The standard was 2:19 in 1984. Think about it. The top 3 men in 1980 all ran under 2:11. What does that tell you?
Still think the marathon trials standards should be this easy?
Pro News/Info/Results
-
00
-
Exactly. Why are marathon standards so much easier than all the track standards? An OTQ for the marathon should be as rigorous as every other track event. In relation to the 10,000 OTQ vs the WR, the marathon OTQ should be around 2:10. Call me a sexist but the men’s OTQ should never be slower than the women’s WR.
00 -
In what why did a 2:19 runner or 2:45 interfere with the result on Saturday? That’s right they didn’t. End thread.
00 -
what way*
00 -
...this wrote:
2:17:30 & 2:32:15..done. Maybe 62:30 & 1:11:00 off the top of my head.
That would have missed at least one of the top 10 men. On the other hand, he probably would have run extra races to meet the standard.
00 -
Seems to me that the following should be the Standards -
Men
1:04:00 Half Marathon
2:18:00 Marathon
Women
1:12:30 Half Marathon
2:35:00 Marathon
00 -
Some of the slow men getting passed by the lead women impeded the female competitors very slightly. I felt shame for those guys.
00 -
lkj wrote:
Seems to me that the following should be the Standards -
Men
1:04:00 Half Marathon
2:18:00 Marathon
Women
1:12:30 Half Marathon
2:35:00 Marathon
Your women's full marathon standard is two minutes faster than the Olympic A-Standard.
00 -
And what's your point? So are many country's.
00 -
No, they didn't. I watched the race. They were not significantly in the way of the lead women. Furthermore, they did not change the RESULT of the women's race. Have you ever run a marathon where you had to pass people or back markers on a looped course? It is quite common actually.
00 -
GD wrote:
RPLong wrote:
Road racing is such a weird sport. It's the only sport in which the world's best -- the elite of the elite -- are expected to compete amid an enormous field of amateurs.
Can you imagine if the NBA worked this way? Everybody's dad got their participation medal and their guaranteed 5-on-5 match and a big "fitness expo" before the real NBA players came out and got to play a real game of professional basketball? It would be laughable.
Running is the only sport where people have this idea that slow-pokes like me are "just as important" as the world's greatest athletes. I would love it if that attitude died right along with participation medals and couch-to-5K programs. The whole sport needs an attitude adjustment.
In short, yes, the trials standard should be tightened. There should be one race out of a bazillion in which the focus and the spotlight is placed on the elites. Either that, or their needs to be a whole separate professional running circuit that weekend warriors don't get access to unless they qualify somehow. One or the other would fix the issue.
____________
So...running has an "enormous field of amateurs," not because they let sub-par people into the Olympic Trials, but because most of the competitors, except for the very best, are doing this without pay. A better analogy for the NBA would be taking away everybody's paycheck except for the All Stars. There's a huge difference between Lebron and the benchwarmers in the NBA, but the benchwarmers are light years beyond some guy off the street.
In other words, the marathon trials isn't letting hobby joggers into the race. It's just that running doesn't pay for people outside the top 15 or 20 in any given event.
^^This^^
00 -
Also, people thinking that the Trials are ONLY about the top 3 are wrong -- it's also about building the sport for the future. Somebody who finished down in the field could very well make the team in 2024 -- someone like Jake Riley who finished 15th in the 2016 Olympic Trials Marathon.
00 -
The fastest were on the front line but was it dictated or did they fight for their spots? I guess I am okay with expanding the field if they seed the runners.
00 -
Totally fine with the field size, great for the sport. 2:19 is not an easy thing to achieve .
Look at swimming, they will have over 100 in each event at nationals, many of the slower heats are swimmers on the way up and on the way down.
00 -
the trials are incredible the way they are.
i enjoy
00 -
illinoisjones wrote:
In what why did a 2:19 runner or 2:45 interfere with the result on Saturday? That’s right they didn’t. End thread.
Agree.
I also think there were some positives. People like CJ Albertson finishing in the top-10 & saying it was the 2:19 that kept him motivated after college. Running isn't like other sports. Elites run with the masses at the biggest events. Giving people a shot at getting better & sharing positive press coverage is a good thing for the sport. I feel like more eyes were on the front of the pack this year and I really think it's because a lot of the 2:18/2:44 types drove people to the event.
I don't get why this gets people so riled up.
00 -
colorunner123 wrote:
The "let everyone in" ethos is ridiculous. The "sub-elites need something to shoot for" attitude is absurd. This is not a fun run. It's not for hobby joggers. It's not for sub-sub-elites. And it's not for sub-elites. It's the frickin Olympic Trials. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS RACE IS TO PICK OUR OLYMPIC TEAM. Even 150 runners is too many. If you aren't in the top 100, you have no realistic shot at making the team and you shouldn't be getting in the way of the elite runners.
Didn’t the #139 female just make the Olympic team?
00 -
numb to numbers wrote:
The fastest were on the front line but was it dictated or did they fight for their spots? I guess I am okay with expanding the field if they seed the runners.
_________
They lined up groups at the start based on qualifying time.
00 -
And did they convert 1/2 marathons? Was Seidel in front?
00 -
numb to numbers wrote:
And did they convert 1/2 marathons? Was Seidel in front?
I think half marathoners were in the third corral, but I'll have to double check. I think it was top 15 or 20 in Group 1, remaining A qualifiers in Group 2, Top of B qualifiers and half marathoners in Group 3, and everybody else in Group 4. Nobody was policing the line-up, but they called Groups 1-4 in order and had people holding up big numbers. There was a small bottleneck very early in the race, but I can't imagine that any of the top runners were negatively affected by it.
I didn't see anything to suggest that the big field size was a problem. I'm sure it was a ton of work for the organizers, but the race was incredible. There were lots of spectators along the entire route, and the area near the start/finish was packed. This was a huge improvement on the LA Trials. The Atlanta Track Club did a stellar job, but I also think the big field added excitement and spectators.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.