The USATF is clear as smoke... wrote:
At the end of the day you have to either run sub 2:14 or win the trials outright with a slower time (which is what happened in 2000) to make the Olympic Team. Realistically as has been proven over and over there have been plenty of guys heading into the trials marathon who had not run sub 2:14:00 who did just that and either almost made the team or ran good enough to meet the Olympic A standard.
(Not anymore, Holmes!)
Red Glare wrote:
msuxc1 wrote:In 2008, Lehmkuhle qualified with a 2:19:03 and almost made the team.
Almost only counts in horseshoes and grenades.
Josh Cox qualified with a 2:20:57 and was considered to be a possible contender for the team although maybe unlikely.
Only by idiot fanboys.
Dan Browne was also a factor in the race even though he didn't have a qualifying time in the marathon.
He wasn't a factor. Where did he finish again?
I'd say 6th place is a factor in the race when it's the top 3 being chosen. I believe Browne was part of the pack that got dropped by Hall around mile 17, and I believe it was Cox's training partner, Hall, who was saying he was in great shape.
Yeah, it's Michigan State and the Hansons were a much bigger factor in making that happen. And my progression went something like 2:46, 2:37, 2:41, 2:23, 2:21.
Unless you believe that making the qualifying standard 2:05:42 will bring about a rash of American records, making the standard faster is bad for development. The last time this was discussed on the message board, people suggested that it would bring about more qualifiers, but now Latimer is projecting 75 starters for the OT Marathon.
Not many college students see long-term, and suggesting to them to take a chance to drop 10 minutes in the marathon to get to 2:12 in 8 years of time with little recognition or financial support in the mean time just isn't reasonable. Thus, leading to fewer competitive runners which seems to be the opposite of development.
The women recognize that it's a great opportunity to keep more athletes in the sport and it's so easy to do, just erase that number and add a few minutes to it.
msuxc1 wrote:
I'd say 6th place is a factor in the race when it's the top 3 being chosen. I believe Browne was part of the pack that got dropped by Hall around mile 17, and I believe it was Cox's training partner, Hall, who was saying he was in great shape.
And I'd say that's a simplistic view of it. If he wasn't seriously challenging for 3rd or better in the last 10k then he wasn't a factor.
Unless you believe that making the qualifying standard 2:05:42 will bring about a rash of American records, making the standard faster is bad for development. The last time this was discussed on the message board, people suggested that it would bring about more qualifiers, but now Latimer is projecting 75 starters for the OT Marathon.
Those people were wrong and I wasn't among them. When the standard was established, the actual rationale was both to raise the bar and to reduce the field from its size in 2007. And I believe there's a happy medium between 2:05 and 2:30 that serves both goals ably, like 2:19.
Not many college students see long-term, and suggesting to them to take a chance to drop 10 minutes in the marathon to get to 2:12 in 8 years of time with little recognition or financial support in the mean time just isn't reasonable. Thus, leading to fewer competitive runners which seems to be the opposite of development.
What does 2:12 have to do with anything? And if they're in it only to get to the Olympic Trials, they'll still gain something along the way whether they get in or not. And if they're in it only to get to the Olympic Trials, then wouldn't they just quit the sport once they do get there, anyway? Anyway, I don't buy that that's anyone's sole motivation, I'd hope for their sakes that they get something more out of it than just meeting some arbitrary standard.
The women recognize that it's a great opportunity to keep more athletes in the sport and it's so easy to do, just erase that number and add a few minutes to it.
The women are under a whole different set of circumstances than the men are, you can't intelligently make a direct comparison. Take away most of your testosterone, not to mention multiple decades more development in the event for your gender, add several inches to your hips and strap some large glands to your chest and deal with a monthly loss of blood and other vestiges of childbirth and see how many guys are eager to sign up to fit in running high level marathons around all that. Don't be insulting by comparing men to women like that.
Condescending much? wrote:
The arguments in favor of expansion have been much more compelling than those against.
No offense taken. I realize that you have absolutely no intention of listening to any argument whose conclusion differs from yours. Fine.
But limiting the field to a manageable size seems like a pretty compelling argument to me. Arguing to limit the field to those who have a legitimate shot is also pretty compelling.
Condescending much? wrote:
As others have stated, if you are going to be that retentive about people who allegedly have a legitimate shot, simply set the entry time to the Olympic "A" standard and be done with it!
Well, I would argue that a person who has run between 2:15:01 and 2:19:00 has a real chance of hitting the Olympic A standard. A person who has run 2:25:00 probably does not. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It isn't condescension it is reality.
