So 15 minutes off the WR vs 27 off the WR. How fair!
It would make a lot more sense to compare to the American record not the world record
men: 2:05:38 women: 2:18:29
The womens standard is weaker than the mens, but its not nearly as rediculous as you're making it out to be when you compare the standards to the relative performance of americans.
The argument would be if those other races like Vermont City want to qualifiers from their course they need to increase prize money.
As it stands, if you are borderline to make the trials only CIM, Houston, Boston, Grandma's, and Chicago are worth doing domestically. Maybe Honolulu.
If you have the money London, Berlin, Valencia are good places to chase.
There is no point in running the Mesas, Richmonds, LAs, Austins, etc. You can but you're wasting an effort running alone chasing the standard or end up placing in like 219-225.
Most these races don't really care though, they view themselves as first a mission to increase fitness in the community, second part of a sport.
As someone who tried to qualify at Vermont City back in the day, the course isn't perfectly flat. It had prize money, that's probably why I ran there, but it makes more logical sense if your goal is the Trials to go to Chicago or Houston or a really flat course. Not sure what other options I had in the spring. But I think I figured I could take a crack at Chicago in the fall.
My (much faster) friend Ryan just won the race this year - he’s run ~2:18 there twice but something like 2:15 elsewhere, though it’s obviously not 1:1.
I’m pretty sure I placed a good bit further back at Grandma’s running a similar time to Chicago; that’s definitely become the preeminent spring/summer race. But Duluth is tricky! Even if you have money to spend, lodging fills up fast and it’s not super easy to get to. I would recommend it in spite of that, though.
I’ll also make note of Indy Monumental and Detroit, which both tend to attract at least “OTQ-level” guys (whether many will go under 2:16, I can’t say).
This post was edited 47 seconds after it was posted.
134/220 male marathon qualifiers in 2024 ran > 2:16. I don't think these standards are necessarily bad but I think giving post collegiate runners something to chase is part of what the Trials are all about. I'm more interested in the local 2:17 guy than a lot of contenders tbh. The reality is that the front of the race isn't concerned or restricted by the runners behind them. They're not going to train for softer times if the OTQ is 2:20, 2:15, or 2:10. The best runners are competitive & want to run PBs. I don't see the harm in having bigger fields. You don't need to pay for everyone's travel. & this has nothing to do with some gut take about this becoming a participation event or whatever. The roads aren't constrictive and 2:18 is still a very good marathon time. It always will be, even if you're someone who wants to tear down what is a very good accomplishment because they'll never win the Olympics. At least they're chasing their dreams, running strong times, and doing it clean. Fwiw some decent names would've been left off the start list last year going off of 2:16 alone -- Blankenship, True, Droddy, Hehir, Biwott, etc. Those are the kind of wildcards that can make pre-race coverage interesting.
I also don't think it's important to stress about the women's standard being a little softer. It'll move as the sport moves. I think the goal of equal fields is the right one. You don't want 200 men + 50 women on the start line. Boston has similar gaps where the male times are stronger but men can often dedicate more time to training. We don't carry children & women still end up doing more of the traditional child raising opportunities. It is what it is. But you gotta recognize that stuff if you just want to be mad about the gap.
Drop the opinions. There is a mathematical equation that generates equivalencies between genders. It takes into account outliers and it is done by a computer so it eliminates opinions and faulty comparisons.
It's the Olympic trials. They're cutting off the runners with fat zero chance of making the team. Plus the super shoes bump on times so this is very fair.
As someone who tried to qualify at Vermont City back in the day, the course isn't perfectly flat. It had prize money, that's probably why I ran there, but it makes more logical sense if your goal is the Trials to go to Chicago or Houston or a really flat course. Not sure what other options I had in the spring. But I think I figured I could take a crack at Chicago in the fall.
My (much faster) friend Ryan just won the race this year - he’s run ~2:18 there twice but something like 2:15 elsewhere, though it’s obviously not 1:1.
I’m pretty sure I placed a good bit further back at Grandma’s running a similar time to Chicago; that’s definitely become the preeminent spring/summer race. But Duluth is tricky! Even if you have money to spend, lodging fills up fast and it’s not super easy to get to. I would recommend it in spite of that, though.
