NEW OLYMPIC TRIALS STANDARD STARTING TO KILL USA

recovery wrote:

You said, "You want to do your best at running". I say you will never do your best at running while working a full-time job because you'll always be shorting yourself on recovery.

I did a lot better at running than I ever thought I would and I had a full time job.

This isn't directed at "recovery" but just a general statement. It seems a prevailing attitude these days is, "If I'm not going to be one of the best in the world, why bother?"

I'm not from the 70's era, but even in the 80's and 90's we just wanted to see how fast we could get. After college some people had other commitments. I continued to want to see how fast I could get.

I got a full time job and ran twice a day. I'm happy with what I accomplished. Likewise, some of my friends who never ran a race again have nice families - they are very happy with what they accomplished.

Running takes the least amount of time and money of most any sport.

Lekuta wrote:

I know many of you don't care that the sport is becoming professionalized, but today's lack of depth in supposedly the biggest and most important domestic marathon showcased that the typical 2:19-2:25 guy is leaving the sport.

Congrats on tightening the standards and killing off the future.

The future?

Show me one "2:25 guy" who will ever be competitive at the Olympic Games.

Let's face it: If a man isn't making this standard, he isn't going to make the games, and definitely has no role in the selection of US marathon team full of real contenders.

Surprise!, the point is that Africans (of all levels) living in the USA are able to do what 99% of Americans living in the USA are not able to do -- train fulltime. But the question is why?

1. They tend to be good enough to win prize money at 2nd and 3rd tier road races to support themselves, and everytime they do there are Americans taking 4th, 5th, 6th who come away with nothing.

2. It is acceptable for Africans to live the life of a runner who just gets by on prize money and odd jobs, whereas Americans who do that (the few who are good enough) are judged harshly and pressured to give up and grow up because they'll never make it to the Olympics.

3. There are "coaches" and "agents" lining up to support African runners because they know they can make money off of them and often take advantage of them. They will provide housing, arrange races, etc and then take a chunk of the money. These "coaches" and "agents" don't waste their time with Amerian runners because Americans would not put up with that crap -- but they are very people bringing the Africans to the races to win all the money and thus undermine developing Americans. They don't care about Africans or Americans, they only care about their fat wallets.

4. Most Africans who are racing in the USA are here strictly to make money, as they are not good enough to represent their country. So they will race every weekend, sometimes twice in a weekend, and do so until they run themselves into the ground. Then a new crop will come in and do the same. Makes it very, very difficult for a few struggling Americans to win races and earn prize money.

5. Americans do not get the reinforcement from winning races and prize money, so it gets discouraging after a while and becomes easier to give up and grow up.

I am guessing that the vast majority of posters on this messageboard are not currently out there racing on the roads, trying to make their way. It shows in the lack of awareness of what it's like, and the ease with which people are judging runners who choose to stop chasing that 2:19 standard. I am out there giving it a shot, which is my choice. However, I will not judge a guy who chooses to give up because I understand his reasons.

[/quote]

The Africans, even the B and C level Africans in America running mid-level marathons, are sleeping and propping the legs up while you're at work. Running IS their job.[/quote]

I'm not sure what your point is?[/quote]

Find the UK edition of Runners World. Great article about Eamonn Martin. Worked for Ford Motor Company 40-50 hours per week. No perks etc., until he won London. Then Ford offered to reduce his work schedule to 8am-3pm. Wasn't til he made olympic team did they offer to pay for the full eight hours instead of six. Commented about on the sub 14 min 5k and 2830 10k types feel entitled to the perks and they really have not a clue of how little much, much faster athletes did not receive. Great article and note-worthy wake-up call.

recovery wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Goal: You want to do your best at running.

1. Take a regular 40 hour a week job.

2. Wake up in the morning before work and run for an hour.

3. Go to work.

4. After work, go for a run - maybe 75 minutes or whatever.

recovery wrote:

The Africans, even the B and C level Africans in America running mid-level marathons, are sleeping and propping the legs up while you're at work. Running IS their job.

Surprise! wrote:

I'm not sure what your point is?

You said, "You want to do your best at running". I say you will never do your best at running while working a full-time job because you'll always be shorting yourself on recovery.

In the 80's if people wanted to qualify they just went out and ran their asses off, found a marathon and made an attempt

Now if there isn't a bunch of people kissing your ass, giving hotel rooms, sponsors paying the bills and full time pay for 20/hr a week then its just not worth the effort??