Condescending much? wrote:
And that's exactly the type of attitude that inspired my current screen name. Let's be serious, folks! If the standard is set to 2:25, you have men who are running about 5:30 pace. These are not hobby joggers!
I think you are confusing condescension with elitism. Favoring high qualifying standards for particular events/clubs is elitism. Talking down to you is condescension... ooh I am being condescending now. Sorry.
A 1400 SAT is pretty damn good but it isn't going to get you into Princeton. A 125 IQ is pretty high, but it isn't going to get you into Mensa. Should they change the standards so that less smart people can feel better about themselves? It's an elite club and admission has to be limited. Lowering the bar lowers their stature. Is this type of elitism bad?
The Olympic Trials is an elite race and the field should be limited. Running a marathon in 5:30 pace is certainly not hobby jogging but that doesn't mean it should qualify you for the most elite national stage for the sport.
Condescending much? wrote:
[...] you need to take a deep breath, fire up Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" on your iPod and check your HUGE ego at the door!
Have I developed this huge ego vicariously? I haven't run the standard so I think it would be hard to argue that I have a huge ego based on my arguments in this thread. Give me a break.
Am I elitist? In this case, yes. But that has nothing to do with my ego.
It's not about making the team.
The only thing the USOC & USATF cares about is who has a shot at winning a medal! It's all about the medals and nothing else.
There are many members at the top of our sport that believe that athletes who don't have a shot at winning shouldn't even go to the Olympic Games regardless if they qualified.
The trials are not a development meet.
Need experience? Run anyone of the hundreds of international marathons and you will get all you need.
To all of you asking for a good reason not to allow 2:20 guys at the trials, here's one for you:
YOU DON'T BELONG THERE!
The trials are there for the sole purpose of choosing the Olympic team. That's it. If you're not a serious contender to do that, you do not belong! Go back to dominating your local joggerville 5k and leave the real runners alone!
And don't give us this garbage about "development" (I HATE that term, by the way). If you want to improve from 2:25 to 2:20...great, go do it. No one will try to stop you. Knock yourself out. If you truly feel you need the trials as a motivator to improve, then you're a mental weakling and don't belong in the sport anyway.
So to all you 2:20+ marathoners...stay the hell away from the trials and leave it for the real runners. You're not good enough. Deal with it.
Whiney little losers.
LOL
Eric B. wrote:
I think you are confusing condescension with elitism.
I don't think so.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitism"the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY"
Let's take a closer look.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snob"one who has an offensive air of superiority"
Sounds about right.
Eric B. wrote:
I realize that you have absolutely no intention of listening to any argument whose conclusion differs from yours.
You jump to naive conclusions simply because I disagree with you? That's funny! It simply proves my point about huge egos.
Condescending much? wrote:
As others have stated, if you are going to be that retentive about people who allegedly have a legitimate shot, simply set the entry time to the Olympic "A" standard and be done with it!
Eric B. wrote:
Well, I would argue that a person who has run between 2:15:01 and 2:19:00 has a real chance of hitting the Olympic A standard. A person who has run 2:25:00 probably does not.
That's hypocritical, to say the least. If you are going to insist on your philosophy of "elitism," the entry should be set to the Olympic "A" standard, period!! From your lofty perch, you feel that the sole purpose of this race is to select the Olympic team. If that's the case, in your mind these wanna-be runners have had a qualification window of almost three years to achieve the Olympic "A" standard, so if they haven't reached it by the time the gun goes off, there is virtually no chance they will get in the OT race, so they should not be allowed to compete. They are just not elite enough, right Eric?
Eric B. wrote:
But limiting the field to a manageable size seems like a pretty compelling argument to me. Arguing to limit the field to those who have a legitimate shot is also pretty compelling.
Sounds good! If they have achieved the Olympic "A" standard before the race, they have a legitimate shot. It they couldn't reach that goal within the 3-year qualification window, they obviously don't "have a legitimate shot," and shouldn't be allowed to compete. Your precious "elitism" will remain intact.
Avocados Number wrote:
LOL
Avocado, that represents the strongest counter-point you have presented within this thread. Congratulations!
New name? Anyway, you don't have to like elitism, but it's still an intrinsic part of any legit sport. Now scamper on back to RW or the Special Olympics, little one.
no dog in the fight wrote:
Eric B. wrote:I think you are confusing condescension with elitism.
I don't think so.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitism"the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY"
Let's take a closer look.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snob"one who has an offensive air of superiority"
Sounds about right.
