Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

Malmo,

Just for the record. How would you compare the USA Olympic Track and Field trials with the USA Olympic Marathon trials?

Out of all the men in the 800m, 1500m, steeple, 5k and 10k at the US trials, A) how many have Olympic qualifying times and B) how many do you think have a realistic shot to make the team? So why have the trials if only about 10% of those guys have a shot? Who sets the Olympic Trials Track and Field standards? Realistically a 13:50 5000m runner (though that is very good) has about the same shot at making the Olympic team as a 2:22 marathoner, but no one says anything about the track standard. Both are good runners in the big picture, but both have about the same chance of moving on, however both add depth and quality to the sport on a national level.

I'll quote you from an earlier post Malmo

"Just to make things perfectly clear, I do not think that a 2:12 marathon is very good at all".

You also mentioned a comparison to the women's WR in an earlier post. As we all know there have been a LARGE number of questionable women's performances over the years, many have been proven to be drug-aided as well. But just to throw out something to think about. Here are the results from the World Championships last summer.

Obviously a whole lot of well known names on the men's side didn't have the greatest day including the Olympic Gold and Bronze medalist who DNF'd. But there were a lot of them that would've been happy to get to the finish line in the women's WR time of 2:15 that day. I was actually in Helsinki watching the race, following it on foot point to point on the 10k loop course and I thought Sell and Veran ran great races that day.

1 Gharib Jaouad MAR 2:10:10

2 Isegwe Christopher TAN 2:10:21 (PB)

3 Ogata Tsuyoshi JPN 2:11:16 (SB)

4 Takaoka Toshinari JPN 2:11:53

5 Ramadhani Samson TAN 2:12:08 (SB)

6 Malinga Alex UGA 2:12:12 (NR)

7 Biwott Paul KEN 2:12:39

8 Rey Julio ESP 2:12:51

9 Sell Brian USA 2:13:27 (SB)

10 dos Santos Marilson Gomes BRA 2:13:40 (SB)

