Proposed 2016 US Olympic Marathon Trials Standards Lowered From 2:19 to 2:18 and 2:46 to 2:43

A propos of nothing, I have been enjoying this thread as a place of reasonable, moderate commentary. Some subjects just draw out the more serious folks.

So you're suggesting that the millions of female runners in the history of the world have not produced enough data to obtain a normal distribution? I think you are the one with the statistics problem.

Just went to IAAF website. For no real reason compared 2012 times to Japanese--using new A standards

Men--25 U.S. men under 2:15, 41 Japanese men under 2:15.

The real out of sort is that there are 10 U.S. men under a 1/2 marathon time of 1:03 (understand that the standard is 1:05, but that is as far as the table went). By comparison there were 70 Japanese runners at 1:03 or better.

Women--41 Japanese women under the "A" standard 2:37 versus 25 American women. Half marathon 14 U.S. runners sub 1:13 (again that is as far as theat particular list went as the 1/2 marathon standard is 1:15). Again by comparison there were 56 Japanese women at 1:13 or better.

I guess my point is it appears the way to more easily qualify for the marathon trials is via the half marathon route especially if one was to train particularly for that distance.

Welcome discussion

SmartDde wrote:

NorCal runner wrote:

Magdalena Lewy-Boulet qualified for the 2008 trials with a B standard of 2:42:38. She went on to come in 2nd in the trials in 2:30:19.

Yes but how did she do at the Olympics? and how did Desi do at the Olympics?

I am not saying that someone who qualified with a B standard has no chance making it to the Olympics. But they have 0 chance at a Top 10 positions AT the Olympics.

Are you saying that Magdalena and Desi shouldn't have competed in those Olympic marathons and other US women's marathoners should have? Or are you saying the US should have sent less than a full team? Or are you saying the US should have only sent those with the A standard instead of Magdalena/Desi because they would have had a better chance of medaling, despite the fact that they finished behind Magdalena/Desi at the trials?

I don't buy any of that. IMO having a B standard to get into the Trials has proven to be beneficial to the overall development of US top level marathoning. That's not to say that other methods wouldn't have been equally or more effective, but from what I see it has worked. For any participatory sport (as opposed to a team sport) you NEED a pipeline to keep the public interested and keep athletes striving to reach the next level. It's a lot easier to find your best athletes in any sport if you have a lot of people competing against each other. I have heard this argument in XC skiing my whole life, why is the US, with our population size, unable to produce a quality XC ski team? (Forget what the women's team has been doing this year or what the Nordic Combined racers have been doing the last decade or so.) The most popular reason is that it's likely that those who have the physiology to be our best XC skiers never get introduced to the sport.

I got off track there, but my point is that I'm also in favor of having a more open B standard. I'd like to see about 200 in each trials race. Today's B standard racer could be tomorrow's sub 2:10 guy. I think that development of our athletes should be a priority for USATF, not merely selecting those who will represent our country internationally.

d2xccoach wrote:

Are you saying that Magdalena and Desi shouldn't have competed in those Olympic marathons and other US women's marathoners should have?

There is a reason why most countries don't have Marathon trials. You want to send the three best runners not just the ones that have their best day half year before the Olympics.

If we have a halfM Q it should be a sub A marathon comparison.

If A is 2:37 and "the tables" say it's = to 1:14:45 make the shorter standard lets say 1:13:45 and if you take a 1o,ooo time look a sub 33:10 perhaps. Leave it open for a really good runner to move up and take a shot at the distance but not be an inviting unlatched backdoor.

A 1:05 half marathon is probably the easier route over a 2:18 for multiple reasons.

1) The 1:05 converts to about a 2:18:34 according to JK's conversion chart:

http://www.letsrun.com/2007/jkconversion.pdf

2) You can race a lot more half marathons in a year than full and there's a lot more room for mistakes/bad races. You might be able to squeeze in 3 marathons a year, but you could run a half every couple of months if you need to.

3) You can also get in a good half off your track 10k training so younger guys can get in on it easily. The marathon takes a long time of specific training and practice/trial and error with fueling, pacing, etc. You could bonk in 3 marathons before you figure it out right and by then it might be too late. You can easily nail a half marathon your first time out or screw up and come back a couple months later and try again.

As someone who wants to eventually try and qualify for the Marathon Trials, I can say I'm not happy with this news since 2:19 was already a reach for me. The arguments comparing the Marathon Trials to the Track Trials are pointless because the marathon doesn't need to be limited based on available space. You're pushing it if you have 30 guys in a 10k on the track. A marathon with 30 guys would be kind of stupid. This is a road race, not a track race so the same rules don't apply.

If all we really care about is the guys with an actual shot of making the team, we should just do what other countries do and make one of the bigger established races like Chicago the marathon team selection race. (Like Japan did with Worlds and Fukuoka.) Otherwise, if we actually want to have our own separate "Marathon Trials" then we shouldn't be trying to limit the field so much. I'd say you want at least 200-300 guys in there.

However, while I don't agree with the changes and I'm not happy from a personal perspective, I don't think 2:15/2:18 are unfair. I just don't see the point in trying to shrink what is already a very small field for a marathon. If your standard is 2:20, you can still call it an "elite marathon". The guys running 2:19 aren't going to get in the way of the 2:10 runners.