1. I have this feeling that 90% of the "keep standards high" crowd is represented by bitter ex-Div 1 runners who "weren't good enough" to achieve their goals. And since they were never given a shot at the OT, nobody else should. Point taken.
2. Has it not been said that in order to produce a 2:0X runner, you need a large pool of 2:1X runners? Following this logic, in order to produce a 2:1X runner, you need a large pool of 2:2X runners. This is called the "network effect".
I don't know about you, but where I live there are currently zero 2:0X runners, zero 2:1X runners, two 2:2X runners, and maybe five 2:3X runners. This is a talent pool that will not produce a "network effect".
Suppose this talent pool is a representative sample of USA running talent: sporadic pockets of talent, but no pocket deep enough to produce 2:0X runners (Yes, the plural "runners") because the 2:1X and 2:2X pool has not reached critical masses necessary to produce "network effects".
Local running communities are deep enough to produce 2:5X, 2:4X, and 2:3X runners. The USA Olympic marathon pipeline breaks down at the local level at 2:2X.
Let the "A" standard be 2:15, expenses paid. Let the "B" standard be 2:25, expenses not paid. Because you know there are enough 2:3X runners who will say, "dammit, I can get that 2:25 before my rival can". So your 2:3X local runners begin to organize/compete/network/train and build the culture necessary on a local level to produce a 2:25. Now you have more 2:2X runners (deepr pool bothh local and national). Many go to the trials and do not make the team, but the same process begins with 2:2X runners gunning for 2:1X. Repeat. Now 2:1X runners are gunning for 2:0X. Repeat. Now USA is on the medal podium.
I get the "high expectations" argument for one OT standard of 2:1X. But if you understand the dynamics necessary to unleash an individual's competitive zeal, then you realize carrotts must be shown as stretch (but realistic) goals.
So the mantra goes, "I am pleased but not satisfied".
I Smoked Cigarettes in College wrote:
1. I have this feeling that 90% of the "keep standards high" crowd is represented by bitter ex-Div 1 runners who "weren't good enough" to achieve their goals. And since they were never given a shot at the OT, nobody else should. Point taken.
You mean like guys like malmo and Avacados Number, who actually did qualify for the OT? More like 100% of the "let's make it closer to Boston qualifying" are bitter neverwas runners who couldn't even dream of running Div 1. Stop projecting, hater.
2. Has it not been said that in order to produce a 2:0X runner, you need a large pool of 2:1X runners? Following this logic, in order to produce a 2:1X runner, you need a large pool of 2:2X runners. This is called the "network effect".
I don't know about you, but where I live there are currently zero 2:0X runners, zero 2:1X runners, two 2:2X runners, and maybe five 2:3X runners. This is a talent pool that will not produce a "network effect".
Suppose this talent pool is a representative sample of USA running talent: sporadic pockets of talent, but no pocket deep enough to produce 2:0X runners (Yes, the plural "runners") because the 2:1X and 2:2X pool has not reached critical masses necessary to produce "network effects".
You're saying this is because the OT standard isn't low enough? There are many, many other factors that hinder our development of runners that have far greater impact before thinking about the standard for one race that happens once every four years. Changing the OT standard to 2:20 or 2:25 or 2:30 isn't the magic bullet to get our talent pool developed. Get a clue.
Local running communities are deep enough to produce 2:5X, 2:4X, and 2:3X runners. The USA Olympic marathon pipeline breaks down at the local level at 2:2X.
Let the "A" standard be 2:15, expenses paid. Let the "B" standard be 2:25, expenses not paid. Because you know there are enough 2:3X runners who will say, "dammit, I can get that 2:25 before my rival can". So your 2:3X local runners begin to organize/compete/network/train and build the culture necessary on a local level to produce a 2:25. Now you have more 2:2X runners (deepr pool bothh local and national). Many go to the trials and do not make the team, but the same process begins with 2:2X runners gunning for 2:1X. Repeat. Now 2:1X runners are gunning for 2:0X. Repeat. Now USA is on the medal podium.
I get the "high expectations" argument for one OT standard of 2:1X. But if you understand the dynamics necessary to unleash an individual's competitive zeal, then you realize carrotts must be shown as stretch (but realistic) goals.
So the mantra goes, "I am pleased but not satisfied".
No, do that with the yearly US marathon champs, US club marathon champs, major regional marathons, etc. That's where development incentives will have a continuous and lasting impact. Not with a single race that occurs once every four years. Not a bad idea, but four years between is too much of a gap to encourage development to a meaningful level. It just doesn't fit, it's a pipe dream to believe that lower OT standards will bring about much better development. Don't soil the OT, do a better job managing the sport the other 1460 days per Olympic cycle.
