My data isn't 100% accurate, it seems a few of those runners were not U.S. Citizens
My data isn't 100% accurate, it seems a few of those runners were not U.S. Citizens
2:45 for women is just silly. The WR is 2:14, over a half hour difference. No one believes a 2:30 guy should be in the OT
Angelo Mysterioso wrote:
I would propose that the trials qualifying standard be set so that it would insure a field size that would be similar to the size of the olympic field.
Which is what? 100-150 runners?
80 runners.
tally wrote:
CIM drops 340 feet.
Boston drops 447 feet.
CIM has more up and down than Boston.
Boston '19 produced six finishing times by Americans faster than the winning CIM '19 time.
True facts.
Yet, Boston times are taken without a quibble, while people obsess about CIM.
Combination of East Coast bias and Hate California bias.
Here is a list of runners who finished in the top 100 at Boston this year and also ran CIM yesterday and their times for each race. As you can see all but one ran faster and many ran substantially faster. Weather was similar.
2019 Boston vs. CIM
Peter Bromka: 2:23:08, 2:19:02 (4 minutes faster)
Kent Smith: 2:24:32, 2:23:49 (.75 minute faster)
Mark Messmer: 2:24:54, 2:18:25 (4.25 minutes faster)
Kenny Goodfellow: 2:26:00, 2:28:10 (2 minutes slower)
Brian Finnel: 2:26:26, 2:22:19 (4 minutes faster)
Stephen Clevenger: 2:27:15, 2:20:41 (6.5 minutes faster)
Ben Schneider: 2:27:42, 2:25:13 (2.5 minutes faster)
Tanner Fruit: 2:28:07, 2:18:48 (9.25 minutes faster)
Erik Teig: 2:28:37, 2:19:32 (9 minutes faster)
Chris Maxwell: 2:28:45, 2:24:45 (4 minutes faster)
Prescott Leach: 2:28:50, 2:19:34 (9.25 minutes faster)
Fan Zhou: 2:29:18, 2:28:10 (1 minute faster)
Jeremy Arthur: 2:29:29, 2:24:00 (5.5 minutes faster)
Randy Arriola: 2:29:32, 2:22:50 (6.75 minutes faster)
So get out of here with your claims of bias.
Rick Sanchez wrote:
David S wrote:
Congratulations to everyone who qualified!
Didn't there use to be a marathon in Texas like Austin or something where a ton of people used to go to try to qualify? How do the numbers and percentage of qualifiers at CIM compare?
Do you mean Jacksonville?
Probably talking Austin 3M half, which is point to point/net downhill. I don't think a "ton" of people went to qualify there but certainly was a fast course. In 2012 there was that last-minute Jacksonville race that was set up just to get people to qualify via half.
rojo wrote:Tone is often lost on the Internet. I don't think the ATC is going to go bankrupt. It's called hyperbole. It was meants as a compliment for them paying out so much money.
Usually when tone is misused is when intent becomes unclear. If you're going to employ hyperbole, it's a mistake to lead with it.
Falcon Heene wrote:
So how come the JAAF could require much faster standards for their MGC race qualification?
Because they aren't governed by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act
Why not leave them where they are, and encourage marathon running. Who cares whether there's 400, or 1,000 runners in the Olympic qualifying marathon. At the times you suggest, there'd be a couple of dozen people in each race.
Like it or not, the 2:45 US OT marathon standard for women is an example of an affirmative action policy being applied to running.
It should be re-mentioned that the Atlanta Track Club is providing a travel stipend and lodging to all runners who qualify. In the past, only those runners who met the faster "A" qualifying standard were given travel expenses. The free travel and lodging to race at the trials provides some extra incentive to qualify with a "B" standard and actually attend.
Atlanta Track Club originally anticipated 400-500 runners, but revised that to 600.
Kudos to the ATC for supporting all the sub-elite runners that qualify for the trials.
I believe we should enjoy this while we can. Things will surely change in the future. Qualifying standards will be tougher, and future organizers may not be so generous with travel and lodging.
