Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

malmo wrote:

Why should we, the Olympic Trials are fine the way they are? Quit trying to reinvent the wheel.

Malmo, with all due respect, have you noticed how much success (or lack of it, in this particular instance) the USA has enjoyed in world-class marathons over the last two decades? Our talent pool has eroded to the point where it has become a major achievement when an American (Deena at Chicago this year) wins at Chicago/New York/Boston.

Overall, the U.S. marathon performances at the Olympics and World Championships have seen a drastic decline throughout the last 20 years. While the rest of the world's athletes (especially the Kenyans & Ethiopians) have improved their times in the marathon, our athletes have either stagnated or become even slower, and their placings at major marathons reflect that accordingly. Logically, that would lead me to believe that the Olympic Trials are not"fine the way they are." We have a golden opportunity to help foster growth within the sport at one domestic race that is held every four years!

Personally, I think it's rather condescending to call a 2:30 marathon runner a "weekend warrior," and yes Malmo, my PR is closer to 2:12 than it is to 2:30. A young man who can maintain 5:43 pace for 26 miles is certainly not a recreational jogger! Ladies and gentlemen, we are only talking about an eight minute adjustment to the standard. Allowing 2:30 marathon runners into the race wouldn't pollute the gene pool in any way, and it might just inspire a 21-year-old collegiate runner to give the 26-miler a try while the best years of his marathon prime are still ahead of him!

i know i'd bring my 2:28 arse to the trials and spend my $ there before and after the race as would some family and friends of mine. do i have any delusions of running much better than that? hell no. would i have the time of my life and enjoy the shit out of running in the Olympic Trials, even a watered down competition in the eyes of some? hell yes! it would be well worth my time and money. i am sure i am not the only one who would fall into this category either. And as someone with a family to support and establishing myself in my career, I can’t really expect to get much more without giving some things up.

I have read this thread and have formed an opinion. I'm not sure if it's really on track. My gut says, set a standard (let's call it the "c" standard) that gets additional bodies into the race. I think a bigger trials hurts no one. Yes, depending on logistics, if it's a loop course, it may introduce issues with drink tables (I tend to doubt it really would impact that much.)

I will say that to me, hanging a goal out there that seems like it's attainable makes me work harder, while one that is unrealistic for me tends to make me less excited about the sport.

Yes, I recognize that for all practical purposes, it's highly unlikely that a 2:30 marathoner would have a real chance at the trials, on the other hand, they might just step up and really put out a great one. Yes, the odds are slim, but, with strong focus and a good training program, it could happen.

I also recognize that opening the doors to these other runners might also screw up the race, dashing to the front to grab TV time, to the detriment the best marathoners. This is a realistic risk.

I do like the idea of opening up the qualifying slightly. I have an acquaintance who narrowly missed qualifying last go round. Would he have worked as hard if there was an easier standard? Probably not - he was a bit older, and for all intents, making the trials was his olympics. On the other hand, others will choose to stay in the sport because the feel like the dangling carrot is possibly attainable.

I think USATF should figure a size of race that represents the ideal and establish a "c" standard that will let the race be run well and effectively. I think most athletes would not have an issue if it cost them $75 or $100 to enter the trials marathon, plus expenses. They'd be there because they'd get to run in the trials. Might they also qualify for a lower level of hospitality? Sure, if that's the way to keep the costs down, then arrange a suite with fruit and beverages and that's all they get. The B's and A's can qualify for more. In the end, the experience is about being there and in the race, not about a luxurious hotel room.

So, my take is:

A standard - expenses, entry and hospitality paid

B standard - no expenses but entry and hospitality paid

C standard - 2nd tier hospitality only paid

If I'd had the talent level necessary, I'd have run my legs off to qualify to run in a trials race. I can't believe that setting that goal out there won't deepen our talent pool. I also can't believe that it would have to cost USATF any real money. I support the idea of an easier standard to encourage more runners to strive for the trials.

Malmo,

Also with all due respect, I think you're not taking into account how different the culture is today with our young runners, and it's going to take a while to change it. Our college guys do not believe they can compete on the bigger stage, and they believe that the African runners are genetically superior. We therefore have a class of runners who do not think big enough, even though some may have the genetics to compete.