The sub-elite runners complain about the masses getting slower. However the fact is the sub-elite has become just as complacent as the hobbyjogger in today's times.

I ran and trained with enough people in the late 80's/early 90's who made the time, worked hard both athletically/professionally and went after the standard..some made it, some didn't...but all left it on the course and not on a msg board...I didn't make it personally...but no regrets..wasn't good enough and never would have wanted a 2:25 standard....being 5k behind a winner doesn't mean anything

a guy like Mike Wardian will get the standard and he can beat most sub-elites while pushing a stroller....he works FT and races a marathon + a 5k at times over a weekend....really...

stop wasting time on a freakin msg board and run twice a day/every day and then take xmas off...race more, complain less and bust your ass..if you make it great..if not tough shit

Congratulations, you're more of a man than me. Want a cookie? And I didn't say I was a 2:15-2:20. I'm a 2:25 guy who makes maybe enough in prize money to break even after race entries and the cost of running shoes. My whole point was that maybe after 3-4 years of 130+ mile weeks I could possibly be a 2:15-2:20 guy. But should I focus all that time to maybe if everything goes perfectly finish 2 miles behind the winner instead of 3?

My childhood running hero

http://tinyurl.com/29zvb24

It's not as complicated as this.

In the 70's and 80's people a lot of people ran 2:20 marathons. Now, they don't. It can't be money. $0 in 1980 is still $0 in 2010.

I'm also not sure what an African runner sleeping during the day while you are at work has to do with your training.

There was no financial motivation for a sub-elite back in the day, and there still isn't now.

I just went through and read this entire thread, and I have a few comments...

Every time a thread like this comes up over here, you always have the same arguments:

those who think they're better than you because they "grew up" and moved on with foolish dreams to pursue a family and/or career,

those who think they're better than you because they decided to "give it a shot" and continue training balls to the wall,

and those who think they're better than you because they did both.

The fact of the matter is...people are going to do what they want to do. I want to continue training my ass off to see just how fast I can get. Will it get me to the trials? Probably not, but that doesn't matter to me because I enjoy training, racing, and running in general...I don't feel obligated to do it. If people want to give up running to advance their career, start a family...or just get fat, who gives a sh!t. If your argument is "oh, they're throwing away all that talent, blah, blah, blah", I'll fill you in on something....all the talent in the world can't restore your desire for the sport. Plain and simple, you can have the talent of Ritz, Hall, etc., if you don't want to run...you're not going anywhere.

And whoever said runners back in the 80's wanted it more and didn't ask for anything in return...they just "ran their asses off" - well, there's plenty of guys and gals doing it now as well. Don't make such a huge generalization that runners in "your time" were more dedicated, or whatever point you were trying to get across, because it's just not true.

F**k it, I'm going on a run.

This is 100% spot on. Surprise doesn't get what it's like now. Surprise!, did you ever train full-time, minus the job? I doubt it. The recovery factor is HUGE. I want to say it makes a difference of at least 4-6 min. in the marathon. Using examples of runners who didn't train full-time isn't good enough because the full-time African runners of today are still much better (and much deeper). Points #2 and #4 are esp. true.

Lekuta wrote:

So, the count continues: USA only had four (4) Olympic Marathon Trials qualifiers, and all were big-boy professionals

Meb Keflezighi

Dathan Ritzenhein

Jorge Torres

Tim Nelson

I know many of you don't care that the sport is becoming professionalized, but today's lack of depth in supposedly the biggest and most important domestic marathon showcased that the typical 2:19-2:25 guy is leaving the sport.

Congrats on tightening the standards and killing off the future.

Ask yourself this: "Who should get to run in the Olympics"?

If you think that it should be the best runners in the world, then that is what you need to focus on.

Forget about the trials and focus on becoming the best you can be.

If all you want is to qualify for a trial race then you don't belong.

Make Boston, NYC, Chicago, London or anywhere else your personal trial and prove you belong in an Olympic Games.

Then worry about the USA Trial to prove it.

The sport is not becoming professional, it is professional.

There is very little incentive for the post collegiate runner to keep on running. It has to entirely come from within. I work a full time job on my feet, average around 100 miles, and it blows. The only reason I keep on trying to hit that damn trials standard is because I know when I'm 40 I'll be so pissed that I didn't give it a shot. .

