2024 Olympic Marathon Trials Standards Are Out: 63:00/2:18:00 for Men, 72:00/2:37:00 for Women

AXC wrote:

There was more buzz and media coverage of the 2020 trials than any previous marathon trials. A lot of that was centered around stories of the sub-elites running gunning to qualify, particularly on the women's side. The energy of the OTQ chase put energy into the sport. Whether that was sub-elites who doubled down on their running to chase the standard, clubs and groups that grew in part because the standard was an achievable goal, and the aforementioned buzz that came from the large numbers of qualifiers.

.

Agree that the internet buzz around the 2020 Trials was way sicker than that around the 1980 Trials.

Don't conflate the increasing saturation of society, and the world of athletics along with it, with 24/7 "content" accessible in the palm of your hand with a real increase in the intensity of interest around the 2020 marathon trials.

Stater of the Obvious... wrote:

LRC is a magical place where wannabe anonymous runners claim that 2:20 marathon runners are hobby joggers... There is so much imaginary bravado on this message board that it is comical but at the same time sad. I hope nobody believes the goofs on this message board are in any way representative of the good and positivity that you find in the running community.

I just know that a 2:20 is nowhere good enough for running in the olympics, which coincidentally OTQ is for. Why cant all these people rather run any of the big or small marathons, so can the OTQ be a qualifying event for the Olympics where the hopeful can compete amongst each other.

Why not setting up an american championship and leave the otq for the runners having a shot at qualifying?

LarsL9 wrote:

I just know that a 2:20 is nowhere good enough for running in the olympics, which coincidentally OTQ is for. Why cant all these people rather run any of the big or small marathons, so can the OTQ be a qualifying event for the Olympics where the hopeful can compete amongst each other.

Why not setting up an american championship and leave the otq for the runners having a shot at qualifying?

So...I think this whole thing comes down to: what is the purpose of the USATF Marathon Olympic Trials.

If the sole purpose of the trials is to select the runners who will represent the US at the next Olympic games, then yes, it makes sense to set these standards - much smaller (and cheaper) and you'll get everyone who has a realistic shot at making the team.

However, some of us (including myself) feel that the trials should not just pick the team for the immediate Olympics, but also develop the sport, including promoting it to the public and encouraging future talent. If the marathon trials are to serve that broader purpose, you need a more attainable standard.

Does anyone know if there is a formalized statement anywhere in the USATF documents defining the purpose of the Olympic trials?

the mad pooper wrote:

The local qualifies drew enough interest to have the OTQ on live at a local bar. The local newspapers and TV stations provided some coverage. For a fleeting second, folks in the area were actually somewhat interested in the OTQ Marathon because local athletes were there. It drew some positive interest to the event.

Exactly! And I can guarentee that the random local qualifiers didn't appear on the tv broadcast but there were probably new fans for the elites made out of those people who just happened to watch the race at the bar

peekay wrote:

What is the cost to the host for the runners? Is it free entry and housing for all? I remember hearing Atlanta eating a huge cost last time.

I think the way to keep the trials going and be sustainable is to make a tiered qualification system.

A standard: free everything

B standard: free entry

Lower tier: pay an entry fee like you would at a major marathon

The lower tier would start in a second corral. Make the cutoffs like 2:30 for men and 3:00 for women (or something like that that is fair to both sex)

Use the slower runners to help fund the race. Encourage more participation. Grow the sub-elite and regular fast runner side of the sport

I realize you couldn’t do this as easily with courses that have a bunch of loops. But I think it would be a win for everyone.

I am intrigued by this idea. What if there was no standard at all? Then the race could be funded by the mass participation side. It would ruin the catcher however that so many local elites get by qualifying for the Trials.

I wanted to make the Olympics but hitting th3 marathon Trials standard was a very attainable intermediate step. Wonder if it wasn’t there if I would have kept running after college. Didn’t make Olympics but I ended up doing well at 10,000.

I’m glad they made things tougher, we are talking about the Olympic trials not some hobby jogger race. People tend to get upset when they just have to work harder towards their goals. Suck it up buttercups and just train harder. I’m sick of seeing posts by people being like omg I went to the trials, I’m

The best around. Maybe you are in your world and maybe it’s cool to some. But I’m a fan of the best being the best.

AtThenEndOfTheRoad wrote:

I’m sick of seeing posts by people being like omg I went to the trials, I’m

The best around. Maybe you are in your world and maybe it’s cool to some. But I’m a fan of the best being the best.

Of course, you'll still see all that - since most of that content is generated by Boston qualifiers, rather than OTQ qualifiers.

AtThenEndOfTheRoad wrote:

I’m glad they made things tougher, we are talking about the Olympic trials not some hobby jogger race. People tend to get upset when they just have to work harder towards their goals. Suck it up buttercups and just train harder.

Except that it's not a matter of training harder in the moment, but of continually dedicating yourself for an extended period of time - several marathon training cycles in many cases. And having a more achievable standard as a waystation makes that grind more palatable.

I’m seeing a lot of posts as if someone getting on tv locally because they are “trying to qualify for the Olympics” will spur the next great runner. I’m sure that 30 second spot of hours of football, basketball and every other sport will make the difference.

Wasn’t it 2:19 in 84? Pre hobby jogger marathon world your local 5k had much faster times than it does today. It would be great if running races could once again become competitive and not participating as the goal. Have fewer goals and make them tougher to achieve but with more meaning.

