Is it true the 2024 OT standards will be 2:12 M and 2:32 W..?

Jzs wrote:

Rodgers, in 2:09:27, Takes 2d Straight Boston Marathon ~ April 1979 ,,. 40 years ago, meanwhile the world has moved on to 2:01:39. 209.27 during 1979 was fairly close to the wr 208.33 -209.1, depending upon course measurement. Ward is a great athlete but he’d be at the 40km mark over 6% slower than Kipchoge’s best mark. Another sub 2:10 example, Cam Levins.. 2:09 record is at that same 1979 level meanwhile Jerome Drayton was state of the art with his 2:10:09 from ..1975. That said , 2:09:xx is a great performance but I think our OTQ .. 2:19 is not enough to develop more 2:04 -2:09 types.

This logic just doesn't make a lot of sense. So to get more Sub-2:10 guys the solution is to make the trials standard REALLY hard and only have a few runners there (the guys who are already capable of 2:10)? Comparing times from the best runners 40-50 years ago really doesn't mean anything in this conversation. Also throwing in faster times from current runners from other countries doesn't mean anything either. They're not American, so won't be running these trials. Changing the trials standards isn't going to have a big impact on that cycle. It might however have an impact on the cycle in 4 or 8 years.

I'm guessing you're one of those folks who don't think we should send our full 3 men to the Olympics if they don't have a chance at a medal? You don't think making the Olympics by itself is a sufficient goal?

Outstanding post! But in the age of Instagram, I believe that the pressure to have the sport go viral with crying hyenas at the finish line of CIM is too enticing, so the standards, specially for women will remain soft.

Far Worse than Ezra wrote:

NERunner053 wrote:

This article was really good. This is a somewhat complex issue but there are definitely ways to boost the number of qualifiers and make it easy on race organizers.

http://www.fast-women.org/2020/02/10/my-case-for-large-olympic-marathon-trials-fields-in-2024-and-beyond/

It's not a complex issue except for relative slowpokes who want into an exclusive race. As for your "great" article -- is that a parody piece?

"Having a relatively easier standard keeps more women in the sport, or lures them back in, and that elevates the entire field."

This is pure garbage. So is the rest of it. Estrogen needs to be classified as a neurotoxin. No wonder the author chooses to remain anonymous.

Ahh, classic LRC.

As soft-ish Trials standard seems like one low-risk means of broad development. Not necessarily for any one athlete, but for US marathoning over time.

I agree that it is a problem that the best in the US are not reliably, substantially faster than 40 years ago. But since we do not know how to simply assemble a 2:02 marathoner in a vacuum, we should pursue many possible paths of development.

What evidence is there against cultivating a larger pool of B-level elite and sub-elite talent? It's low-cost to the governing bodies (lol, except Atlanta Track Club this year) and grows the sharper end of the broader sport. A 2:12 guy may never become world class himself. But a culture that produces tons of 2:12 guys could one day be a culture that produces tons of 2:10 guys, and then tons of 2:08...

Kenya has an endless list of people at every elite and sub-elite level. Why don't we try to fill in some of those categories that are less impressive than the world record and see what that does for us?

Wholesale national improvement is not a sprint. It's more like some other kind of much longer race.

old shoe wrote:

I gotta ask is this true; the USATF is going to push the standards to new qualifications of 2:12 for men and 2:32 for the women? Rumor or is this possibly true?

I am idiot for asking this. if this were the case 6 U.S. men would have the standard right now. I am sorry and everyone is much dumber now. Thank you.

2:12 is definitely too fast.

for the women 2:45 has been laughably slow for a long time. maybe could be more like 2:36-2:40.

Its just crazy that you have to run 2:18 as a guy, a borderline semi-pro time vs 2:45 as a women, a decent hobbyjogger time.

They should just make it Top 100 male and female times are in the trials! And if that's another arbitrary number, then change the number not the time. It should be a clear cut number, which will create a true competitive chase for those in the bottom 10%. Athletes will be "racing" the marathon creating a scarcity mentality that will bring the best out of our runners. The track trials have a set number, so why not the marathon...? I am also, aware that the track needs to have a set number due to the size of the track, however most of our meets and competitions thrive off of a set number of athletes rather than a specific number.

It's been all downhill since Lennon died wrote:

2:12 for the men would be silly. That would give us 18 men in the 2020 trials. 18 men would be a silly race.

I get the idea of limiting the field a little more, but you still have to have the field be big enough so it doesn't just look silly at the start line. 2:15 or 2:16 I could see being a more reasonable standard. 2:16 would give you 74 men this year. That's a reasonable field at least.

I'm all for large field but what you say isn't true. No one thought the Japanese trials "looked silly."

Watch the start of the Japanese trials below. What is silly about it?