Lets not forget that originally only those athletes who met the Olympic Marathon qualifying standards (2:11:30 and 2:29:30) would be allowed to compete at the 2020 games. So participation and placing at the marathon trials would have been less meaningful.
wow, a few years ago i ran 2:34 at CIM and was top 60. Now 2:30 is 180th place.
Awesome.
guys and gals - If you haven't run CIM, do. The weather is always wonderful for marathoning- cool and still, and the course is great with so few turns and good groups to run with. You probably won't have any flight delays either because it doesn't snow here.
The ATC, like any other race organizer on the planet, will partner with businesses. There are hotels in Atlanta that will partner with ATC. There are airlines that will partner with the ATC. There are restaurants that partner with the ATC. Will they go bankrupt? I bet they'll make money off the race with sponsorships and advertising dollars.
CIM will treat you well wrote:
wow, a few years ago i ran 2:34 at CIM and was top 60. Now 2:30 is 180th place.
Awesome.
guys and gals - If you haven't run CIM, do. The weather is always wonderful for marathoning- cool and still, and the course is great with so few turns and good groups to run with. You probably won't have any flight delays either because it doesn't snow here.
You didn't have the bouncy Nike shoes back then. I have seen runners take off up to 10 minutes off their normal shoe marathon times, running CIM with the shoes
Yes time standards may go down after this cycle but I wonder if it's worth looking into other sports for qualifying processes?
Like ultras. Maybe only have a certain number of races that are qualifiers per year or 4 year cycle?
Or maybe have a lottery for people who do qualify. Maybe top 25% of the qualifying field gets automatic entry to the trials and the remaining 75% gets tossed into a lottery. People outside of the top 25% percent have about a 0% chance of making the team anyways.
Or maybe just have a set limit of entrants? Just say 250 for men and 250 for women. So yes a 2:45 would qualify you, but if you rank 327 on the list, you don't get to race. Similar to the Boston process.
I fully agree with this! Let's encourage marathon running and training hard
I've got no problem with CIM. Back when I ran my marathon pb and was trying to run the Trials, where did I do it ? On the downhill Las Vegas course.
Anyone remember how much downhill the old course was? I think they changed it starting in 2005.
It was uphill for like 8 miles, then downhill for like 10 or so. If you can find a course map, please link to it. I can't find it. Wikipedia says it was 700 feet. Is that right? How much uphill did it go at the beginning?
I guess my only problem is them paying for all of the B qualifiers. If they only paid for the A qualifiers and then saved all of that money, they'd probably have another $250,000 to splash around for prize money.
Trails?
If as someone says the Olympic qualifier marathon should have 50 men and 50 women... why not get rid of a time qualifier and simply take the top 50 male times and top 50 women’s times? Seems simple enough.
rojo wrote:
Help me out with this one wrote:
How do you figure 34 feet of downhill is worth a minute? That's less than a foot and a half per mile or approximately .02%
I'm not disagreeing, just curious how you figured that out.
Two points.
1) I had a typo in my post last night (it's 340 feet downhill, not 34).
2) Tone is often lost on the Internet. I don't think the ATC is going to go bankrupt. It's called hyperbole. It was meants as a compliment for them paying out so much money.
I think you’re a good journalist. The ATC going bankrupt hyperbole dragged people to this thread. You know what you are doing. I’d do the exact same thing for the thread title. Some people don’t understand the benefits of hyperbole and sensationalism. You do and that’s a good thing.
In 2016 Katja Goldring qualified for the OT with a 2:40 from the CIM course. She went on to finish 9th at the trials!
Granted the trials were In the sweltering heat in Los Angeles and her 9th place finished was achieved with a rather slow 2:35. Has there ever been an athlete who barely qualified for the OT from the women's side who performed any better?
Lets say this athlete at 2:40.33 is the limit of what we want to allow in at the trials. Then we subtract 2 min for these new shoes. I think a 2:39 B standard is reasonable.
I think the prize is making the Olympic team