Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

I was in Helsinki running on the course at the time of the men's marathon. It was not an easy course. It had many dips and twists and turns. I found the sun a little too hot and the weather too humid. I was uncomfortable and only ran a short way.

Bringing up another point. Many of our top runners are not racers. Like Paula who, until recently, opted to run time trials on very flat, fast courses.

Runningart2004 wrote:SNIP>

What some are failing to grasp is this:

The problem is that the marathon is unlike any race they've ever run. It has a long learning curve. Few runners want to put in the miles needed to run a decent marathon.Snip .Alan

I believe the poster child for growing into the Marathon should be Tom Fleming... 2:35 ish 2nd in NY as a schoolboy develops into 2:12 runner.BTW he has said out of the 60= M's he ran he only "got it right" 6 or 7 times.

Antonio Rodriguez wrote:

At the Athens Olympics, they gave out six marathon medals and the United States won two of them. That's a pretty damn good showing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. did not get a single man into the 800m or 1500m finals, and only one (Tim Broe) into the 5000m final.

The marathon trials aren't the problem.

Antonio

That pretty much somes it up. Game, set, match. You win. Thread over. The rest is just bitter people arguing the same thing over and over because they like to see their name in print.

Malmo, do not be coy, you and I both know that 2:12 is damn good. However, I agree with you that the trials are fine the way they are, and I ran 2:23 last. So I WOULD benefit from the change. But I think the trials should have around 100 athletes running in it. If that means the "B" standard is 2:22, great. If that means it is 2:26 great, same goes if it ends up being 2:17. But I think we do not want the race to be any smaller than 100 athletes.

If I am saying do not change the trials then what is the answer to developing the sport...that is the million dollar question.

I believe where we are failing is at the local level developing talent. The USATF Junior system is almost non-existant on the west coast. I thnk we need to focus on how to get AND KEEP kids running.

Perhaps if the junior system was more present than we could have kids coming into high school as experienced runners.

I think if we want to do better on the world scene we need to adhere to the 10%/1% rule. Get 100 kids out and 10 will good and 1 will be great.

Now, how do we develop the junior system better.

Everyone here has valid opinions. Here is mine.

I don't believe that lowering an already reasonably attainable standard is the solution to improving the problem of having fewer quality marathoners than in the past. Also, comparing difficulty of the time and numbers of runners achieving times, it seems there are similar numbers of runners in the 2:25-2:30 range as in the 2:20-2:25 range. I have not looked at any lists to prove this, but I think the difference is not that much. The problem is more based on wanting too much and not making the sacrifices that are needed to achieve their dreams and goals. If you believe the current standard is too tough for you and you are unwilling to put the work in to get there, I'm sorry you are not Olympic Trials material. Goals should be set beyond these standards decided by others who are not even our peers. We should be aiming to improve our times until we are unable to physically do so.

However, I do think that the Olympic Trials could be improved. I think that the head-to-head race is still the fairest way. My suggestions are as follows:

1) Get the best athletes for the conditions, by simulating the course and conditions. The Olympic Games sites have been decided nearly 8 years in advance. Why can't we get the Olympic Trials site set any earlier? For example, in August of 2007, run the Olympic Trials qualifier in LA. It will be hot like Beijing and the pollution levels will also be similar. There are affordable accomodations and abundant cheap flights into the city, too. Also, try to make it in conjunction with a race to appease the sub-2:30 runner who needs the extrinsic motivation of rubbing shoulders with a group of athletes just faster than them. This will also give them a chance at interacting with athletes who are achieving what they want to. At the same time it will give them a concrete and lasting image/goal to mind as they shoot for a race 4 years down the road. Keep the standards as they are.

2) Marathon development is not confined to a lack of drive, but also the lack of funding. The lack of funding may be due to many reasons. We need to continue grass roots efforts to develop excitement about the sport on many levels. If our governing board can't do it, maybe we need to take on more effort ourselves in marketing our sport. Flamboyance and uniqueness of athletes such as Gabe Jennings should not be dettered, but encouraged. This will only help bring in more people into the sport. Although the environment is not as supporting as that of a country like Japan, why can't we have corporate sponsored teams. This leads me to my second suggestions of having the trials scored as a team competition to be held conjunctively with the trials. This would create more excitement, as Americans seem to like team sports more than individual sports. Athletes should be able to brandish any logo of any business they like as long as that business is supporting the athlete and isn't exploiting them. Screw the USATF and USOC. WHat have these bureaucracies done to improve the sport anyway?

