If the trials don't count as a Gold event, the USATF should just do what they themselves can control and include ranking as part of the qualifications, following the IAAF stnadards and rules, as overconvoluted as they are.
If the trials don't count as a Gold event, the USATF should just do what they themselves can control and include ranking as part of the qualifications, following the IAAF stnadards and rules, as overconvoluted as they are.
Nobody likes any country's methodologies. The big 2, i.e. Eth/Ken have almost infinite sub 2:05 guys when there are no non-African countries without one. And yet they still don't choose the athletes most deserving sometimes or the ones who'd perform best in the conditions.
Choosing is whack.
sainsbury wrote:
If the trials don't count as a Gold event, the USATF should just do what they themselves can control and include ranking as part of the qualifications, following the IAAF stnadards and rules, as overconvoluted as they are.
+1 this. But it's still worth trying to make things more favorable on the IAAF side.
HahaRiiiiiiight wrote:
This thread is not going the way Rojo had imagined...........
Thread is going as I expected.
I knew a few letsrunners who can't break 15 for 5k would tell the pros to simply suck it up and run faster. The sad thing is they don't understand there is a huge differnce between running a time trial on a flat course and doing well in a championship marathon in the heat. Almost like two different sports.
My goal wasn't to persuade them, it was to get Trials runners to notice and media members to notice,e tc. I'm getting retweets by ESPN's Bonnie Ford so all is good.
What people dont' really get is the timing. That's what most bothers me.
1) They announced it in March after we already had picked a February Trials date.
2) The actions/lack of clarification of USATF are appalling. The iAAF is going to a rankings system and USATF won't even honor the rankings? Why not? They need to explain themselves but instead the stonewall. Like seriously, what have they been doing for 2 months?
3) The US doesn't need special status - we just need normal status. The reality is the women's race at the Trials probably would meet the criteria for gold status but they don't give those out on the current year but rather based on the previous year and Im not sure even if a national champs can get gold status even if it meets the criteria.
AMO RAN wrote:
Help me understand.
You need to run 2:11:30 AND be ranked in the top 80 in the world.
Is this correct?
No.
If you run 2:11:30 you are auto.
Or if you are ranked in the top 80 (including the auto qualifiers) then you are in as well as they will field the field to 80. In reality, the rankings go down to about 400 as you need to remove like hundreds of Kenyans/Ethiopians beyond their limit of 3 per country.
Is the 2:11.30 really harder than the other events Standard? I think the 27:28 for 10000 is much harder than a 2:11.30 Marathon, It is the same with Ethiopia and Kenya, but in other events Example Ethiopia might consider a 10.05 for 100 or 20.24 for 200 Ridiculously hard to get 3 people. for a Country with the USA's depth at 800, 1500, Steeple, 5/10000 a 2:11.30 is not unreasonable, Ward and Fauble just ran 2:09 (Yes I know Boston has a Net drop) but their are better runners than those 2, The USA UNDER Achieves in the Marathon based on it's distance depth, we should get more than 3 Men under the Standard on a bad year, OVER 10 should be EXPECTED based on the Distance Talent and Population of the USA.
Here are the Standards, https://www.flotrack.org/articles/6394026-2020-olympic-qualifying-standards-released
rojo wrote:
HahaRiiiiiiight wrote:
This thread is not going the way Rojo had imagined...........
Thread is going as I expected.
I knew a few letsrunners who can't break 15 for 5k would tell the pros to simply suck it up and run faster. The sad thing is they don't understand there is a huge differnce between running a time trial on a flat course and doing well in a championship marathon in the heat. Almost like two different sports.
My goal wasn't to persuade them, it was to get Trials runners to notice and media members to notice,e tc. I'm getting retweets by ESPN's Bonnie Ford so all is good.
What people dont' really get is the timing. That's what most bothers me.
1) They announced it in March after we already had picked a February Trials date.
2) The actions/lack of clarification of USATF are appalling. The iAAF is going to a rankings system and USATF won't even honor the rankings? Why not? They need to explain themselves but instead the stonewall. Like seriously, what have they been doing for 2 months?