The Japanese MGC race developed out of a fully different functioning structure. It was enabled by a strong corporate team structure and a massive bonus from the national federation for marathon NRs. We don't have either in the US and won't get there via wishful thinking. Without a huge base of talent pursuing the marathon, you don't see as many potential 2:10 types coming to the fore. It's not that 2:20 types tend to develop into 2:10 types, it's that the 2:20, 2:15, etc. types provide the basis for (underfunded) training groups, US-only prize purses, sponsorship expansion that keeps the 2:10 types in the sport longer or lures them away from being alsorans in track 10,000s toward marathon development and paydays. The Japanese have so many sub-2:10 performers because they keep them in the sport and develop them in the direction of the marathon. We don't have the corporate league structure they do as meaningful support today, tomorrow, or the day after that. Do you have the ability to snap your fingers and make it magically happen? If you did, we'd have an annual US list to rival Japan's. Just putting a standard out there doesn't just create the requisite support to get there. We have to employ other means to create a breeding ground for more sub-2:10 types. We didn't have that ca. 2000, you were around then and paying attention, yes?

Agreed, a small field size isn't ridiculous, it shows logic.

That said, the trials could just as easily be the top 100 times for a 12-18 month period, ending X weeks before the Games, with choices at the discretion of the US Olympic Committee (a clearly injured person would not get the spot, the next person down would).

This is probably pretty close to the men's field as it stands. The women's field is obviously going to be much larger, given that time.

I know nearly the entire field is of the Barney generation, where everyone must win, but this is crazy. The WR is 2:01, nearly all marathons are going 2:05 these days. A 2:19 guy is not going to medal, face it.

I don't love the thought of a bunch of people in the 80th-100th place on the rankings all having to hop in Houston marathon each Olympic Trials cycle to try to defend their position in case others bump them out at the last minute. Houston would love it, though.

boring, correct answer wrote:

I don't love the thought of a bunch of people in the 80th-100th place on the rankings all having to hop in Houston marathon each Olympic Trials cycle to try to defend their position in case others bump them out at the last minute. Houston would love it, though.

Agree, and it's not ideal to development (a significant factor USATF enables via OT standards) to employ an insecure qualifying process. If 100 truly is the goal, it's not too difficult to employ simple statistical modeling to arrive at a time standard that captures that size of field fairly closely. But just because that's the goal size -- self-styled as logical or sensible with little or no sound argument to back the assertion -- for a few LR posters doesn't mean it's a goal the serves the intended outcomes the two USATF committees each want to fulfill via the OT marathons. It's a number that looks good for the sake of being a round number, akin to 100 mpw as a superficial datum. There seems to be a sense that the OT is special in and of itself (and nobody is wrong for thinking so) and should be made "more special" just because it would satisfy feelings of militant defenders. This is the mindset that running D1 is always just automatically more special than running D2 and certainly more special than running D3 or NAIA. There's no nuance or advanced thought being applied to either situation, it's simply a drive to maintain or enhance perceived status.

A standard should be OQ, that makes complete sense.

2:11:30

2:29:30

Imagine the shoes come 2024, there might be hundreds making those standards.

Then B standard should maybe be 10% higher.

rojo wrote:

Watch the start of the Japanese trials below. What is silly about it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8dquJlgab0

Looks like the start of the Breaking 2 project. It doesn't look like a real "race" to me. But we seem to differ in opinion on this (and they still started that race with 30 and not 18 guys).

Regardless, I really don't see ANY harm in having a bigger field (within reason).

rojo wrote:

It's been all downhill since Lennon died wrote:

2:12 for the men would be silly. That would give us 18 men in the 2020 trials. 18 men would be a silly race.

I get the idea of limiting the field a little more, but you still have to have the field be big enough so it doesn't just look silly at the start line. 2:15 or 2:16 I could see being a more reasonable standard. 2:16 would give you 74 men this year. That's a reasonable field at least.

I'm all for large field but what you say isn't true. No one thought the Japanese trials "looked silly."

Watch the start of the Japanese trials below. What is silly about it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8dquJlgab0

Thx you for posting this video ...great footage !

There are many valid takes on this thread imo, but some perspective is needed.

This year 260 men have qualified to the olympic trials, based on either a half marathon or full marathon finish time. In 2019, it was estimated that roughly 1.2 million males ran a half marathon and that nearly a million US residents ran a turkey trot. I know that this isn't an apples to apples consideration, but one could definitely argue that every single one of these guys is conservatively in the top 0.00029% of US running as an entity. They are not regular runners and are certainly not regular people.

A difference in OTQ standards has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the US marathon olympic team. Galen Rupp is a 2:0X guy and whether he's on the starting line with 2:12 guys and 2:18 guys he's still a 2:0X guy.

Let's be honest, the Track and Field olympic trials are full of athletes with little shot at making the olympic team on paper. The 5000 auto standard is 13:28. In 2016, Hassan Mead, Paul Chelimo and Bernard Lagat would all go on to make the US team and all would run 13:07 or better that year, with Paul winning a silver medal in Rio. Did 13:30 man Reed Connor have a flipping chance in hell at making the olympic team? No, probably not. But a 13:30 5000 is indeed very fast, and I challenge anyone to tell me allowing him to race at Hayward "watered down" the event.

If not for tougher standards than what will enhance the depth of the OT beyond the 1972, 76, 80, 84 performance levels ?

Reed Connor ? 13:30, Steve Prefontaine ran 13:22.8 in 1972, Rupp doubled that when he set his usa 10,000m record. 13:30 is not a move forward now is it?