The person in med school. Marty ran 2:08 and placed 6th in the trials while sh*tting himself. It’s. It time. It’s talent. Grabow ran 2:10 at the trials with a full time job etc. as a country we look for the magic bullet and it’s hard work and perseverance, not another nap.

darkwave wrote:

Does anyone know if there is a formalized statement anywhere in the USATF documents defining the purpose of the Olympic trials?

Well, it's called the Olympic Trials. It's not called the "sub-elite development race" nor "the race to inspire your local bar patrons because they know someone in the race"

darkwave wrote:

Except that it's not a matter of training harder in the moment, but of continually dedicating yourself for an extended period of time - several marathon training cycles in many cases. And having a more achievable standard as a waystation makes that grind more palatable.

You can definitely tell the young ones around here. They're the ones that can't see beyond this one trial and its standards.

I'm not sure whether the USATF has a formalized statement, but the problem as I see it is that the USATF is so blatantly incompetent on many levels, that, even if they did have a statement, they would be likely pay no mind to it.

Noah Droddy

2019 - 2:19:07

2021- 2:09:09

It's possible if you put the work in. Not for everyone but for some. The dream benefits the sport by getting more people involved who's family, friends, and community can all rally around. It's pretty cool

Too slow! You need to have more competitive standards.

Men: 61:30 and 2:14

Women: 68 and 2:30

If you can't hit those times you won't be even remotely competitive at the actual Olympic Marathon.

try this? wrote:

darkwave wrote:

Does anyone know if there is a formalized statement anywhere in the USATF documents defining the purpose of the Olympic trials?

Well, it's called the Olympic Trials. It's not called the "sub-elite development race" nor "the race to inspire your local bar patrons because they know someone in the race"

The trials can have more than one purpose.

Here's an interesting read.

In the past 2 decades, USA Swimming decided to move to a larger trials. The understanding is that only about 150 swimmers at the trials have a legitimate chance of making the team, but they try to have about 1400 swimmers at the trials to develop the sport and give experience to those who might be contenders for a team spot in 4 or 8 years.

(the article's point is that the trials got up to about 1700, which was a bit too big, so they adjusted their standards to aim towards 1400 qualifiers).

It appears that USA Swimming's use of their Olympic trials both to pick the Olympic team and to promote the sport and develop swimmers has worked very well for swimming.

The London marathon runs a club national championship concurrent to the London race every year. Runners have modest times to qualify, 2’40” marathon for men & 3’14” for women, but then pay for $60 to enter (normally $400 lottery - can take up to five or six tries to get in, or fundraise approx $4000 for a charity.). They start behind the elites, ahead of the masses, no personal bottles, but get generic sponsored sports drink bottles rather than cups. It’s a chance to be treated like a semipro and get entry to a major race with great conditions in a way that local races can’t offer.

Love the swimming trials model. Marathoning may benefit more, as swimming is a highly skilled sprint sport where they start in private clubs as children and tend to decline around thirty, but marathoners could feasibly go from zero to competitive in a couple years of good training from age 23-35.

With year-round high school sports, there has to be more talent than ever that never steps on a track before age 18, is shut out of the ncaa resource base, and could make huge gains if connected to the right resources over one weekend every four years.

Bring the top few hundred athletes together, maybe there’s a seminar or access to a sports nutritionist or a knowledgeable Sports Physical therapist, heck even a 20’ one-on-one with a coach. 1000 athletes getting a 20’ consultation might be the same cost of a single prize purse ($30k). So reward one athlete for one race effort, or provide a thousand semi pros access to the top knowledge in the country, so they can return better in four years. I assume the latter would do more for developing sub 218 marathoners than raising the standard to where no late-bloomer would consider trying.

Great find! This is the key point. By using the trials as an event instead of just a race, we encourage more participation among our best as well as more interest in our sport. By shrinking the fields, we discourage many of our best runners and we diminish our sport's future. As said here earlier, Des Linden qualified for her first trials with a 2:44, so I guess that makes her a "hobby jogger". Would she have kept trying if she had missed qualifying by 8 minutes? I'm guessing not. I would rather see us encourage the future Des Lindens. The new time standards are a terrible mistake for our sport.

Between T&F, marathon and race walking how many people compete in the trials? Probably close to the number US Swim is targeting

Runner with a career outside of running wrote:

Great find! This is the key point. By using the trials as an event instead of just a race, we encourage more participation among our best as well as more interest in our sport. By shrinking the fields, we discourage many of our best runners and we diminish our sport's future. As said here earlier, Des Linden qualified for her first trials with a 2:44, so I guess that makes her a "hobby jogger". Would she have kept trying if she had missed qualifying by 8 minutes? I'm guessing not. I would rather see us encourage the future Des Lindens. The new time standards are a terrible mistake for our sport.

nicdgj3567 wrote:

Why not take the 500 fastest times either side? Or 250 and 250?

Why not make the qualifying times equivalent to the 50th ranked of the previous year? Is the #51st or slower going to make the team?

I've never seen sub-4 milers or 13:40 guys come on here and complain that the track standards are unfair.

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

I've never seen sub-4 milers or 13:40 guys come on here and complain that the track standards are unfair.

Speaking of which, when will outdoor standards/windows be released?