Glenn Latimer - Qualifying Standards Contradiction?

Eric B. wrote:

Was I bummed when they raised the bar to 2:19? Hell yes. But that is because I saw 2:22 as a reasonable goal. But why not 2:19? But for some reason 2:22 was the limit. So how would an even lower qualifying standard be any less than that... a personal limit on one's talent? How does that do anything for development?

The Olympic Trials standard isn't for 'development', it's to limit the field to a reasonable number of athletes. 2:19 is the lowest qualifying standard of any event by far. As stated before, it's a reasonable accommodation for the capricious nature of marathoning.

If you want to add 2:25 or even 2:30 marathoners then how about this proposal: anyone who is entered slower than 2:19 gets a different, provisional number bib. Starting at the 10k and each subsequent 5k mark thereafter, remove all provisional numbers from the race if they are going slower than 2:19 pace.

That should be fun.

As far as the nature of marathoning goes, there is no difference regarding who will be more successful in the "next" race between two runners who have PR's of 2:19 or 2:24. It's a complete crap shoot in the marathon.

The bottom line is someone can't run sub 2:25 for a marathon without putting in some quality time and mileage.

In 1972 the standard was 2:30, then in 1976 they raised it to 2:28. That being said how may guys today can run under 2:30 or 2:28? A LOT. If those were the standards today then there were be a ton of guys going for it.

BTW, in 1972 and 1976 the US did pretty darn good at the Olympic marathon, the trials standard or other runners in the trials didn't seem to hurt them any.

Some history wrote:

In 1972 the standard was 2:30, then in 1976 they raised it to 2:28. That being said how may guys today can run under 2:30 or 2:28? A LOT. If those were the standards today then there were be a ton of guys going for it.

BTW, in 1972 and 1976 the US did pretty darn good at the Olympic marathon, the trials standard or other runners in the trials didn't seem to hurt them any.

The reason why the standards were so low back in 72 and 76 was because few people actually ran marathons back then.

Once everyone and his mother starting running the standard dropped fast, with a peak of 201 athletes making the 1984 standard of 2:19:04.

1972 2:30:00 100 Starters, 66 Finishers

1976 2:28:00 87 Qualifiers, 77 Starters, 49 Finishers

1980 2:21:54 225 Qualifiers, 192 Starters, 125 Finishers

1984 2:19:04 201 Qualifiers, 172 Starters, 108 Finishers

1988 2:20:00 136 Qualifiers, 115 Starters, 77 Finishers

1992 2:20:00 112 Qualifiers, 102 Starters, 55 Finishers

1996 2:20:00 (A); 2:22:00 (B) 135 Qualifiers, 116 Starters, 90 Finishers

2000 2:20:00 (A); 2:22:00 (B) 114 Qualifiers, 99 Starters, 78 Finishers

Thanks for the data.

It would be interesting to see what those numbers would like today if the standard was still 2:30. Throughout all those years you would have to believe there would've been boat loads of guys running sub 2:30.

Even though I am for the 2:25 B Standard idea with the 2:14 A Standard funded, a 2:30 standard all-time would've been an interesting concept. You can only speculate on what effect it would or would not have had on the depth of the sport in the country and the trickle down (or up) impact on keeping guys in the sport and developing into better runners. Obviously it takes talent to start with to be a 2:08-2:12-type guy though.

In regards to national championships, this is/or was the case in Japan where they have a national championship marathon every year for everyone under 2:30. Seems to work well.

Numbers and numbers wrote:

Thanks for the data.

It would be interesting to see what those numbers would like today if the standard was still 2:30.

2:30? Yikes! It would be co-ed and have a Master's division.

I can see where track & field OT qualifiers would be upset about a slower standard. Qualifying for the marathon trials is much easier than qualifying for the trials on the track. It is possible for someone who is trying to put the OT Qualifier on their resume to be upset that so hundreds of marathoners get to do so. That's a small issue, but I was trying to figure out how athletes would be in favor of a faster standard as Latimer says and that's one scenario I came up with.

I liked the Beardsley example as well as Conover. In 2008, Lehmkuhle qualified with a 2:19:03 and almost made the team. Josh Cox qualified with a 2:20:57 and was considered to be a possible contender for the team although maybe unlikely. Dan Browne was also a factor in the race even though he didn't have a qualifying time in the marathon. Setting the standard faster seems to be an unnecessary step to select the best team. Opening the door to runners with or without a sub-2:19 would assure that all the top runners are there.