We won't bring them from where they are now to where they need to be in one step. I think having a bigger OT that could draw in some more college guys would help. I'm not under any illusion that a 2:30 guy is going to be 2:10 in 4 years, but that 2:30 guy may bring along a teammate who had never thought of giving it a chance.

It may also bring in that high school kid who can set the OT as a goal in 4 years. That high school kid may start logging miles they wouldn't have otherwise, and said high school kid may go 2:14 at age 22, then 2:07 at age 26.

I see 2:30 as a way to start changing the culture of running for the HS and college runner. 2:22 is a pipe dream, even for those who could do it, because now they believe they can't.

Run5k wrote:

Logically, that would lead me to believe that the Olympic Trials are not"fine the way they are." We have a golden opportunity to help foster growth within the sport at one domestic race that is held every four years!

There is a complete disconnect in logic going on here. The Olympic Trials has nothing to do with the lack of depth of marathoners. Growth and development in the sport falls on the shoulders of those who want to run the Olympic Trials. Those on the cusp should chase their dream. Spend 1460 days of training between trials. If you cannot make the very low standard of 2:20 and you've given it all, be proud of the journey -- it was all worthwhile. Life isn't fair. Live with it.

Just to make things perfectly clear, I do not think that a 2:12 marathon is very good at all, so why would I think that a 2:30 is? Just because I do not think that what might be your PR (or mine) doesn't mean I being condescending. All PRs are worthwhile. Be proud. Keep training. Strive for the next higher level.

Bum wrote:

I see 2:30 as a way to start changing the culture of running for the HS and college runner. 2:22 is a pipe dream, even for those who could do it, because now they believe they can't.

As usual, you're right on the money Bum! Altering the mind set of our up-and-coming young athletes is a very realistic goal, and this is the perfect opportunity to do so. Even though we're only talking about a difference of eight minutes, a 2:30 marathon simply sounds much more attainable than a 2:22 does. Many more young distance runners would break down and give the marathon a shot as a result, and occasionally you might find the proverbial "diamond in the rough" who has discovered that the 26-miler is actually their best distance!

After reviewing my previous posts, it's clear that I do not have the skills to make the Olympic typing team. Perhaps if they let me into the Olympic Trials, I, and many more like me will become better?

Maybe I should first become a better typist, THEN I should enter in the USOC Typing Trials? That sounds a bit more logical and realistic to me.

malmo wrote:

After reviewing my previous posts, it's clear that I do not have the skills to make the Olympic typing team. Perhaps if they let me into the Olympic Trials, I, and many more like me will become better?

Maybe I should first become a better typist, THEN I should enter in the USOC Typing Trials? That sounds a bit more logical and realistic to me.

Perhaps.

On the other hand, what if you're already a talented 21-year-old typist, but you haven't really considered attempting the USOC's 26-page competition before? If you felt that the words-per-minute qualifying standard was realistic and attainable, you might find yourself motivated enough to increase your training and strive for that goal (instead of retiring from typing and joining the 9-to-5 work force once you're done with college).

However, if the current words-per-minute standard seems too far out of reach, you could underestimate yourself and end up never making the attempt, while the USOC might lose somebody who has the potential to be a world-class typist, simply because we didn't seize the opportunity to foster growth within the sport.

I agree...2:30 is a solid standard. I have attempted to run for the standard twice. The first time failing due to lack of training and the second time failing due to an injury that forced me to drop out. I plan on attempting again and I will not be shooting for the B or "C" Standard. I will be shooting for the A Standard. I want to be in the best shape possible.

I don't think a lower standard will lessen the quality of the race. When you think about it, only the top 10 fastest guys are really competing for a shot at a spot on the Olympic Team. The rest are there for bragging rights (me included). I want to say I was in the top 20 or 30 at the Olympic Trials, making me one of the best marathoners in the nation. Making the Olympic Team (at least in my case) is a pipe dream.

I have had the privledge of training with some elite athletes (one who just ran a 2:10 marathon) and just being around them is such an energy charge...talk about a buzz. Their energy and dedication to running is so positive. Having a guy right out of college rubbing elbows with these kind of people may be what they need to motivate them to keep training and train at a higher level - to catch that buzz.

