Is it true the 2024 OT standards will be 2:12 M and 2:32 W..?

no need for a trials wrote:

You essentially proved the point of why have the Trials when our depth is already very good. The people at the top will be good whether there is a Trials or not. The back of the packers don’t change what’s happening at the top.

What I proved is that what Canada is doing isn't working, quite the opposite of your assertion, so I'd rather we not mimic them.

It's been all downhill since Lennon died wrote:

2:12 for the men would be silly. That would give us 18 men in the 2020 trials. 18 men would be a silly race.

I get the idea of limiting the field a little more, but you still have to have the field be big enough so it doesn't just look silly at the start line. 2:15 or 2:16 I could see being a more reasonable standard. 2:16 would give you 74 men this year. That's a reasonable field at least.

With the rate these Shoes are developing i can see this as a real possibility.

no need for a trials wrote:

Comparable non-African countries that don’t have a Trials (Canada, GB) continue to have increases in depth and development and more depth at the top. Having a Trials is costly. Setting soft standards for “development” and creating local “feel good stories” has no bearing on selecting the Olympic Team.

By what measure? On the whole, Canada and GB objectively SUCK at the marathon over the past 20 years, for both genders.

Here’s a proposal that actually makes sense...I’d go as far as to say this December at the USATF convention that the automatic qualifying standards for the 2024 Trials be 2:11:30/2:29:30 WITH THE PROVISION that USATF can change the auto Q to whatever World Athletics makes it.

That said, if you need to fill the field, fill it on a descending order list (top 100, 150, 200 times) and close qualifying period 6-8 weeks before the Trials.

I’d like to find out how much the Atlanta TC is spending on the trials. You wonder if this will scare off anyone thinking of bidding for the Trials given the financial demands of USATF/USOPC & the fact that you can’t get sponsors who are competitors to their sponsors.

A lot of the people saying they want a smaller trials field with high standards probably never chance of hitting themselves and don't have the mentality to get there. I would rather have 200+ plus runners from each gender with a championship mentality, who bust their ass to barely reach the B standard, than people waste that their potential and have a weak mentality who are more talented. Mentality transcends talent all the time. You put runners with the championship mentality in a championship race, they surprise the more talented runners without the championship mentality.

divisive daughter wrote:

That is NOT even a proposal.

The most stringent recommendation that I’ve seen has been 2:18–63:00 and 2:42–73:00

Keep in mind that Men’s LDR comes up with the Men’s Standard and Women’s LDR decides the Women’s Standard

The silliest argument is wanting them to be equal and then blame women. The Men can make their standards whatever they want. If the Men’s standards are too difficult it is because that is what the MEN wanted.

That would be a good standard, 2:18 for men. I think 2:42 for women is ideal too, in the absence of vaporflies, but 2:40 would be more appropriate given the new technology, just so we don't have 600 women in the race next year. A field of 300 of women is plenty inclusive.

They should just disallow CIM as a qualifier; that would eliminate a good portion of the field. Anyway, I see no problem with fields of a couple hundred for the OT marathon, as long as they are closing off the roads anyway, it doesn’t hurt to allow more people to run, it’s not like a track. But, downhill races should totally not count for qualifying.

Including Boston, hun?

Far Worse than Ezra wrote:

What did the recent Olympians you are familiar with run in their debut races? How many worked their way down from B-standard type times? You clearly do not think like a world-class runner.

[/quote]

Brian Sell. 220:01 debut.

And Desi’s debut was 2:44:56.

They should make the ‘THON TRIALS OPEN!! All comers!!

Generate some Prize $$$$$ for the QUALIFIERS!!!!

LoneStarXC wrote:

They should just disallow CIM as a qualifier; that would eliminate a good portion of the field. Anyway, I see no problem with fields of a couple hundred for the OT marathon, as long as they are closing off the roads anyway, it doesn’t hurt to allow more people to run, it’s not like a track. But, downhill races should totally not count for qualifying.

Then all those CIM qualifiers would just be spread out between Houston and Chicago. Their times would be about the same. Its the competitiveness of the field, not the downhill that leads to qualifying at CIM. The course doesn't save that much time.

not a world class runner wrote:

Far Worse than Ezra wrote:

What did the recent Olympians you are familiar with run in their debut races? How many worked their way down from B-standard type times? You clearly do not think like a world-class runner.

Brian Sell. 220:01 debut.[/quote]

What was his Q time ..?

I’d like to see a -2:00 based on the nykie cheaterfly 8% ... ; folks this is not 1980 or 1984 anymore... Are we saying that the core of the qualifiers aren’t any better than the 2:10 and 2:11 winning guys that won those trials races..? Frank Shorter ran 2:12 in September of 1972 and 2:10:30 December of that year of 1972; are we as a country not better than what happened nearly 50 years ago...? This is why we are going south as a country in general; we’ve lost our way; sad to see the country fold up and except the soft demands instead of chasing after the world.

Accept

Would have been more compelling with a few more ellipses and semicolons.

Kvothe wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

They should just disallow CIM as a qualifier; that would eliminate a good portion of the field. Anyway, I see no problem with fields of a couple hundred for the OT marathon, as long as they are closing off the roads anyway, it doesn’t hurt to allow more people to run, it’s not like a track. But, downhill races should totally not count for qualifying.

Then all those CIM qualifiers would just be spread out between Houston and Chicago. Their times would be about the same. Its the competitiveness of the field, not the downhill that leads to qualifying at CIM. The course doesn't save that much time.

CIM had 55 woman run between 2:44-2:45. That little bit of savings is the difference between qualifying and not. Maybe some make it in chicago or houston but I bet most them come up just short without the aided course.

That’s all you’ve got? That’s how I write ..sorry.

really you should have sub 210 to go line up at a world champs.

with an OG trials, no harm in journeymen giving it a go.

Far Worse than Ezra wrote:

Estrogen needs to be classified as a neurotoxin. No wonder the author chooses to remain anonymous.

Yeah, no wonder she chose not to recieve misogynistic horsespit on the internet.

Jared Ward ran 2:16 in his debut marathon. After years of work, he ran 2:09.

Big improvements can happen. I am eager to see whether you dismiss this one as not relevant or claim that 2:09 is still not significant