Whatever, just my two cents. In the end this doesn't affect a ton of people. If you're a 2:19+ guy you weren't making it anyway. If you're sub 2:18 you're fine. It's only people running 2:18:xx that get screwed. Although I guess it's going to completely change how many people approach their training so maybe it will have a larger effect indirectly.

Oh and the 2012 Trials only had 85 finishers:

http://www.usatf.org/events/2012/OlympicTrials-Marathon/results/men.asp

Sorry, but I think that's just dumb to have such a small field actually finish. And 2:18:00 would have got you 42nd in this race and it's a fast course. So with the new standards you're keeping out people with the potential to finish in the top 30-50 in the country. I can't get behind that. It's the Olympic Trials, but it's also the US Championships. And people who could finish 40th in a national championship deserve to be there. If NCAA's can put 200+ runners on an 8k cross country course, I think we can have the same for a 26.2 mile road race.

Soprano wrote:

If NCAA's can put 200+ runners on an 8k cross country course, I think we can have the same for a 26.2 mile road race.

i really like this argument. ive never thought of that before

Soprano wrote:

Oh and the 2012 Trials only had 85 finishers:

http://www.usatf.org/events/2012/OlympicTrials-Marathon/results/men.asp

Sorry, but I think that's just dumb to have such a small field actually finish. And 2:18:00 would have got you 42nd in this race and it's a fast course. So with the new standards you're keeping out people with the potential to finish in the top 30-50 in the country. I can't get behind that. It's the Olympic Trials, but it's also the US Championships. And people who could finish 40th in a national championship deserve to be there. If NCAA's can put 200+ runners on an 8k cross country course, I think we can have the same for a 26.2 mile road race.

I agree with this 100%. There is no legitimate reason that the Olympic Trials Marathon cannot have 150-200 runners rather than 70-80. The fluids argument is weak. If that is really that much of an issue, than take the 2:15 A Standard and say that if you haven't met it you don't get your own personal fluids. The people who qualify by running over 2:15 can drink from the general supply of water and Gatorade. Is there any way to get this decision ammended? Does anyone have contact information for Jim Estes or any of the other higher ups at USATF? The next marathon trials is still over 3 years away. These standards do not have to be written in stone yet.

rojo wrote:

Oh yeah, one more thing. Scott Douglas has confirmed the original posters post that the Trails standard will be lowered from 2:19 to 2:18 and from 2:46 to 2:43.

http://www.runnersworld.com/races/tougher-standards-2016-olympic-marathon-trials

How does cutting out the back-half runners benefit the race? Or US marathoning? I'm baffled at the reasoning here.

In my mind, more competitors = more people who know competitors = more fans = more people watching the top runners.

I know only at most 10-15 guys have a realistic shot at making the team, but the trials is more than just a US team selector, it's a US championship.

Also, can you still qualify by finishing top 10 in the annual US marathon championship in Minnesota? If so, look into that, people in Employee 1.1's position - this often only requires a 2:21 or so.

willy k wrote:

In my mind, more competitors = more people who know competitors = more fans = more people watching the top runners.

I know only at most 10-15 guys have a realistic shot at making the team, but the trials is more than just a US team selector, it's a US championship.

Agreed.

Why do you guys think the NCAA Basketball tournament is so popular?

Heather Utrata is running the Tuscon Marathon this weekend, she's already publicly stated scoffed at the course record.

[quote]Seems that the women have always had an easier way to the trials:

Uh-huh. Particularly before 1984. Why don't you paste in those statistics?

I generally like this gentleman's views. At my competitive apex, such as it was, I was never close to any of these standards, so my views are unaffected by my personal experiences. If I recall correctly, back in the late 70s and early 80s, the standard was set by taking the top 100 times over a particular year, and making the 100th time the cutoff. The athletes then needed to go under that time over a 366 day period that began on Boston Marathon day the year prior to the Olys, and concluded on Boston Marathon day in the given Olympic year.If memory seres, even in that era, the cutoff was around 2:18. Feel free to correct me on any of my recollections: it was thirty years ago.

We could cavil over a minute or two here or there, but I have a couple general thoughts. First, those who say "what's the harm of adding a few more by loosening the standard" have a point, but there is a counterpoint that is more subtle and difficult to express. I trained pretty hard in my day, and qualified to enter the Boston Marathon. That was a certain level of accomplishment, and it felt special to stand on that starting line with others who were similarly qualified. At a far more selective level, the same is true of qualifying for the Olympic Trials. Guys like me didn't belong on that starting line, and it should be a point of pride for anyone who meets that standard. Whether that point is rightly set at 2:18 or 2:20 is debatable, but it should not come too easily.

Second, I fully agree with the idea of a qualifying standard at a shorter distance such as the half marathon, but agree that standard should be very stringent. If an elite distance runner wanted to get in the Trials, but a marathon didn't fit his schedule, a world class performance at the half marathon distance should qualify him or her. Finally, I have long thought that the women's standard for the Trials was far less rigorous than the men's standard, and the time should be lowered.

Wasn't Jenny Spangler a B qualifier the year she won trials?

I hate you in so many ways.