What will make our sport bigger? It's simple...participation. Who wants to spectate a marathon with 20 people running by? It seems like they are out on a training run - you don't get that race atmosphere. Now, 300 people, at least that's a race.

For the 2008 Olympic Trials, my suggestion would be doing it conjuction with the Boston Marathon (primarily due to timing - spring). Have them race the Trials on Sunday, the day before the marathon itself. Have a 4-5 mile loop course downtown Boston, so there should be no lapping of runners. Also, there will be 10,000 spectators/runners that would be thrilled to watch the best American runners race the marathon the day before they run their marathon. Talk about an energy buzz for them and the runners themselves - with that many people, the entire course would be lined with people. TV coverage, etc. is already there. As for money, I'm sure the Boston Marathon would take care of everything - it would make them a higher profile race, which they are striving to do as of late. Volunteers would not be a problem - contact a couple of the local running clubs and I'm sure you would have more than enough people ready to help out.

That my 2 cents...

As a 2:40 marathoner just out of college that would be great. 2:30 i can shoot for, 2:22 will prob never happen.

I'll sign too.

This will floor many of you but maybe we should go back to prohibiting or at least discouraging runners under 21(?) from running marathons. They should be busy honing their speed while they can in addition to building their base and strength.

The great runners in our past did and do inspire others to greatness. Most had great confidence in themselves. They also had big goals. How many of them raced marathons before age 21?

Lowering the standard lowers expectations in addition to cheapening the accomplishment. We need to get the youth of today to aspire for more, not less.

OK now for my other 2 cents worth. And in advance I'll state that I'd never make the Olympic Typing trials no matter how lax the standard.

Let me completely dispell the rumor that 2:22 is a very difficult standard for a talented college runner. 2:22 is not a tough standard for a D1 college athlete. I've been there wasn't that talented and ran in that ball park. If I had a flatter course and some competition I'd have hit closer to the 2:20 standard rather than my 2:25. At least 20-30 guys competing in the SEC XC championships every year have a good shot at hitting a 2:22 if that was their goal. But its not and an easier standard isn't going to change that. The standard is not the problem for these guys, the problem is that the marathon is not a goal or in their plans. If you are trying to draw talented college runners then the qualifying standard is not the problem.

I stand by my original post as to who a relaxed standard would draw. It would draw 35+ AND 40+ YR OLDS looking for a last hurrah in their "open" athletic career and some very talented high school athletes (who should be running 5k's).

As an old guy (36) I'm fine with a slower standard but only if its done the right way. Here is what I propose.

4 tier standards

1) What ever the Olympic B standard is, in this case I think its 2:18. Hit this and get in free with travel and hospitality paid for.

2) A slightly slower standard of 2:20 or 2:22 to accomidate the fresh out of college runners or the faster guys who ran into weather or bad day problems in their qualifying race. The standard only gets you free entry, no travel or hospitality. Your starting spot is just behind (15 yds?) the tier 1 guys.

3) A alternative distance qualifying time. Lets say a sub 29:30 10k or sub 1:06 half marathon (probably can make other similar standrads for 15k or even 50k). You only get a free entry (no travel or hospitality) and start with the tier 2 group.

4) A fill out the field group. The size of this group will be capped depending on the host city and their courses ability to accomidate runners. The standard would be in the 2:25 to 2:30 range and qualifying window would only be for a 12 month period ending 30 days before the race. These runners would have to pay a steep entry fee ($250) and gwould get NO travel or hospitality expenses but would get to run. They have to start behind the Tier 2-3 group (50 yds behind the tier 1).

I could live with this. I could also live with only the top 3 tiers as well. But so long as the tier 4 group was manageable I have not roblem with it. Your thoughts Malmo.

malmo wrote:

After reviewing my previous posts, it's clear that I do not have the skills to make the Olympic typing team. Perhaps if they let me into the Olympic Trials, I, and many more like me will become better?

Maybe I should first become a better typist, THEN I should enter in the USOC Typing Trials? That sounds a bit more logical and realistic to me.