American distance running has surely improved thanks in large part to the training groups around the country like Team USA So Cal, Team USA Minnesota, Hansons, etc. Like Mr. Hanson said, having the B-Qualifiers to train with definitely helps his A-level qualifiers. Add more B-qualifiers around the country, and the A-level people have greater access to people training for the same event.

My perspective comes from being a mediocre college runner who saw a mediocre rival from another school qualify for the trials. In my head, I said I can do that, and I moved to altitude to do just that. I made the trials in 2000 and 4 years later my college had the most alumni qualify for the marathon trials. That may be mostly coincidental as relating to the trials standard, but the result was a positive in my opinion.

msuxc1 wrote:

I can see where track & field OT qualifiers would be upset about a slower standard. Qualifying for the marathon trials is much easier than qualifying for the trials on the track. It is possible for someone who is trying to put the OT Qualifier on their resume to be upset that so hundreds of marathoners get to do so. That's a small issue, but I was trying to figure out how athletes would be in favor of a faster standard as Latimer says and that's one scenario I came up with.

I think that it's a perfectly reasonable concern of athletes as well as national governing bodies like USATF. And I don't think that it's such a "small issue." The Olympic "brand" is exceptionally strong, and jealously protected. (Try using the word "Olympics" in a commercial context, and you'll quickly find yourself on the receiving end of a "cease and desist" letter.) Both domestically and internationally, whether justified or not, the Olympic brand is associated with excellence. And while one or two people on this thread purport to believe otherwise, I doubt that anyone here seriously disputes that significantly relaxing the Olympic trials qualifying standard depreciates the accomplishment of meeting the standard, if only among people who follow the sport fairly closely.

If we all agree that there should be some standard that reflects some level of accomplishment (and I'm not sure that we all do), then we can at least start to have a reasonable discussion about what that standard should be. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the Olympic trials qualifying standard should bear some relationship to its purpose of selecting the members of the U.S. Olympic team, so that someone who qualifies for the trials to select the members of the U.S. Olympic team is a real candidate for the U.S. Olympic team instead of merely being the best runner in his hometown. I don't doubt that there are some 2:25 marathoners who would rather see the standard set in some other way, but you're always going to have people on one side of the line who want to redraw the line in a way that puts them on the other side. That's life.

Just set the damn standard 1 second faster than the US female marathon record.

Agreed, but how about all of the other Olympic Sports. Check out their trials process. Heck in swimming it's harder to make the NCAA Championships meet. Let's not even get into the others stuff like Ping Pong, etc.

I really believe when it comes to something like running a marathon, there is no short cut, talent won't even get you there, it's hard and takes a lot of work...period. It's not like the 1500m where you can be gifted and run 50 miles a week and run 3:40 (I know that is not the norm, but it does happen). You don't just breeze through 26.2 miles feeling good because you have speed.

At the end of the day you have to either run sub 2:14 or win the trials outright with a slower time (which is what happened in 2000) to make the Olympic Team. Realistically as has been proven over and over there have been plenty of guys heading into the trials marathon who had not run sub 2:14:00 who did just that and either almost made the team or ran good enough to meet the Olympic A standard.

Where you draw the bottom line, I don't know...2:19, 2:20, 2:22, 2:25, all have been suggested. But at the end of the day when you look at the marathon event for what it is then you have to take those possibilities into context because they have happened many times over.

It's not the same thing in track. A 1500m guy with a PR of 3:45, though very good, is not going to run 3:36 in the trials to hit the "A" standard or win the trials. Now not to open up that can of worms because we could argue about the Latimer/Chaplin Fiasco in Eugene regarding number of entrants per event that were or weren't allowed (like only 30 men in the 1500m vs. 36 over three rounds or not simulating the numbers in the rounds at the Olympics in the 3k steeple or 5k, but yet in the 10k adding more then were allowed in rules (which is 24, not 25) just to have Adam Goucher in the race.

At the end of the day it's a fine line. No perfect answer, but I think the frustration with USATF and their "committees" goes back to the lack of clarity or explanations for decisions. And the people representing these committees at times come off like Latimer and burn bridges with the very people who care enough to keep the sport going.

End of rant...

Hmmm, MSU wouldn't be Michigan State would it?

Avocados Number wrote:

And while one or two people on this thread purport to believe otherwise...

Just a bit of an understatement, my friend.

edumacator wrote:

Hmmm, MSU wouldn't be Michigan State would it?

No; he said his college had the largest # of qualifiers in the last Trials. I can't think of the last Michigan St U guy that qualified. Interestingly, Michael Wardian is a grad but never ran for the Spartans.

malmo wrote:

The Olympic Trials standard isn't for 'development', it's to limit the field to a reasonable number of athletes.