11 Cheboror Robert KEN 2:14:08 (SB)

12 Robinson Dan GBR 2:14:26 (SB)

13 Shentama Gudisa ETH 2:15:13

14 Okutani Wataru JPN 2:15:30

15 Krotwaar Luc NED 2:15:47 (SB)

16 Wójcik Rafal POL 2:16:24

17 Andriani Ottaviano ITA 2:16:29

18 Jesus Luís POR 2:16:33 (SB)

19 Tolossa Ambesse ETH 2:16:36

20 Irifune Satoshi JPN 2:17:22

21 Satayin Haile ISR 2:17:26 (SB)

22 Verran Clinton USA 2:17:42 (SB)

23 Lamachi Abdelkebir MAR 2:17:53

24 Novo Luís POR 2:18:36 (SB)

25 Asmeron Yared ERI 2:18:46 (SB)

26 Bernadó Antoni AND 2:19:06

27 Westcott Scott AUS 2:19:18

28 Winton Scott NZL 2:19:41

29 Riri Joseph KEN 2:19:51

30 Martínez José Manuel ESP 2:20:07

31 Negussie Hailu ETH 2:20:25

32 Ri Kyong-Chol PRK 2:20:35

33 Ramos André Luiz BRA 2:21:06

34 Vargas Juan MEX 2:21:29

35 Pertile Ruggero ITA 2:21:34

36 Bagy Abdelhakim FRA 2:21:49 (SB)

37 Zvadya Wodage ISR 2:21:57 (SB)

38 Cruz Nelson CPV 2:22:12

39 Kirwa Francis FIN 2:22:22

40 Lehmkuhle Jason USA 2:22:46 (SB)

41 Rodrigues Claudir BRA 2:23:11 (SB)

42 Ballantyne Pamenos VIN 2:23:18 (SB)

43 Wyatt Jonathan NZL 2:23:19

44 Lobb Huw GBR 2:23:38

45 Chaíça Alberto POR 2:23:42 (SB)

46 Andreyev Georgiy RUS 2:23:50

47 Bimro Asaf ISR 2:23:58

48 Hosokawa Michitaka JPN 2:24:38

49 da Silva Clodoaldo BRA 2:25:02

50 Ziani Kamal ESP 2:25:06

51 Gilmore Peter USA 2:25:17

52 Arévalo Alfredo GUA 2:25:37 (SB)

53 Pesonen Yrjö FIN 2:25:39

54 Je In-Mo KOR 2:26:39

55 Sghyr Ismaïl FRA 2:27:07

56 Bolkhovets Oleg RUS 2:27:08

57 Villavicencio Cristian NCA 2:27:50

58 van Damme Jeroen NED 2:29:22

59 Johnson Chad USA 2:30:45

60 Cho Keun-Hyung KOR 2:31:59

61 Bat-Ochir Ser-Od MGL 2:36:31

Jaber Ahmed Jumaa QAT DNF

Sousa António POR DNF

Awadh Aman Majid QAT DNF

Belhout Saïd ALG DNF

Ramard David FRA DNF

Onsare Wilson KEN DNF

Ríos José ESP DNF

Baldini Stefano ITA DNF

de Lima Vanderlei BRA DNF

Cooray Anuradha SRI DNF

Khoza Collin RSA DNF

Bouramdane Abderrahime MAR DNF

Melese Gashaw ETH DNF

Riyadh Al Mustafa BRN DNF

Bayo Getuli TAN DNF

El Boumlili Khalid MAR DNF

Burmakin Dmitriy RUS DNF

Guta Dejene ETH DNF

Maine Tsotang Simon LES DNF

Lehtinen Tuomo FIN DNF

Bourifa Migidio ITA DNF

Muindi Jimmy KEN DNF

Di Cecco Alberico ITA DNF

Kim Yi-Yong KOR DNF

Holmén Janne FIN DNF

García José Amado GUA DNF

Hoff Shadrack RSA DNF

Thys Gert RSA DNF

Joseph Zephirinus LCA DNF

Ramaala Hendrick RSA DNF

Fika Makhosonke RSA DNF

Ezzobayry Ahmed FRA DNF

Gahimbaré Jean-Paul BDI DNF

Bayo Amnaay Zebedayo TAN DNF

Sumukwo David UGA DNS

I have yet to understand the basis of this argument. They did it in 1972, over 30 years ago, so if we do it now it will lead to greater marathon depth? Nope. Sorry. Not going to happen. What led to greater marathon depth is the baby boom. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Olympic Trials is NOT about rewarding mediocrity and this coming from a guy less than 5 minutes removed from 2:30.

20-30 years ago a 2:30 got you a nice pat on the back. Today you get this:

http://www.usatf.org/clubs/search/EDC.asp

There are places out there for the 2:30 marathon that weren't there 20-30 years ago. You can get free gear, free entry into certain races, free hotel rooms, etc. The carrot is already there. Bringing the carrot closer isn't going to change anything.

The problem is attitude. I'm a part of a very lazy generation. Most of us don't want to put in the effort or we say we "don't have time". That's BS. We are just not motivated. We were brought up in the late 80s to mid 90s. We think we deserve a trophy just for being here. We pout and cry if we don't get our way. The "Can Do" attitude has been washed our of our brains. Some of us say we've got it, we say we're going to do this, or do that. We say we're going to put in the training. But by the end of the year, we don't quite make it. We're too afraid of getting hurt, too afraid of failure. We like to think we train hard, but we don't, or we do for half of the year.

Shorter won the Olympics not because of some 2:30 marathon standard, but because he averaged 100 miles a week for a year. Rodgers didn't win Boston because of some easy standard. He did it because he kept on trying. One day he took off the motorcycle jacket, threw down the smokes and decided he was going to "give it his best shot". THAT is what is missing. That "give it my best shot" attitude. Instead of worrying what we'll get in return we should worry about just going out and doing it.

Alan

malmo, Oriville A., Alan, et al... are correct.

We need quality, NOT quantity.

MarathonMind wrote:

malmo, Oriville A., Alan, et al... are correct.

We need quality, NOT quantity.

No shit, Sherlock. But the question is, "how do you get quality". Some of us contend that we are simply not attracting the talented ones to the marathon, and that this might be a good start.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I have yet to understand the basis of this argument. They did it in 1972, over 30 years ago, so if we do it now it will lead to greater marathon depth? Nope. Sorry. Not going to happen.

I'm afraid that you're exactly right...you simply don't understand. Unless you have some type of crystal ball, you can't categorically dismiss potential long-term benefits of the qualifying standard change with a devil-may-care "Nope!' It's exactly that type of cynical perspective that has contributed towards the decline of our men's distance running fortunes in the first place!

Runningart2004 wrote:

Shorter won the Olympics not because of some 2:30 marathon standard, but because he averaged 100 miles a week for a year.

Yes, but at some point in time he was given the inspiration to attempt the marathon in the first place! As we have already established, the current generation of American distance runners was raised with significantly more creature comforts (a.k.a. distractions) than there were back in the days of Shorter and Rodgers. This proposal simply attempts to help plant the seeds of interest within our up-and-coming young runners, most of whom might never even consider making an attempt at the marathon otherwise.