Malmo, I understand your sentiments. I don't believe that anyone who runs 2:30 but can't run 2:22 will ever have a shot at an Olympic team - for those caliber runners, a 2:30 standard will never produce good Olympians, and on that point you are absolutely correct.

However, I don't think you are giving enough credence to what a 2:30 standard could do for the young runner with marathon talent, the HS kid who would NEVER consider a marathon but might be our next great marathoner. When I was in HS, and when you were in HS, we actually considered the marathon as a viable event for an 18 year old, and I had a HS teammate who went 2:28 as a senior in HS. Today, that would be HUGE news to some, but to us it really wasn't that big a deal. He was good, but at 18 and already running 100 a week, he knew he wasn't going to ever be a 2:10 guy. It was a nice race for him, nothing more. But he did give it a roll, as you did and I did. You were good, we weren't. But we all tried it. Today, none of them do.

I think 2:30 would be just the deal to entice some of these young kids to at least TRY the marathon as a race, and some will be damn fine at it. Running 5:30-40-ish miles sounds attainable, running 5:10-15's does not for a young guy, even though some of these kids could do it if they started training for it. What I want to see is some of this HS kids start training to try for a 2:30, then find out that it isn't that hard, start thinking bigger, start thinking about 2:15. Once we get a solid group of YOUNG runners training in that range, more 2:10 times pop up. The whole culture changes. The talent is there, but the culture doesn't funnel them into the right training. They go to college, run the 8K, put up "hotness" or "webb sucks" threads instead.

We need to get talented 18-20 year olds to start trying the marathon. For an 18 year old, being able to say "I qualified for the Olympic Trials" is something worth working towards, and may be more appealing then "I made all-SE conference" or something along those lines.

I say TRY IT for the next 2 Olympics. I don't see how this hurts anything or anyone.

Logic wrote:

Let me completely dispell the rumor that 2:22 is a very difficult standard for a talented college runner. 2:22 is not a tough standard for a D1 college athlete. I've been there wasn't that talented and ran in that ball park. If I had a flatter course and some competition I'd have hit closer to the 2:20 standard rather than my 2:25. At least 20-30 guys competing in the SEC XC championships every year have a good shot at hitting a 2:22 if that was their goal. But its not and an easier standard isn't going to change that. The standard is not the problem for these guys, the problem is that the marathon is not a goal or in their plans. If you are trying to draw talented college runners then the qualifying standard is not the problem.

You are correct that there are plenty of guys capable of hitting 2:20 or under. The problem is that these guys actually don't believe they can, or that it will take an unreasonable amount of work for them to get there. Neither is true, but they still don't believe it.

[/quote]I stand by my original post as to who a relaxed standard would draw. It would draw 35+ AND 40+ YR OLDS looking for a last hurrah in their "open" athletic career and some very talented high school athletes (who should be running 5k's). [/quote]

True, but who cares if you have a big bunch at the back of the pack. This hurts no one.

I don't believe 18 is too young to run a marathon. If I'm not mistaken, didn't a bunch of these sub-2:08 Kenyans do their first when they were under 20?

[/quote]4 tier standards

1) What ever the Olympic B standard is, in this case I think its 2:18. Hit this and get in free with travel and hospitality paid for.

2) A slightly slower standard of 2:20 or 2:22 to accomidate the fresh out of college runners or the faster guys who ran into weather or bad day problems in their qualifying race. The standard only gets you free entry, no travel or hospitality. Your starting spot is just behind (15 yds?) the tier 1 guys.

3) A alternative distance qualifying time. Lets say a sub 29:30 10k or sub 1:06 half marathon (probably can make other similar standrads for 15k or even 50k). You only get a free entry (no travel or hospitality) and start with the tier 2 group.

4) A fill out the field group. The size of this group will be capped depending on the host city and their courses ability to accomidate runners. The standard would be in the 2:25 to 2:30 range and qualifying window would only be for a 12 month period ending 30 days before the race. These runners would have to pay a steep entry fee ($250) and gwould get NO travel or hospitality expenses but would get to run. They have to start behind the Tier 2-3 group (50 yds behind the tier 1).

