine IX wrote:
Can someone please explain how having more competitors and slower standards makes the sport more popular? Do TV networks not care about 150 runner fields but suddenly go nuts over 250 runners? If 200-300 post collegians don't make the Trials due to a harder standard, do Nike or New Balance go belly up? Do middle school kids decide not to go out for high school track? Does the local 5K industry disappear into the ether?
Does anyone have a quantifiable answer?
There was more buzz and media coverage of the 2020 trials than any previous marathon trials. A lot of that was centered around stories of the sub-elites running gunning to qualify, particularly on the women's side. The energy of the OTQ chase put energy into the sport. Whether that was sub-elites who doubled down on their running to chase the standard, clubs and groups that grew in part because the standard was an achievable goal, and the aforementioned buzz that came from the large numbers of qualifiers.
Now, the women's standard in retrospect was obviously soft compared to the men's. But it would have been nice if USATF had acknowledged the positivity that came with the 2020 trials rather than treating it as an anomaly, never to be repeated again.
Couldn't agree more! We had full time elementary school teachers who qualified in 2020 and had not only their whole class involved/engaged but the whole school, the whole school district, making the local news, etc..... possibly inspiring a younger generation to explore this running thing.
run fan 3357 wrote:
With today's shoe technology the standard should be 2:14 and 2:30.
Shoe technology has not changed since the Trials window opened up last cycle in September of 2017.
peekay wrote:
What is the cost to the host for the runners? Is it free entry and housing for all? I remember hearing Atlanta eating a huge cost last time.
I think the way to keep the trials going and be sustainable is to make a tiered qualification system.
A standard: free everything
B standard: free entry
Lower tier: pay an entry fee like you would at a major marathon
The lower tier would start in a second corral. Make the cutoffs like 2:30 for men and 3:00 for women (or something like that that is fair to both sex)
Use the slower runners to help fund the race. Encourage more participation. Grow the sub-elite and regular fast runner side of the sport
I realize you couldn’t do this as easily with courses that have a bunch of loops. But I think it would be a win for everyone.
What???? This is not the NYC Marathon, it's the Olympic Trials!!!
We all know that on this board, 2:20 marathon time is trash, 5 min mile is something average person can easily achieve. Whatever time you run, if it's anything short of world class, chances are you be forced to lower your head and admit that that's a hobby jogging time.
As I have difficulty believing a lot of posters have running prowess justifying the above attitude, I come up with a theory of where all this negativity and bitterness come from.
A lot must be mid pack runners in the heights of their running ability, but can no longer have the level of fitness they once had, and are angry that not only they didn't achieve glory in their days, but also they are seeing "hobby joggers" enjoying some taste of in their eyes inflated glory with times either slower than or close to what they used to run. Even if a hobby jogger beats their past PR, they will still despise them for the what they perceive as unproportional recognition they earn, once again back in their days, such hobby joggers albeit faster than them, wouldn't garner nearly as much admiration since running wasn't as popular back then.
So when someone hear is being dismissive of a OTQ time, it doesn't mean they can run that time now, or ever, but it just mean in their time, it may just mean if hobby jogging was such a big thing in their time, they could at least be worshipped as something like a sub 3 hour marathoner.
LarsL9 wrote:
the mad pooper wrote:
Yes it does carry the same weight.
So making it less exclusive doesn't change a thing? Make it 3:00, so even more can enjoy the incredible merit of OTQ. Olympic glory for all!
Last cycles qualifying times, for the men at least, were legitimate. The folks on the starting line are legit. It's not merely a "BQ."
I live in a mid-size market. We had two local men qualify, and three women. The locals are very solid runners, not sub 2:15, but they've all won mid-size marathons.
The local qualifies drew enough interest to have the OTQ on live at a local bar. The local newspapers and TV stations provided some coverage. For a fleeting second, folks in the area were actually somewhat interested in the OTQ Marathon because local athletes were there. It drew some positive interest to the event.
Virtually nobody in my market would've cared whatsoever about the OTQ but for the locals competing at it. There would've been no local coverage, no buzz locally.
I think USATF got it right for once. I was actually expecting 2:17 for men but 2:18 is fair. I thought maybe a 2:40 would be the women’s standard but this is good. The 2020 standard was ridiculous. This will give the women a better target to shoot for.
My guess is we have 200-225 men and around 150-175 women at the trials.
I'm surprised so many people are upset about this. For the men this seems on the more generous side of possible changes - everyone expected it to get harder, only getting one minute harder was the best possible outcome for someone trying to quality. Could have easily been 2:17.
For women - the previous standard was clearly too easy and allowed too many people in. It's roughly equivalent to the men (and probably still easier by most measures that convert times). What's the big deal?