I’ll also make note of Indy Monumental and Detroit, which both tend to attract at least “OTQ-level” guys (whether many will go under 2:16, I can’t say).
Also, something that makes no sense to me. Why, when they do this press release on 6/2/25, does the qualifying window not open until September 1?
Because to the exact point that we were making. The new standard will be hard to make so people will be clustering at certain marathons. Grandma's this year is in 3 weeks. Why open the window after Grandma's? Firstly, it would really suck if someone went 2:15 in Grandma's 2025 and then not again for the rest of the cycle. Secondly, I think comfort of mind for those that do hit the standard in Grandma's 2025, if you knock it out this month you'll not have to worry about it anymore. Finally, the earlier some guys knock it out, the more they'll be able to spread out to different marathons, so future iterations are less crowded with people trying to make the time.
134/220 male marathon qualifiers in 2024 ran > 2:16. I don't think these standards are necessarily bad but I think giving post collegiate runners something to chase is part of what the Trials are all about. I'm more interested in the local 2:17 guy than a lot of contenders tbh. The reality is that the front of the race isn't concerned or restricted by the runners behind them. They're not going to train for softer times if the OTQ is 2:20, 2:15, or 2:10. The best runners are competitive & want to run PBs. I don't see the harm in having bigger fields. You don't need to pay for everyone's travel. & this has nothing to do with some gut take about this becoming a participation event or whatever. The roads aren't constrictive and 2:18 is still a very good marathon time. It always will be, even if you're someone who wants to tear down what is a very good accomplishment because they'll never win the Olympics. At least they're chasing their dreams, running strong times, and doing it clean. Fwiw some decent names would've been left off the start list last year going off of 2:16 alone -- Blankenship, True, Droddy, Hehir, Biwott, etc. Those are the kind of wildcards that can make pre-race coverage interesting.
I also don't think it's important to stress about the women's standard being a little softer. It'll move as the sport moves. I think the goal of equal fields is the right one. You don't want 200 men + 50 women on the start line. Boston has similar gaps where the male times are stronger but men can often dedicate more time to training. We don't carry children & women still end up doing more of the traditional child raising opportunities. It is what it is. But you gotta recognize that stuff if you just want to be mad about the gap.
You’re forgetting everything that goes into getting to the starting line. The more runners there are, the more traffic there is getting to the start line, the more difficult it is for the top contenders to find a place to peacefully warm up and get mentally prepared, and just more hassle overall. Conner Mantz should not have to wait behind a 2:17 guy to use a porta potty before the Olympic Trials Marathon.
its definitely a bad move, but I don't lose motivation. As a low 2:20 guy who will never run 216 I still feel aiming for a faster time is motivating. Yea times mean something but with lower marathon times generally you can win or place well in most races. For goodness sake, a 218 at races like NY or boston places you high!
Recently ran 2:21 with a 1 minute negative split after jumping straight to the Marathon after graduating college this winter. 2:16 is a very far from that so I am gonna focus on getting fast for the next training cycle.
The XC races have 250 starters with many others around warming up or down and no one is waiting for a potty.
I got hurt trying to get under 2:30 in the 70s. Is I had succeeded with that training level I would have been motivated to go after the Trials Q. I was a mediocre high school runner, seventh man JV my senior year so when I ran 2:50 after for month's training in graduate school it was a surprise. So without the injuries I would have possibly looked like one of the many women that have come from a background that looks nothing like running 14:20 in college.
Stories about a local guy qualifying would have motivated me, I would have spent more money on good running shoes etc. And with a slightly slower Trials mark and better shoes I would have gone after the mark, but..... There are lots of people that can dream about things that seem on the edge of feasible but not further.
So 15 minutes off the WR vs 27 off the WR. How fair!
A slightly fairer comparison is to go based on percentage.
The men's standard is 12.78% slower than the world record and 8.25% slower than the American record.
The womens is 20.83% slower than the world record and 13.37% slower than the American record.
Crazy that the men's standard is closer to the world record than the women's record is to the American record. However, this does reflect the state of marathon in the US as the main goal is to get an equal number of competitors.