But malmo, the trials as development was the exact argument that Kevin Hanson (among others) was using to validate a lower standard.

I would totally agree that the goal of the trials is not running development. I am pretty sure I was arguing against that notion in my post. I argued that lowering the bar to allow more runners in (an idea that many posters have argued in favor of) does nothing to develop marathoners.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you, malmo.

Condescending much? wrote:

Actually, if you actually read through the posts, I specifically said 2:25, so you're not really "shooting" at me!

The 2:30 number was pulled from someone else's post. I wasn't aiming at you. 2:25 might be reasonable, but I haven't seen a good argument in favor of expanding the field.

The purpose of a high standard is to:

-Limit the field to a manageable number

-Include only those athletes who have a reasonable chance of qualifying

There will probably be 100-150 2:19 marathoners during the qualifying window. There will probably be 500-600 2:25 runners.

A 2:19 marathoner, in some cases, had a legitimate shot at qualifying for the team. A 2:25 runner probably does not.

That is my argument and the USATF's argument. I think it is pretty solid.

Having a higher standard also has the added benefit of creating an allure or an air of exclusivity. It is a high level race that only a few can qualify for. I think it is good that way.

No offense, but if that's really true, then I sincerely hope that you haven't read the entire thread. The arguments in favor of expansion have been much more compelling than those against.

As others have stated, if you are going to be that retentive about people who allegedly have a legitimate shot, simply set the entry time to the Olympic "A" standard and be done with it!

And that's exactly the type of attitude that inspired my current screen name. Let's be serious, folks! If the standard is set to 2:25, you have men who are running about 5:30 pace. These are not hobby joggers! It's still a very exclusive group, and the Olympic Trials will still select the best marathon team possible, but at the same time the additional publicity and development amongst "fringe" marathoners would be tangible!

It's a shame that several people within this thread who supposedly have such a strong vested interest in the sport propagate a "holier than thou" attitude that prevents them from seeing an amazing opportunity. It's only once every four years, gentlemen! Climb down off your pedestal for a few minutes and look around for a while. An opportunity like this could go a long way towards inspiring the next generation of (potential) marathoners. If the most compelling counter-point that you can muster is that it would "detract from the prestige of the event" or that it would no longer create "an allure or an air of exclusivity," you need to take a deep breath, fire up Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" on your iPod and check your HUGE ego at the door!

mikerowe wrote:

edumacator wrote:

Hmmm, MSU wouldn't be Michigan State would it?

No; he said his college had the largest # of qualifiers in the last Trials. I can't think of the last Michigan St U guy that qualified. Interestingly, Michael Wardian is a grad but never ran for the Spartans.

He was referring to the 2004 trials, and I know at least one Spartan who ran it that year. His brief bio sounded exactly like a former coach of mine. But you very well might be right, I don't know how many others from Michigan State ran it that year.

Condescending much? wrote:

If the standard is set to 2:25, you have men who are running about 5:30 pace. These are not hobby joggers!

. . .

If the most compelling counter-point that you can muster is that it would "detract from the prestige of the event" or that it would no longer create "an allure or an air of exclusivity," you need to take a deep breath, fire up Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" on your iPod and check your HUGE ego at the door!

We're obviously not going to persuade you to accept our view of the role of the Olympic trials, and I doubt that you're going to persuade us of your view. I don't see any good reaason for you to keep insisting that our concept of the U.S. Olympic trials arises out of some character flaw, especially when your own sense of inclusiveness apparently doesn't extend beyond 2:25 marathoners.

I haven't seen anyone say that a 2:25 marathoner is a "hobby jogger." Some of us simply believe that, if you're going to impose qualification standards for participating in a race to select the U.S. Olympic team in the men's marathon, a 2:25 marathon isn't a sufficient qualification.

msuxc1 wrote:

In 2008, Lehmkuhle qualified with a 2:19:03 and almost made the team.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and grenades.

Josh Cox qualified with a 2:20:57 and was considered to be a possible contender for the team although maybe unlikely.

Only by idiot fanboys.

Dan Browne was also a factor in the race even though he didn't have a qualifying time in the marathon.

He wasn't a factor. Where did he finish again?

Avocados Number wrote:

I don't see any good reason for you to keep insisting that our concept of the U.S. Olympic trials arises out of some character flaw...

I wonder why?

Avocados Number wrote:

Some people will dispute both of those points, but I can say, from personal experience, that they are absolutely wrong.

Declaring that your personal opinions translate into an absolute fact probably provides us with a strong clue!