3) The US doesn't need special status - we just need normal status. The reality is the women's race at the Trials probably would meet the criteria for gold status but they don't give those out on the current year but rather based on the previous year and Im not sure even if a national champs can get gold status even if it meets the criteria.
rojo -
I understand your frustration with the timing because one can't just go knock out a 2:11:30 on short notice like you can with a 1500m or 5000m etc. I get it.
but why not get your qualifying time (Berlin, CIM - perfect timing) and then get ready to race the trials?
I think everyone understands the difference between time trialing and racing despite what you wrote. Even the guys slower than a 15-minute 5,000m. No one ever runs a fast time at the trials anyway....
At the USA Track & Field Olympic trials the top three finisher times in most events are not under the A or even B standards. Times are slow. All these runners know they need the standard to go to the olympics even if they get top three in the trials. So they try before or after if necessary. In the marathon, before makes the most sense because the training takes a bit. This is up to the runners and coaches and a strategic element that makes sports great.
Why can't marathoners get the standard and then prepare to race the trails? Just. Like. Track & Field.
What's wrong with jumping in a fast marathon and time-trialing a qualifying time...and then preparing for a different style trials race? It's not the the Trials are marathoners only chance in a year to run a fast time.
London, Chicago, Berlin etc are all essentially time trial races these days. The Olympics is about place.Maybe you don't like the sport if this is a problem for you.
Are you frustrated that the 5,000m olympic standard is 13:13 and lots of athletes won't have a chance to go because they won't be able to bust out a crazy performance at the trials? It seems like the same thing and a way to reward the truly top caliber athletes that will have a shot at placing well at the Olympics....which is the point.
trying to understand wrote:
but why not get your qualifying time (Berlin, CIM - perfect timing) and then get ready to race the trials?
They could, but it would be better if they didn't have to.
except CIM isn't a valid course wrote:
trying to understand wrote:
but why not get your qualifying time (Berlin, CIM - perfect timing) and then get ready to race the trials?
They could, but it would be better if they didn't have to.
Why would it be better?
Why is the marathon an exception?
How does no standard make the quality of Olympics competition better?
No other track and field event gets to go to the Olympics solely on being top three at the Trials. They have time standards required.
Seems like it's just your opinion.
My opinion -
Some dude could have the race of his life (without the standard) and get top three at the trials if the weather is terrible and finish time is slow, and then run 2:31 at the olympics.
Getting someone to the olympics isn't the goal, it's doing well and representing the USA as well as possible. Don't be selfish. We want our fastest team there, not some little Bob Costas segment about a 2:15 marathoner who is good at running a hilly, humid course and finishes 20+ minutes behind Kipchoge.
trying to understand wrote:
except CIM isn't a valid course wrote:
They could, but it would be better if they didn't have to.
Why would it be better?
Why is the marathon an exception?
How does no standard make the quality of Olympics competition better?
It would be better if the USATF recognized world rankings so that athletes wouldn't have to go to Berlin to chase 2:11:30.
Please don't assume my opinion is something it's not.
If you have the ability and genuine desire to knock out a 2:11:30, you would've done it already. If you're good enough to be ranked highly enough then you would be. If you want to be an Olympic marathoner then you'd have already been doing what it takes. If you haven't achieved a high enough ranking and/or run faster than 2:11:30 then you're not going to be a contender, point blank. I love Jared Ward, too, good for him that he got to go and placed far higher than his seeding. However, you couldn't name who was 6th place at any and every other Olympic marathon. It's also ran status where the placings go three-deep for awards. It's hardly even a footnote in history. Don't get it twisted, this isn't about alerting possible qualifiers of new standards to shoot for with late notice. In reality, this is throwing a lasso around those who are deserving, even if barely, to be included as contenders. Can't afford the cover charge? I'm not telling you to go beg, borrow, or steal to get the money. I'm saying this club isn't for you. Learn to live with that. If you run just one or even two marathons per year and you're not getting the ranking or the time standard then you haven't shown that you deserve a spot at the starting line of the Olympic marathon. Go find a race director who will throw you a bone, instead, because you're an American, like Pinkowski did. You don't have to like that and you don't have to like my 5K PR but life isn't fair, silver spoons.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
Work Commute Track Club wrote:
As a lower elite level marathon runner from another country - this whole "call to action" for an exception for the USA is just arrogant and I find it insulting.