You could make the same argument that 2:16 is too slow for the men's standard as well because 8 women have ran faster than that time.
My ideal would be to have 100 men and 100 women for each field. Still a large field but more elite than mass participation.
Must agree. Sadly the women’s time is a joke when you look at global marathon times these days. chasing 2:35….😬
The XC races have 250 starters with many others around warming up or down and no one is waiting for a potty.
I got hurt trying to get under 2:30 in the 70s. Is I had succeeded with that training level I would have been motivated to go after the Trials Q. I was a mediocre high school runner, seventh man JV my senior year so when I ran 2:50 after for month's training in graduate school it was a surprise. So without the injuries I would have possibly looked like one of the many women that have come from a background that looks nothing like running 14:20 in college.
Stories about a local guy qualifying would have motivated me, I would have spent more money on good running shoes etc. And with a slightly slower Trials mark and better shoes I would have gone after the mark, but..... There are lots of people that can dream about things that seem on the edge of feasible but not further.
You should know that an XC race is very different than the Olympic Trials in importance. Our best runners should not be inconvenienced by sub-elites when they are trying to make an Olympic team.
No offense, but the Olympic Trials aren’t meant for mediocre runners like you and me. They aren’t meant for 2:18 guys either. They are meant for determining who gets to go to the Olympics. Only runners who have a chance of qualifying for the Olympics should be on that starting line.
Any guy who can’t run 2:16 needs to find motivation to run from something else. I did.
134/220 male marathon qualifiers in 2024 ran > 2:16. I don't think these standards are necessarily bad but I think giving post collegiate runners something to chase is part of what the Trials are all about. I'm more interested in the local 2:17 guy than a lot of contenders tbh. The reality is that the front of the race isn't concerned or restricted by the runners behind them. They're not going to train for softer times if the OTQ is 2:20, 2:15, or 2:10. The best runners are competitive & want to run PBs. I don't see the harm in having bigger fields. You don't need to pay for everyone's travel. & this has nothing to do with some gut take about this becoming a participation event or whatever. The roads aren't constrictive and 2:18 is still a very good marathon time. It always will be, even if you're someone who wants to tear down what is a very good accomplishment because they'll never win the Olympics. At least they're chasing their dreams, running strong times, and doing it clean. Fwiw some decent names would've been left off the start list last year going off of 2:16 alone -- Blankenship, True, Droddy, Hehir, Biwott, etc. Those are the kind of wildcards that can make pre-race coverage interesting.
I also don't think it's important to stress about the women's standard being a little softer. It'll move as the sport moves. I think the goal of equal fields is the right one. You don't want 200 men + 50 women on the start line. Boston has similar gaps where the male times are stronger but men can often dedicate more time to training. We don't carry children & women still end up doing more of the traditional child raising opportunities. It is what it is. But you gotta recognize that stuff if you just want to be mad about the gap.
You’re forgetting everything that goes into getting to the starting line. The more runners there are, the more traffic there is getting to the start line, the more difficult it is for the top contenders to find a place to peacefully warm up and get mentally prepared, and just more hassle overall. Conner Mantz should not have to wait behind a 2:17 guy to use a porta potty before the Olympic Trials Marathon.
My guy, have you ever run in a conference meet? There are only going to be about 300 runners in the marathon fields overall. Porta Potty lines will not be an issue.
A slightly fairer comparison is to go based on percentage.
The men's standard is 12.78% slower than the world record and 8.25% slower than the American record.
The womens is 20.83% slower than the world record and 13.37% slower than the American record.
Crazy that the men's standard is closer to the world record than the women's record is to the American record. However, this does reflect the state of marathon in the US as the main goal is to get an equal number of competitors.
You could make the same argument that 2:16 is too slow for the men's standard as well because 8 women have ran faster than that time.
My ideal would be to have 100 men and 100 women for each field. Still a large field but more elite than mass participation.
Must agree. Sadly the women’s time is a joke when you look at global marathon times these days. chasing 2:35….😬
American Women's marathoning is basically where American men's marathoning was in 2022 when the 2024 OTQ standard was set.