I'm done for now, but will continue later...

Good point and something I forgot to mention.

It is ridiculous that the marathon trials does not mimic the actual Olympic course.

In a country as vast as ours we should be able to duplicate nearly any course/conditions in the world.

-out

ray wrote:

Scott, just to play devils advocate.....wouldn't a race with 200 people draw more spectator/media interest than a race with 80-90? I fought for a lowering of the women's standard in 2000 and 2004. I also saw the spectator and media support at those trials.

Very sad.

Some would say that development doesn't belong in the trials. But hey, if it belongs in the games, why not the trials?

Would more runners draw more media interest? Perhaps, but so what? Is that how you gauge the success of an event or the efforts of the participants? Is the Chicago Marathon any less an event because I don't get to see it on tv? Is NYC a better event because it receives tape-delayed, same day coverage?

I don't care how much media interest there is for the OTrials. We are spoiled in this instant access world and practically expect and associate importance to televised or amply covered events. It isn't the spectators or media support that makes a Trials...the athletes are THE story & they write it w/their feet.

Okay...it's impossible to say whether the Trials would be a better race if there were more runners. I think not but speculators may differ. Fine. The Trials are held to select our Oly Team. Per development: start hitting the roads friends, put your time in, set your sights toward whatever the standards are!

scotth wrote:

I don't care how much media interest there is for the OTrials.

Then you don't care about getting enough sponsorship dollars to stage them. Sponsors put money behind sports properties which get significant national and international attention. No sponsorship = no Trials.

BTW, the $250,000 prize money purse is a big hurdle for potential race organizers. Is it really necessary if the prize is making the Oly Team?

TW

Antonio Rodriguez wrote:

At the Athens Olympics, they gave out six marathon medals and the United States won two of them. That's a pretty damn good showing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. did not get a single man into the 800m or 1500m finals, and only one (Tim Broe) into the 5000m final.

The marathon trials aren't the problem.

Antonio

Repost on the Rehash Thread wrote:

That pretty much somes it up. Game, set, match. You win. Thread over. The rest is just bitter people arguing the same thing over and over because they like to see their name in print.

I see that we have another Dale Carnegie graduate in our midst.

That being said, needless to say winning two medals in the Athens marathon races was an impressive showing. However, as long as Repost has resorted to childish trash talking, I will ask a simple question in return:

Is there something about the original proposal within this thread that emphasizes "building for the future" and "increasing our depth" that is difficult to comprehend? In your case, the answer appears to be a resounding YES!

Scott, I can't believe that you can think it's ok for an OT race to have a budget of well over a million dollars, but media coverage isn't important. Who do you know that has that much spare change around? Let's face the facts here people it's ALL about the money. The usatf bid document pretty much demands a budget of over a million.

In addition, sad to say, there is no way that anyone from usatf is going to give any credence to anything anybody has to say on this board.

Final point, the survey that Elizabeth Phillips is referring to as WLDR's "beacon" was slightly flawed in that less than 15% of the paticipants even responded. That would make all that rhetoric statistically invalid.

trainerman,

I agree that the Olympic Trial Course and conditions should duplicate those to take place in the Olympics.

I find it interesting that the only team that was prepared properly for Athens was the US thus two medals. The support group arond those medal winners did a fantastic job. They really did their homework and deserve our congratulations. I hope future Olympic team members copy that excellent job.

Cmon guys. You can't possibly be arguing that because Meb and Deana had such a good showing that the state of US marathoning is OK? And prior to 2004, the last good showing was......

Perhaps this is the start of a new era, or perhaps it's a fluke. Time will tell.

Malmo, Do you really think that 2:30 guys running in the trials will hurt the trials? Please, you think that it will hurt the prestige of the race. You like to come on to threads and bring them down. Saying things like I ran this back in the day. So freaking what. The trials race is a poor way of selecting the team. Why do you think that other countries don't use it? Hmm... maybe because they want a team that has to prove itself in real race conditions like Boston. Or maybe so we don't have a Rod DeHaven incident where the trials race ends up so slow that you can't have anybody run but one guy. Now you say well what does all that have to do with allowing more slow 2:30 marathoners into the race. You can add a few things like guys that are pacers for the first half to 2/3rds of the race and can make the pace honest. You take a guy that is a 29 minute 10k guy and have him run a 2:30 training run marathon. That gets him into the trials and he can go out and pace the lead group out at 2:10 pace. Or possibly add the extra money generated from bringing 300+ people at $100 per entry fee. That would at least pay for all the prize money. Finally, someone will come in and run 2:12-15 off a 2:30 p.r. and make an incredible underdog story for the ages. What do they have to lose by letting in 2:30 guys? I say nothing. Also isn't a 2:30 really about equal to what the women's B standard is anyway?