Red Glare wrote:
Almost only counts in horseshoes and grenades.
Uhh...how old are you?
Doesn't matter, you're not my type.
dukerdog wrote:
Red Glare wrote:
Almost only counts in horseshoes and grenades.
Uhh...how old are you?
I Smoked Cigarettes in College wrote:
1. I have this feeling that 90% of the "keep standards high" crowd is represented by bitter ex-Div 1 runners who "weren't good enough" to achieve their goals. And since they were never given a shot at the OT, nobody else should. Point taken.
It's interesting to see what kinds of assumptions people make about others' motives. Perhaps some in "the 'keep standards high' crowd" fall into the category that you envision, but I haven't detected any. Certainly the athletes on the committee that decided on the 2:19 standard were not in that category, and I know that malmo, Eric B., and I are not in that category. Conversely, I've generally guessed that a good number of the people who advocate for a return to a softer standard are 2:22 to 2:30 marathoners who are motivated by self-interest, but I'm not sure about that. The person who calls himself or herself "condescending much?" sounds as though he or she isn't in that category, based on his or her assessment of the quality of a 2:25 marathon, as well as the reference to Eric B.'s "lofty perch" as a 2:30 marathoner.
Eric B., by the way, sounds as though he's in a similar position to where I was many years ago. When I was a 2:30 marathoner, hoping to qualify for the Olympic trials, I received word that the standard for the 1984 trials was 2:19:04. Like Eric B., I was "bummed," since I wasn't sure that I had that kind of time in me. I discovered that getting into sub-2:25 shape was relatively easy, but getting into sub-2:19 shape took considerably more work. By the time that I actually ran sub-2:19, however, I had come to realize that I had grossly underestimated what I was capable of, and was already looking to the next level -- competing against the best marathoners in the country. Injuries, combined with other things in life, took me in a different direction, but I question whether I would have pursued faster times for as long as I did if the standards that I was eying were substantially easier to achieve. Although "condescending much?" purports to doubt whether anyone settles for lower performance levels when standards are lowered, I think that we all know better than that. When standards are raised, some people will decide to opt out or will simply crash and burn, but others will just work harder and smarter to meet the new standards. And in meeting those heightened standards, they may discover that they are capable of something more.
Thanks, Avocado. You have inspired me to push the limit of my ability. I like your story.
Eric B. wrote:
Thanks, Avocado. You have inspired me...
It's a shame that he didn't inspire you to respond to my very logical counter-points that proved how hypocritical you are.
Banged Hotties in College wrote:
You mean like guys like malmo and Avacados Number, who actually did qualify for the OT?
I get your point ... BUT ... Even though my slowest marathon was 2:13:44, I've never qualified for an Olympic Trials in the event, and, more-so, I have never even desired to compete in one. For me, marathoning was never a goal, it was only a means towards other running goals.
If you want to play the I've-been-there-so-I-know-better-than-you game, keep in mind that your experience represents one data point and Kevin's represents dozens.
Avocados Number wrote:
I've generally guessed that a good number of the people who advocate for a return to a softer standard are 2:22 to 2:30 marathoners who are motivated by self-interest...
On the other hand, even though your fan-boy Eric B. has aligned with "the 'keep standards high' crowd," he is clearly motivated by self-interest. He claims to advocate the same principles that you and Malmo preach, but despite all logic to the contrary, he doesn't want to see the OT qualification time changed to the Olympic "A" standard! That's strictly because that extra five minutes might still be within his reach. In other words, while he implies that his subjective standard is in place for noble purposes, there remains a selfish undercurrent to his motives. Once again, exceedingly hypocritical, at best!
The bottom line is that "the 'keep standards high' crowd" still has not had one compelling argument in their favor. If you are SO concerned, with the prestige, purity, and sanctity of the Olympic Trials marathon, change the qualification time to the Olympic "A" standard and be done with it! These athletes will have had three years to chase that time, and based upon your holier-than-thou attitudes, don't deserve any extra consideration. However, if you are going to be flexible and allow any extra time above the Olympic standard, you need to seriously consider what a golden opportunity (pun intended) this is to help promote and develop the sport by expanding the field for the 2:24/2:25 guys. Yes, it's only once every four years, but that's even more reason to do it, not less! If you think it's not worth it, I believe that you are seriously underestimating the Olympic hype factor.