Clayton presented a narrative you like. His other marathons played more of a role, whether you believe that truth or not.
Would not trust anything from that guy, he is a noted shill for stryd on here for years. He's just being a shill for his business coaching jayvee hobby racers here. Of course Young's coach, training partners, and WMM experience played larger roles in his success than that one race four years prior. Anyway, our Paris medal count certainly would not have gone down without OT tourists in Orlando. The world level has shifted, any focus on anything other than the top 10 is dragging us back to 2000 levels. I am sure some people are quite satisfied with having one team spot per gender and zero medal prospects like in Sydney, so long as they get that OT participation trophy.
Clayton Young, Molly Seidel, Deena Kastor, Elkana Kibet all voiced support for larger fields. And you are ... ? And you have contributed ?? to professional running? Go ahead, pal. Knock my socks off, tell us how important you are.
Would not trust anything from that guy, he is a noted shill for stryd on here for years. He's just being a shill for his business coaching jayvee hobby racers here. Of course Young's coach, training partners, and WMM experience played larger roles in his success than that one race four years prior. Anyway, our Paris medal count certainly would not have gone down without OT tourists in Orlando. The world level has shifted, any focus on anything other than the top 10 is dragging us back to 2000 levels. I am sure some people are quite satisfied with having one team spot per gender and zero medal prospects like in Sydney, so long as they get that OT participation trophy.
Clayton Young, Molly Seidel, Deena Kastor, Elkana Kibet all voiced support for larger fields. And you are ... ? And you have contributed ?? to professional running? Go ahead, pal. Knock my socks off, tell us how important you are.
Credible source, someone who will put their actual name to it. If you can’t do that I’d recommend you shut up.
So I think the main role of the olympic trials is to select the best team possible. I think the next most important role would be putting on entertaining event for fans. I don't see how having a relatively large field detracts from either of those goals? It's been interesting to hear that runners like Clayton and Molly are supportive of relatively large fields, if anyone would care I would think it would be people like them, and if they don't I'm struggling to understand why anyone else should.
At some point having a larger race is going to become logistically too difficult and expensive so you can't make this a race with 1,000+ people. But this isn't like a track race where space is limited, once you're shutting down roads why wouldn't you allow a decent number of people. I don't think the logistics of putting on an event with 50 people is that different from 350.
You don't think seeing the top 50-75 marathoners in the country would be entertaining to the fans? Everyone that wants this to continue to be a mass participation event is ignoring the most important fact....who is going to put it on in such a fashion that all the competitors are treated the same? With all the rules/sanctions and stipulations of the USOPC and USATF, no one can afford to put up the 2 million dollars to put the event on. Those who have tried have all vowed to never do it again. A fast legal course with equal first class treatment for all participants, on a spectator friendly loop course, with a large prize purse going 15-20 deep is the way to go. This will prevent the debacle that was Atlanta and the continual problem of top athletes dropping as soon as they realize they're not making the team.
Of course not. They’ll kick this can down the road and try to reinvent the wheel for at least another 3-6 months. Good luck to those trying to plan their marathons over the next 18 months
I heard the committee was meeting this week to discuss what the standard should be and when the window opens. Anyone else here this + what the outcome was?
Please tell us what about this thread op warrants a downvote or three? Says something about some participants here.
So the men’s standard gets harder, while the women’s standard remains the same? Either change both standards or keep both standards the same. If true, this is an absolute idiotic move by USATF.
B standard will be 2:16/2:37. I have no idea what the A standard will be though.
The men's standard should absolutely move up. It was 2:18 for the 2016 Trials before eventually moving to 2:19. This was before super shoes were widely available. If we're being honest the standard should have been at least 2:17 for the 2024 Trials.
So the men’s standard gets harder, while the women’s standard remains the same? Either change both standards or keep both standards the same. If true, this is an absolute idiotic move by USATF.
Yes its an idiotic move. The standards are picked by different committees. The mens long distance committee wants to make the sport more competitive.
The women's long distance committee wants to grow the sport.
They each pick their chosen standard with those goals in mind. The mens committee probably wants around 150 athletes. The women's thinks 500 would be great, and 1000 would be even greater.
So the men’s standard gets harder, while the women’s standard remains the same? Either change both standards or keep both standards the same. If true, this is an absolute idiotic move by USATF.
Yes its an idiotic move. The standards are picked by different committees. The mens long distance committee wants to make the sport more competitive.
The women's long distance committee wants to grow the sport.
They each pick their chosen standard with those goals in mind. The mens committee probably wants around 150 athletes. The women's thinks 500 would be great, and 1000 would be even greater.
I am on the outside looking in, so I'm analyzing facts, not defending their decision-making.
If I recall there were 165 women and 225 men at the 2024 USA Marathon Trials. I think they're trying to even out those numbers to around 150-200 athletes per gender. (Personally I would prefer 2:18/2:39 standards to get more people in, but a lot of randos are running sub 2:12/2;30 now so that's being considered).
B standard will be 2:16/2:37. I have no idea what the A standard will be though.
The men's standard should absolutely move up. It was 2:18 for the 2016 Trials before eventually moving to 2:19. This was before super shoes were widely available. If we're being honest the standard should have been at least 2:17 for the 2024 Trials.
Yes, as we saw in 2024, we don't have a shortage of women who can hit the Olympic standard. We do for the men. Hopefully the result is we don't see a repeat of the Lenny Korir situation.
Yes its an idiotic move. The standards are picked by different committees. The mens long distance committee wants to make the sport more competitive.
The women's long distance committee wants to grow the sport.
They each pick their chosen standard with those goals in mind. The mens committee probably wants around 150 athletes. The women's thinks 500 would be great, and 1000 would be even greater.
I am on the outside looking in, so I'm analyzing facts, not defending their decision-making.
If I recall there were 165 women and 225 men at the 2024 USA Marathon Trials. I think they're trying to even out those numbers to around 150-200 athletes per gender. (Personally I would prefer 2:18/2:39 standards to get more people in, but a lot of randos are running sub 2:12/2;30 now so that's being considered).
I thought there were way more women for some reason. I remember one trials having like 500 women. Appears I was wrong. I guess if the target is 150 each, this standard might get fields around that size