Hurlie Burlie wrote:

My childhood running hero

http://tinyurl.com/29zvb24

_______________________________

It looks like he has on loafers

Lekuta wrote:

So, the count continues: USA only had four (4) Olympic Marathon Trials qualifiers, and all were big-boy professionals

Meb Keflezighi

Dathan Ritzenhein

Jorge Torres

Tim Nelson

I know many of you don't care that the sport is becoming professionalized, but today's lack of depth in supposedly the biggest and most important domestic marathon showcased that the typical 2:19-2:25 guy is leaving the sport.

Congrats on tightening the standards and killing off the future.

Can anyone point me in the direction of the full list of Olympic Marathon trails qualifiers thus far? Thanks.

Got to agree with Pablo here. They're coming. It's only November 2010 and I have a feeling a whole bunch of guys and gals are planning their schedules around qualifiers in 2011. This conversation should be much different in a year...both in the 2:10 to 2:12 range and the sub-elite 2:15 to 2:19 range. The latter consisting of people that just love it and want to find out. Like Pablo said...go run.

recovery wrote:

This is 100% spot on. Surprise doesn't get what it's like now. Surprise!, did you ever train full-time, minus the job? I doubt it. The recovery factor is HUGE. I want to say it makes a difference of at least 4-6 min. in the marathon. Using examples of runners who didn't train full-time isn't good enough because the full-time African runners of today are still much better (and much deeper). Points #2 and #4 are esp. true.

I ran all my best times in the late 90's post-college.

Let's say I was born 10-15 years later and was racing now.

What's different that I don't get?

Nothing in my opinion. I would still run twice a day and have a job and probably run similar times to what I did.

I'd still be making no money from running and getting dusted by Africans.

If I was born 10-15 years earlier than I was, I'd be running twice a day, working a job, making no money from running and getting dusted by malmo-types.

It's not any harder or easier to run a 2:20 type marathon, just a lot less people in the US are doing that now. Maybe running isn't as popular now, maybe they have better stuff to do. I'm not sure. What I do know is that there's nothing holding anyone back from doing it if that's what they really want to do.

Maybe someone from the earlier era can fill us in. Did the 2:20 type marathon runners of the 70's and early 80's have jobs?

The current standard has nothing to do with the participation rate.

I believe there are less people who truly want to put forth the effort necessary to run fast. We are a country of excuse makers that have the "gotta have it now" mentality.

We have the depth and talent in our gene pool but there is a clear lack of dedication and hardwork in our youth today. It's easier for people to make excuses than it is to actually do the work.

You can't tell me in 1983 that the top 100 (which were sub 2:24) didn't have jobs, families, houses, cars, bills, etc...

BULLSHIT! Many worked 40+ hours a week and had families.

I know a 2:18 guy right now that runs 120 miles a week, has a newborn baby, two dogs, works 40 hours a week, owns three houses (in fairness his parents cosigned for his newest), an unemployed wife that stays at home with the kid, newer (2005?? Subaru Outback). It's very possible to have a life and still be sub 2:20 if you want.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Ask yourself this: "Who should get to run in the Olympics"?

If you think that it should be the best runners in the world, then that is what you need to focus on.

Forget about the trials and focus on becoming the best you can be.

If all you want is to qualify for a trial race then you don't belong.

Make Boston, NYC, Chicago, London or anywhere else your personal trial and prove you belong in an Olympic Games.

Then worry about the USA Trial to prove it.

The sport is not becoming professional, it is professional.

Buried among all of the BS in this thread is this beautiful post by Hodgie-san. If you're dedicated to the sport, you have one thing to worry about: training to be the best you can be. You can run fast anywhere: London, Chicago, Duluth, Middle-of-Nowhere North Dakota. Everyone whose lifelong goal is to make the trials is missing the point. You should be trying to run as fast as you can, not trying to hit an arbitrary number.

The list is at 92 which is good. 30 guys got in with the half marathon standard which was a good decision by USATF. In 2000, the youngest qualifier was Josh Cox at 24, so it basically took everyone at least 2 years of training after college to get a chance to compete at the trials. That's essentially a minimum.

How do you get people to make a 2 year commitment like that?

Offer incentives.

Distance running doesn't offer very many, so why take away one when it doesn't cost USATF anything?

Oh, and I was one of those guys that just barely made it in a couple of times and if I could have run faster I would have. And, I think that experience has helped me inspire, mostly through coaching, runners who are going to improve the sport of distance running in the US at least a little.