I could live with this. I could also live with only the top 3 tiers as well. But so long as the tier 4 group was manageable I have not roblem with it. Your thoughts Malmo.[/quote]

Nothing wrong with this - a bit complicated though. Why not just 2:30?

If the B standard had been 2:30, I would have qualified for the last two Olympic Marathon Trials. I'm exactly the type of person who would benefit from these relaxed standards.

I don't know how to "fix" American distance running, but I am sure of one thing: having people like me run in the Trials isn't going to help. It probably won't hurt, but it's ridiculous to think that a guy who stays in the sport just because his 2:29 is considered "national class" will ever make an impact on the international level.

Sub-2:22 is not that hard. I know plenty of guys who've done it and they're nothing special. They're just moderately talented guys who've put in 5 or 10 years of solid training since college. Sorry if you can't wait that long for your pat on the back.

I agree. I think there could be minimal benefit from relaxing the standard to 2:30. This might include more attention or press because the event might be bigger. There could be some revenues if some are willing to pay an entry fee. But there will most certainly be diminished prestige. It simply won't be the accomplishment that the 2:22 or 2:20 is. I probabaly will reach 2:30. I probably will not reach 2:22. I know for sure I don't want the standard to come to meet me.

If we want to encourage collegiate runners to pursue it, it would be more beneficial to introduce a marathon into the NCAA meet (I know this isn't likely) or have an "Olympic Development Marathon" tied to one of the other marathons. Set qualifying standards for Americans and then a prize money structure the goes deep - maybe $250 for breaking 2:30.

I just don't think the Olympic Trials should be mistaken for grass roots efforts.

Orville Atkins wrote:

Lowering the standard lowers expectations in addition to cheapening the accomplishment. We need to get the youth of today to aspire for more, not less.

Hmmm...I noticed that you conveniently ignored my counter-point to your previous (and similarly cynical) post, so I'll give it another shot.

With this "lower standard" in place back at the 1972 Olympic Trials, the U.S. men's team in Munich managed to finish in 1st, 4th, and 9th place. Tell me, do you think that the USATF LDR hierarchy would be relatively pleased if we brought home results like that from the 2012 London Olympics?

The mind set amongst far too many of our talented young distance runners is that they are inferior to their Kenyan & Ethiopian counterparts. Bob Kennedy was a notable exception to this rule, and he has the results to prove it. There are very few things we can do to potentially alter the aforementioned mind set that's prevalent within our youth, but making a small modification to the Olympic Trials qualifying standard is relatively high on the list.

One the most basic tenets of goal establishment is that in order for them to be effective, they must be realistic and attainable. I will be the first to admit that running a 2:22 marathon should meet both of those criteria for talented younger distance runners, but please remember that perceptions are everything! If they don't believe that a 2:22 is within their capabilities, then the goal becomes inconsequential to them. On the other hand, if they look up a 2:30 marathon on their pace calculator and decide that maintaining 5:43-pace is quite possible, they're much more likely to give it a shot. After that, some of them will enjoy the "domino effect," discovering that a sub-2:20 wasn't as difficult as they originally thought. Pretty soon they're running 2:18, maybe even 2:15, and if this happens to enough youngsters the cream will rise to the top, and the kids with world-class potential will eventually be wearing those "USA" uniforms!

stipe wrote:

But there will most certainly be diminished prestige. It simply won't be the accomplishment that the 2:22 or 2:20 is.

Well, all that prestige of having the B qualifier at 2:22 sure has helped developed US marathoning hasn't it? My gosh, with all the prestige involved in 2:22, why isn't every college runner trying for it?

There is NO more prestige in running a 2:22 than a 2:30. In fact, there is no prestige to running a marathon at all if you are an American - because no one gives a shit about the marathon. Is it prestigious to be the world champ in race walking? No, no one gives a shit about it even though it could be difficult.

Run5k, I am sorry about not responding previously. Part of the reason is that my computer is on the fritz.

You have a good theory. I would find it most interesting to see the results that it would produce.

I must add that 1972 was a different era with a very different life style and a different phylosophy. Shorter Moore, Bacheler and Galloway were all very accommplished at the shorter events in addition to being well past University age and very motivated athletes before they ran in the trials. I would imagine that they never had the aspiration of just making an Olympic trial.