I would say that 90% of the people running in the Olympic Trials marathon know that they have absolutely no chance of making the team. A lot of people barely qualified with the "B" standard, and know that they can't improve more than a few minutes on that time, which will not get them close to the leaders. The "B" standard could easily be eliminated and it wouldn't change the team selection in the least.
Josh Cox will also not make the team, nor will most people. Do you suggest we make the standard the Olympic A standard. Then we can have all 10 or so run on the track or around a farm field in Kansas!
So? For those guys, the Olympic Trials marathon is their ultimate goal. They get a chance to race with the best and they are good enough to deserve that. The B standard guys are paying their way anyway, so what's the problem?
There's no problem. But it does diminish the significance of the event. Why not just make the standard 2:30 for men and 3:00 for women and have several hundred running.
why have B standards for the track races also while you are at it?Each race should only have 5 people in it.
realfan144 wrote:
There's no problem. But it does diminish the significance of the event. Why not just make the standard 2:30 for men and 3:00 for women and have several hundred running.
Webber Grill wrote:
Based on that, he does have a point. If they're gonna accept 10000 times, they should accept half marathons.
The 5/10k standard was instituted to entice track guys (like the Torres Bros., Fam, etc.) to give it a shot w/o sacrificing the track training to focus on the roads. They don't really want pure roadies who haven't run a legitimate marathon in the past 2 yrs.
Remember, even decades later the legacy of Grete Waitz, who was a 1500/3k/XC specialist coming in cold and setting the WR at NYCM still resonates in the psyche of all NYRR minions. They keep hoping to catch lightning in a bottle again (hence Ritz, Kennedy, et al).
Snoochie Boochie wrote:
I agree they should have a 1/2 marathon standard but what's keeping everyone from doing Fontana Days 1/2 marathon (2000 feet drop) and getting an easy 1:04 or 1:05?
I wouldn't have a big problem with a half-marathon qualifying standard, but it have to be on a certified AND record-quality course -- no goofy Fontana Days times allowed. And the standard would have to be considerably tougher than the marathon standard -- probably somewhere near 64 flat. Frankly, I think that someone like Josh, even at his peak, would find it tougher and ultimately more disruptive of his marathon training to try to hit a fast half-marathon or 10,000 time rather than a 2:22 marathon. As I recall, Josh's best half-marathon time was just under 64 on a downhill course in Las Vegas, and I don't think that he ever ran a 28:45 10,000, so he should just focus on putting in the miles and running a comfortable training effort at Chicago. An even-paced 2:22 shouldn't be a major effort if he's in decent shape, and shouldn't require much recovery time afterwards.
On the somewhat related issue of the B standard, I would be inclined to eliminate it, and go back to the single 2:20 standard that was in place for the 1988 and 1992 trials. If you give people enough lead time to adjust their sights to meeting the tougher standard, many of them will do it, instead of committing themselves to sliding under 2:22. To me, the only downside would be that more decent runners might end up running bogus downhill marathons like the 2006 Austin Marathon, but that didn't seem to be a huge problem when the single standard was 2:20. If the incentives are in place for running quality times in quality races, the performances will follow.
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
So? For those guys, the Olympic Trials marathon is their ultimate goal. They get a chance to race with the best and they are good enough to deserve that. The B standard guys are paying their way anyway, so what's the problem?
good observation. When I was trying to qualify for the trials, you had to run faster than 2:19:04, just to make it into the trials. I had a 223 pr the year before and was trying to qualify just so I could say I 'made the O.Trials'. (I crashed and burned in a couple of attempts-but you are right. Even if I would have run a 218:54 and made the trials, I would have had no chance to run a 212 or faster and make the team. I knew that). What is this 'b standard' you reference; isn't it just one time to beat, to make the trials race?
Here's my take. If he is going to contend for a spot on the Olympic team, he would need to be in 2:08-2:09 shape. I'm not saying that is what it will take to qualify since the course will be challenging and it will likely be a somewhat tactical race. However, the people in contention would likely be in shape to run 2:08 on a fast course. So, if he is in that type of shape, a 2:20 a Chicago should just be a hard effort 4 weeks before the trials, which seems like pretty good timing. However, if he is sick or slightly injured around Chicago, his chances decrease. Of course, he could also run a 28:45 sometime in September to get ready.
AJT wrote:
Here's my take. If he is going to contend for a spot on the Olympic team, he would need to be in 2:08-2:09 shape. I'm not saying that is what it will take to qualify since the course will be challenging and it will likely be a somewhat tactical race. However, the people in contention would likely be in shape to run 2:08 on a fast course. So, if he is in that type of shape, a 2:20 a Chicago should just be a hard effort 4 weeks before the trials, which seems like pretty good timing. However, if he is sick or slightly injured around Chicago, his chances decrease. Of course, he could also run a 28:45 sometime in September to get ready.
Read the thread. He's never done 28:45.
Maybe he should run sub 222 at Quad Cities Marathon. That would give him six weeks.
I realize he's never run 28:45. However, to be in the shape he would need to be in to compete for a spot, I would think he would have to be able to run 28:45 for 10K.
Josh Cox PR's
10,000m 29:57
Half Marathon 1:04:01 LasVegas
Ronald McD wrote:
Josh Cox PR's
10,000m 29:57
Half Marathon 1:04:01 LasVegas
say what? if those are his prs, then why are we even talking about the guy. there are plenty of guys out there who can run those times, and, by the way; the las vegas course is known as an infamously fast course with downhill start to finish elevation. Not a 'true' 1/2 pr. more like 1:05 on your typical course; still admirable but hardly worthy of a 6 page thread. I heard if the pilot he was part of, got picked up, he was through with running seriously anyway.
I was just posting PRs. Not trying to sway things one way or another. And 2:13:55 in 2000. I hope he makes it...I hope everyone makes it.
http://www.coolrunning.com/results/02/nv/Feb3_36thLa_set3.html
Word on the street is that Ryan Hall has joined Dan Brown, Meb, and Josh Cox in Mammoth Lakes. Sounds like a fun training group.
Oh...there is also a rumor that Josh got engaged to his Katie Holmes look-alike girlfriend recently.
pics
They did get engaged. Congrats to the ridiculously good-looking couple.
Josh Cox got engaged? At 32, he's finally going to get laid. I doubt he's keeping up with any of those guys in workouts. He's only there because he's friends with Dan. No way he finishes in the top 10.
Why so presumptuous?