[/quote]No shit, Sherlock. But the question is, "how do you get quality"...[/quote]Well I don't know how, but I know WHEN, and you need to establish the quality BEFORE the Olympic Trials Marathon. Not IN IT.

The interest should already be there. Thousands and thousands of runners in years past have gainfully tried to reach 2:22. Many have failed, some have made it. 2:22 is not an impossible standard, even for someone who debuts well outside 2:30. 2:22 should be enough incentive. Most simply don't want to put forth the effort, and I include myself in that seeing that I'm still 10+ minute outside the standard so it seems I haven't put forth the effort either. If a young runner can't get psyched about trying to run 2:22 or simply trying to improve himself then why are we wasting our time with him anyway?

Alan

MarathonMind wrote:

No shit, Sherlock. But the question is, "how do you get quality"...[/quote]Well I don't know how, but I know WHEN, and you need to establish the quality BEFORE the Olympic Trials Marathon. Not IN IT.[/quote]

No actually the quality has to come in the Olympics not in the Trials.

I am trying to understand this whole argument but I can't make heads or tails of it. Does it matter who we send to the Trials? The same three are going to go to the Olympics either way. So why not send more and try and to develop more US Marathoners?

The real debate seems to be centered around this:

Is it worth the extra expense and administrative headaches to get the 200 extra people at the trials, with the hope that one of those 200 extra people will develop into a champion sometime down the road?

I really don't think anyone expects that someone who qualifies with a 2:30 is going to go to the Olympics that year, but will one of those 200 runners dedicate themselves earlier in their running life to the marathon so that they will be world class the next time the Trials roll around?

To me it seems like a no-risk proposition.

Runningart2004 wrote:

The interest should already be there...If a young runner can't get psyched about trying to run 2:22 or simply trying to improve himself then why are we wasting our time with him anyway?

Yes, the interest should already be there, but it has become readily apparent over the last two decades that it's NOT!

As coaches and/or members of the distance running "old guard," it's our responsibility to help motivate young athletes and cultivate interest within the sport. Those who would categorically dismiss an 8-minute change in the Olympic Trials qualifying standard with the rationale that "it would lower the prestige" or that "5:43-pace marathon runners are weekend warriors" apparently just can't envision the big picture. Unfortunately, that's precisely the type of narrow-minded thinking that has caused the typical U.S. men's marathon team to erode into what it is today.

In the past, I was a proponent of lowering the standard to 2:15 or 2:16. The 2:22 standard is just hard enough to get runners to focus on making the trials rather than having them focus on running real WORLD CLASS times. It seems runners would be thrilled just to make the trials, who cared what happened once they got there ?

BUT ...

Now I agree with Mark. Open it up to 2:30 runners. Making the trials isn't such a big deal then. Making the Olympic Team WOULD be a big deal. WHAT ?!?! No one with a time slower than 2:20 has a remote shot at making the team !?!? Tell that to Trent Briney (as has already been mentioned). Yeah, he could have run a better qualifier if it was needed, but he was able to just "get one in" then focus his training on MAKING THE TEAM ... And he almost did it. That performance changed my view completely.

Sub-2:18, all paid. Sub-2:30, $250 entry fee, which could be paid by a sponsor even though they couldn't wear a sponsor's logo. But that's only at THAT race, a sponsor could get some PR by promoting an Olympic Trials Qualifier (even if it wasn't as prestigous (sp?) as the old 2:20 standard) at other local/regional races.

Malmo, I've always been a big fan, but I respectfully disagree with you on this one. And saying 2:12 isn't very good is insulting to a lot of very talented, hard working runners.

There are 2 different things.

1. American Marathoning on a World Level has become weaker.

2. American Marathoning has become weaker in World Competition.

1. Is true as we have not seen americans winning major marathons (Chicago, New York, Berlin, Boston, London and so on.

2. Is totally false. We are coming off of an Olympic Medal and a 4th place team finish in the WC all within the last year and a half. You may dismiss those performances as flukes but the trend in World Competition is very encouraging.

Now if we seem to be improving in World Competition, why change what we do for the trials (which appears to be working). The problem is having athletes focus as full time runners the rest of the 4 year period. How many of us view a professional runner in the same light as we do a professional athlete in other sports? WE ARE THE PROBLEM. If we believe that the profession of running is worthwhile, then there will be more young athletes running professionaly.

At the Athens Olympics, they gave out six marathon medals and the United States won two of them. That's a pretty damn good showing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. did not get a single man into the 800m or 1500m finals, and only one (Tim Broe) into the 5000m final.