Oh jeez, I think if anything the standard is too lenient. In the track events, they take like the best 32 times. So why don't we do that for the marathon? If we take anymore than 50 people, I think that is way too many. Why make it easier for marathoners?

Reading is Good wrote:

Why make it easier for marathoners?

Why not?

Want to regress briefly: ray, you say development is part of the Oly Games. I must've missed your example; care to explain that one, please?

Do potential sponsors base their decision, in part, on the size of the OTrials field? That seems to be what you're saying, that they do. I'd guess potential sponsors base their decision on a bundle of reasons but don't think they'd be blind to the weaker standard that might inflate field size. And let's be straight up here, whoever wins the bid will have to come up w/the needed funds regardless of the field size. Doesn't matter if it might be easier to raise the funds if somebody thinks bigger might translate to more exposure. You win the bid, you come up w/the money.

Bum wrote:

Reading is Good wrote:

Why make it easier for marathoners?

Why not?

Sure, what the hey, let's lower our standards to 2:37:16, 6 min miles for men & 3:03:24, 7 min miles for women. Those times should entice/encite lots of interest & development would be around the corner! We'd possibly have another 25% reach those times and, well, that's good, right? Attract more interest from runners, fans and sportswriters? Be proof we can do it when inspired, right?

Yes, we can do it when inspired so all 2:30 & 3:00 marathoners should aim a little higher for the standards already in place.

Well Scott, perhaps we should aim a little higher. Allow me to paraphrase your philosophy so that it's even more effective...

Does that sound about right, Scott? I mean, a young man who has run 2:22 obviously has no business being in the Olympic Trials race, so if he doesn't stand a realistic chance of finishing in the "top 3" he can watch the race on TV just like the rest of us!

There are perhaps, at best, only about a dozen U.S. men with a chance to even try to run with a lead pack at the Olympics; and mainly I am thinking of sub-2:13 men and perhaps sub-27:40 10k men. And those folks would have to step up a good quantum from those levels before the Olympics. Anything we include in the Trials beyond this dozen or so has very little chance of impacting the Olympics. If we want to focus solely on this group, it would make more sense to run a Japanese system and focus on performances in major marathons and settle this with a committee.

I think much of the back-n-forth here stems from the assertion that our Olympic Marathon Trials are somehow good and valuable in some intangible ways: it is a VERY democratic way of selecting a team, and it tends to be a great race. But including anything in the Trials beyond about a dozen guys is filler. This thread started with an assertion that something positive can be made with these runners who have little chance.

I agree, and at some level I think anyone who would include more than those dozen or so guys in the trials agrees in kind; beyond those dozen, we're just arguing where to place the cut-off for guys to tell their friends and grandkids "I ran the Trials": at 100 guys, 250, 1000?

Myself, I like the field size of about 250; of whom almost 240 will have no chance. And I've seen some good ideas here I hadn't considered. My version of ones I like:

1). Open it to runners with a 10k of, say, 28:00 or a half-marathon of 1:03:00.

2). Have that 20 mile race 3 months earlier, and the top 10 (or 20, or whatever) placers there make the Trials. Open that race to anyone with a 2:30 marathon or a 1:12 half; no financial support, $500 entry fee (or maybe $100 for runners under 25, just to encourage the young ones). Now THAT would be a helluva race.

3). The non-subsidized cut-off can be 2:22 or 2:30 or whatever, because NONE of the guys slower than about 2:13 has a chance. At this point, we're just arguing about how good a guy has to be to say "I ran the Trials," conceptually no different from the cut-off other no-chance runners use to say "I ran Boston." For my two-cents worth, putting this cut-off wherever we get about 250 runners is about fine. And if it's 2:24 and this motivates a bunch of extra guys to run faster and we have 500 guys at the start, then no real harm is done, whether or not we think one of those thus-motivateds will someday run 2:06. Any marathon course that can handle 250 can handle 500. And we can lower it back down to, what, 2:20 next time.

4). A real sweeper van: anyone dropping back to 2:40 (or 2:30?) pace gets pulled. We're not going to have the volunteers out there all day with traffic tied up waiting for someone to walk in.