Why should the USA have an exception. I have to jump through the hoops that the IAAF has put in front of me. Why shouldn't US athletes?
All the US has to do is recognise the drop down list for top 80 on a 3 per country basis. This will solve the problem as the top 3 finisher at the trials will surely be within the top 80. If not, they should not go.
I can't run 2:11:30 so I need to run 2 marathons during the qualification period to obtain my ranking. I am also under obligation from my federation to run Doha.
I'm sure many American's do not share the view portrayed by Letsrun on this point. There is a simple solution, recognise the ranking points in addition to qualifying by running 2:11:30 or top 5/10 at a gold label / WMM.
I think this is a fair point. Personally I don't have an issue with the stronger marathon countries like the US or Japan getting this exemption for the Trials and think that is the best solution.
But I think your solution is fine in theory as well as I think it's likely the top three at the Trials will all have enough rankings points to go. While it would be unfortunate if the third place finisher didn't have enough points, it wouldn't be a travesty if that athlete didn't get to go to Tokyo. It would be a travesty if that athlete would have enough ranking points to go but USATF wouldn't send him because he doesn't have the auto standard.
The one issue is that USATF still hasn't clarified how it's picking the team. Athletes need to know NOW what the qualifying criteria is so they can plan out their schedules. Hence the call to action.
But wait a sec Johnny. You had a whole article proclaiming how you cracked the case and had the qualification process figured out. Are you walking back that story?
Perhaps it was irresponsible journalism to base an opinion piece story on a single press release.
The qualifying proposal would be anyone that has the standard or is currently in the top 65 of eligible athletes on the IAAF list. That means about 350 once removing all the additional Kenyan, Ethiopian and Japanese beyond their top 3.
This is not public yet because it's not yet approved by all parties.
The report from Letsrun involved one source and was 100% incorrect.
I've coached a guy who has not run 2:11:30, yet has averaged placing in the top 1/3 of the field at the Olympics, World Champs and European Champs throughout his career. A lot of people don't understand that times in marathons are very different than times in track. The marathon is about competing against the distance, the course, the weather and the competition. There is a huge difference between competing well in an international championship marathon verses some rocket-ride, perfect weather, perfect road major marathon. And I think a lot of that gets lost on people. That's why the qualifying times in the marathon should be a bit more open. Not to mention people don't get many shots at it.
The Olympics will be in Toyko on a brutally hot day. In 1991 at the Tokyo World Championships under similar sauna-type conditions American Steve Spence won the bronze medal in 2:15:36. The winner ran 2:14:57 (who has a stud that won many major marathons and was a two-time Olympian). Spence's was also 12th the next year in Barcelona at the Olympics. His lifetime PR was 2:12:17.
trying to understand wrote:
rojo -
I understand your frustration with the timing because one can't just go knock out a 2:11:30 on short notice like you can with a 1500m or 5000m etc. I get it.
but why not get your qualifying time (Berlin, CIM - perfect timing) and then get ready to race the trials?
I think everyone understands the difference between time trialing and racing despite what you wrote. Even the guys slower than a 15-minute 5,000m. No one ever runs a fast time at the trials anyway....
At the USA Track & Field Olympic trials the top three finisher times in most events are not under the A or even B standards. Times are slow. All these runners know they need the standard to go to the olympics even if they get top three in the trials. So they try before or after if necessary. In the marathon, before makes the most sense because the training takes a bit. This is up to the runners and coaches and a strategic element that makes sports great.
Why can't marathoners get the standard and then prepare to race the trails? Just. Like. Track & Field.
What's wrong with jumping in a fast marathon and time-trialing a qualifying time...and then preparing for a different style trials race? It's not the the Trials are marathoners only chance in a year to run a fast time.