Recently ran 2:21 with a 1 minute negative split after jumping straight to the Marathon after graduating college this winter. 2:16 is a very far from that so I am gonna focus on getting fast for the next training cycle.
What half marathon time makes a 2:16 realistic?
Probably 65 but dude why cut yourself short? 2:21 (with a 1 min negative split nonetheless) is an incredible debut time in the marathon. Cutting that down by 5 mins with a couple years of dedicated training is not out of the question.
As someone who tried to qualify at Vermont City back in the day, the course isn't perfectly flat. It had prize money, that's probably why I ran there, but it makes more logical sense if your goal is the Trials to go to Chicago or Houston or a really flat course. Not sure what other options I had in the spring. But I think I figured I could take a crack at Chicago in the fall.
My (much faster) friend Ryan just won the race this year - he’s run ~2:18 there twice but something like 2:15 elsewhere, though it’s obviously not 1:1.
I’m pretty sure I placed a good bit further back at Grandma’s running a similar time to Chicago; that’s definitely become the preeminent spring/summer race. But Duluth is tricky! Even if you have money to spend, lodging fills up fast and it’s not super easy to get to. I would recommend it in spite of that, though.
I’ll also make note of Indy Monumental and Detroit, which both tend to attract at least “OTQ-level” guys (whether many will go under 2:16, I can’t say).
Don't forget the new 'Marathon Project' coming up in December(?) and the McKirdy marathon in NYS is super fast, catering to the OTQ people.
A slightly fairer comparison is to go based on percentage.
The men's standard is 12.78% slower than the world record and 8.25% slower than the American record.
The womens is 20.83% slower than the world record and 13.37% slower than the American record.
Crazy that the men's standard is closer to the world record than the women's record is to the American record. However, this does reflect the state of marathon in the US as the main goal is to get an equal number of competitors.
You could make the same argument that 2:16 is too slow for the men's standard as well because 8 women have ran faster than that time.
My ideal would be to have 100 men and 100 women for each field. Still a large field but more elite than mass participation.
Must agree. Sadly the women’s time is a joke when you look at global marathon times these days. chasing 2:35….😬
But statistically more difficult than the men’s according to mercier scoring tables.
134/220 male marathon qualifiers in 2024 ran > 2:16. I don't think these standards are necessarily bad but I think giving post collegiate runners something to chase is part of what the Trials are all about. I'm more interested in the local 2:17 guy than a lot of contenders tbh. The reality is that the front of the race isn't concerned or restricted by the runners behind them. They're not going to train for softer times if the OTQ is 2:20, 2:15, or 2:10. The best runners are competitive & want to run PBs. I don't see the harm in having bigger fields. You don't need to pay for everyone's travel. & this has nothing to do with some gut take about this becoming a participation event or whatever. The roads aren't constrictive and 2:18 is still a very good marathon time. It always will be, even if you're someone who wants to tear down what is a very good accomplishment because they'll never win the Olympics. At least they're chasing their dreams, running strong times, and doing it clean. Fwiw some decent names would've been left off the start list last year going off of 2:16 alone -- Blankenship, True, Droddy, Hehir, Biwott, etc. Those are the kind of wildcards that can make pre-race coverage interesting.
I also don't think it's important to stress about the women's standard being a little softer. It'll move as the sport moves. I think the goal of equal fields is the right one. You don't want 200 men + 50 women on the start line. Boston has similar gaps where the male times are stronger but men can often dedicate more time to training. We don't carry children & women still end up doing more of the traditional child raising opportunities. It is what it is. But you gotta recognize that stuff if you just want to be mad about the gap.
You’re forgetting everything that goes into getting to the starting line. The more runners there are, the more traffic there is getting to the start line, the more difficult it is for the top contenders to find a place to peacefully warm up and get mentally prepared, and just more hassle overall. Conner Mantz should not have to wait behind a 2:17 guy to use a porta potty before the Olympic Trials Marathon.
Why should Conner Mantz have to race at all? If the point is selecting the best team, just pick it by committee and be done with it. Waiting to use a porta-potty is nothing compared with having to train for an entire race when he's clearly the best marathoner in the country.