The marathon trials aren't the problem.

Antonio

What some are failing to grasp is this:

We already have quality marathon runners. Two Olympic medalists in the 2004 games. What we lack is depth. Lowering the standard to 2:30 isn't going to create depth. It's not going to get new people to run the marathon. Running a marathon isn't something you do because you want to reach a weak standard. There are potentially thousands of runners in college right now who could train for the marathon and eventually break 2:30 in 5-10 years. The problem is that the marathon is unlike any race they've ever run. It has a long learning curve. Few runners want to put in the miles needed to run a decent marathon. Few runners want to sacrifice their beloved 5k for the marathon. Lowering the standard to get more runners in the marathon is like lowering the 800m standard to get more 400m runners to train for the 800m. It's not a matter of just entering a marathon, it's a HUGE change in training and mindset. More so that most on this board know because most haven't even sniffed the starting line. I think it's foolish for those who haven't even run a marathon to suggest what should be done to increase US depth at the distance. We are already doing enough with groups like Hanson's out there and the other USATF Elite Development Groups out there that I listed a few posts earlier. It's simply a matter of the athletes taking advantage of what's out there. What happens a lot of times is that potential 2:30 or 2:22 runners simply lose focus and lose the incentive to train after college because they don't have a TEAM to train for. Somewhere in the past 20-30 years the focus has been taken out of personal achievment and the focus has been put on "just being out there". If you reward everyone then there's no incentive to keep training harder. There's already more than enough support out there to cultivate 2:22-2:30 marathon runners....race teams, free gear, comped entries, comped hotel rooms. You can get a comped entry and hotel room to MANY US marathons and half-marathons with a 1:10 half or a mid 2:30s marathon. It's simply a matter of the athlete wanting to take advantage of what's out there. If he doesn't well then that's a problem with his attitude and no standard is going to change that. I can think of 5 or 6 very good runners in the local metro area who seemingly have just given up on competitive running even though the support system is there for it. If you don't run the races, if you don't join the teams, if you don't take advantage of what's there, then that's a personal choice that isn't going to change.

Alan

I have an idea that I heard Kevin Hanson talking about recently.

3 months before the Oly trials marathon you have a pre trials.

You make it 20 miles in distance so that athletes can honestly come back in 3 months and race the trials.

You charge $100 entry fee.

Make it a popsicle stick type of finish with no awards or bells or whistles or anything else that costs money.

The top 10 qualify for the Marathon Trials. You could probably generate $25,000 in entry fees. You only add 10 athletes to the trials and they come in as non funded.

These athletes have no chance of making the Olympic Team, but it does add some interest and possibly the motivation to allow athletes another reason to continue training.

would this option only be open to those who do not already have a sub 2:22 qualifying time?

Just an idea wrote:

I have an idea that I heard Kevin Hanson talking about recently.

3 months before the Oly trials marathon you have a pre trials.

You make it 20 miles in distance so that athletes can honestly come back in 3 months and race the trials.

You charge $100 entry fee.

Make it a popsicle stick type of finish with no awards or bells or whistles or anything else that costs money.

The top 10 qualify for the Marathon Trials. You could probably generate $25,000 in entry fees. You only add 10 athletes to the trials and they come in as non funded.

These athletes have no chance of making the Olympic Team, but it does add some interest and possibly the motivation to allow athletes another reason to continue training.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Lowering the standard to 2:30 isn't going to create depth. It's not going to get new people to run the marathon.

No offense, but how can you state this as if it's a fact? You don't really know that, and I think there's high degree of probability that it will get some young athletes to consider running the marathon who wouldn't have otherwise.

I've run 2:12 and I'm not insulted, why should any other 2:12 marathoner be insulted? It's just reality.

Dragging the results of Championship marathons doesn't help your argument at all. Championship marathons are usually run under the worst 'marathoning' conditions, and at the wrong time of day. Even the most stubborn person who has posted on this thread knows that, and so do you.

I would tend to agree, but it wasn't too bad in Helsinki that afternoon and if you look at the splits you can see those guys went after it from the gun up front and died. Lots of guys were rolling at 15k, hence so many DNF's, etc. Sell ran smart from way back and picked the pieces the entire way.

Doesn't matter either way, the point was that the marathon is a different game and a finishing TIME doesn't always tell the story.

There's been many championship marathons won in 2:12-2:14, etc. I remember Steve Spence nabbing the bronze in the Toyko WC's 1991 in 2:15:30's I think, but as you said he was ONLY a 2:12 marathoner, so you know, not very good. Yeah right, do you know anyone who wouldn't be happy with a Bronze medal at the WC's?