London, Chicago, Berlin etc are all essentially time trial races these days. The Olympics is about place.Maybe you don't like the sport if this is a problem for you.
Are you frustrated that the 5,000m olympic standard is 13:13 and lots of athletes won't have a chance to go because they won't be able to bust out a crazy performance at the trials? It seems like the same thing and a way to reward the truly top caliber athletes that will have a shot at placing well at the Olympics....which is the point.
1) Let me turn this on you. You write, "What's wrong with jumping in a fast marathon and time-trialing a qualifying time...and then preparing for a different style trials race? "
I would say, "What's wrong with just taking the top 3 at the Trials?" I mean seriously. It's not like you can fake a marathon. It's not like you get lucky and an opening on the rail. The 3 people who run that best make the team. Period.
2) As for 13:13, USATF should honor world rankings. Otherwise the track trials won't even be worth watching for US distance fans. But I was talking to A VERY TOP us distance coach and he or she liked the new qualifying process assuming the rankings are honored. He or she said something along the lines, "Look in most races, there will be 8-10 people who can make it. But If USATF only honors the standard, it's a travesty."
Your #1 is an embarrassment to your ‘world class’ journalism.
So the Olympic committee needs to check everything with USATF first?
Blow it out your asss.
And I’ll add this: The Olympics have become a joke. Water dance, synchronized swimming, and now break dancing.
Since much of this thread has been revolving around how weak a 2:11:30 marathon is...
Warm weather + championship-style racing =
Athens 2004
Winning time = 2:10:55
Men under 2:11:30 = 2
Americans in top 10 = 1
Japanese in top 10 = 2
Kenyans in top 10 = 2
Ethiopians in top 10 = 0
Beijing 2008
Winning time = 2:06:32
Men under 2:11:30 = 8
Americans in top 10 = 2
Japanese in top 10 = 0
Kenyans in top 10 = 2
Ethiopians in top 10 = 3
London 2012
Winning time = 2:08:01
Men under 2:11:30 = 6
Americans in top 10 = 1
Japanese in top 10 = 1
Kenyans in top 10 = 2
Ethiopians in top 10 = 0
Rio 2016
Winning time = 2:08:44
Men under 2:11:30 = 6
Americans in top 10 = 2
Japanese in top 10 = 0
Kenyans in top 10 = 1
Ethiopians in top 10 = 1
21130 wrote:
Since much of this thread has been revolving around how weak a 2:11:30 marathon is...
Warm weather + championship-style racing =
Athens 2004
Winning time = 2:10:55
Men under 2:11:30 = 2
Americans in top 10 = 1
Japanese in top 10 = 2
Kenyans in top 10 = 2
Ethiopians in top 10 = 0
Beijing 2008
Winning time = 2:06:32
Men under 2:11:30 = 8
Americans in top 10 = 2
Japanese in top 10 = 0
Kenyans in top 10 = 2
Ethiopians in top 10 = 3
London 2012
Winning time = 2:08:01
Men under 2:11:30 = 6
Americans in top 10 = 1
Japanese in top 10 = 1
Kenyans in top 10 = 2
Ethiopians in top 10 = 0
Rio 2016
Winning time = 2:08:44
Men under 2:11:30 = 6
Americans in top 10 = 2
Japanese in top 10 = 0
Kenyans in top 10 = 1
Ethiopians in top 10 = 1
Now do an analysis of the people that placed in the top 5 at the Olympics and show what their PB is.
You’ll see it’s very very fast. Rio winner was a 2:03 guy who has since gone 2:01:39
except CIM isn't a valid course wrote:
trying to understand wrote:
Why would it be better?
Why is the marathon an exception?
How does no standard make the quality of Olympics competition better?
It would be better if the USATF recognized world rankings so that athletes wouldn't have to go to Berlin to chase 2:11:30.
Please don't assume my opinion is something it's not.
Again, this is your opinion. Very subjective. You can’t see the light because it’s shining in your eyes.