Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

The only problem with a 2:30 Marathon standard is that it will cause complacency among marathoners. If the Trials standard was 2:30, I would have already stopped training long ago for achieving my dream. However, the current standard allows for an amazing amount of effort to be put into training and racing to perhaps have that amazing run.

Imagine if Dick Beardsley would have known the standard was 2:30 instead of 2:21:59 when he ran 2:31. He might have just stopped since the Trials was his dream and he would have nailed it and went back to farming.

I just think more guys would quit running earlier due to the relaxed standard.

No friend, your analogy is specious.

what difference does it make or harm does it cause to have a relaxed standard if it generates money for the race organizers and could possibly encourage 1-5 new legitimate marathoners who wouldn't otherwise be there? there seems to be no true downside of doing this. I don't buy that a relaxed standard will cause a regression of effort among those who would normally be there under the sub 2:22 standard, especially if there is a tiered support and entry fees as many have discussed thus far. I do think that there are some who are short of the 2:22 standard, but under 2:30 might get a taste of things and put their lives on hold to train their ASSES off for a few years and see how far they might go. I just don't buy the downside of doing this.

2:30 standard will raise awareness of our sport.

I mean, come on, we'll have a hotness thread on the Men's Olypmic Trials.

It'll be like that Danika thing with the Go-Carts in Ohio, or Illinois, or Indiana or wherever that race is.

Well, since a handful of babes will be in the race.

My brother disagrees with me though. He claims that we should take the previous years fastest time in the World Posted by a for a Master Woman, subtract ten minutes, and you have your standard. His theory is: if you can't beat someone's grandmother by ten minutes you should not want your name in the paper anyhow.

I am petitioning to eliminate "punching in the face" at the uS Olympic Boxing Trials, "it'll inspire more kids to stay in the game!"

I still like the notion of a two or even three tiered system, of a 2:30/3:00 getting in the Trials with no funding. They don't have to pay an entry, just get there.

It encourages people just leaving school to take a chance on the sport, and it promotes their efforts. What is wrong with that? Nothing, it is what we want, right? And so far I have seen nothing in these threads that is really so bad about this, other than that it'll take more race organization to pull it off right.

I don't like the 100th best time idea, because it is a moving target, and the press cannot latch onto it like a specific time goal. Being able to promote the sport is important to its future and this is a great way to do it.

Anyone have a list for 2005?

What was the 100th (old school) fastest time in 2005?

scotth wrote:

No friend, your analogy is specious.

Yes, it was...but only in equal proportion to your own sarcastic analogy.

You're twisting my words here Scott. You specifically stated that media interest wasn't important. In fact you said that spectators and media interest don't make an event. Quite simply, I think you'll agree that if there was zero media interest and zero spectators, there would not be an event. Not in the current set up. USATF demands a prize purse and ammenities package worth over a million dollars. Now if you do away with that you can have a stand alone event where the athletes make the event. But if that were the case, who would give a damn? Other than a few die hard fans and the 50 or 60 participants. Someone else backed your point up by saying something like "spectators aren't important, you can stay at home and watch it on TV." No media interest??? Then no TV....

When I refer to prestige, I actually refer to the internal sense of accomplishment. You are incorrect if you don't think it is a greater accomplishment to run 2:22. And while I agree that there is no greater prestige amongst the American public, I don't think any of us chose running for the publicity (or to pick up women for that matter).

the iaaf 100th best mens marathon on a non aided (downhill) course was 2 hours 10 minutes and 59 seconds, meb was the only american on the list as his time in new york made him the 62nd fastest marathoner of the year.

wineturtle wrote:

Build a Marathon Trials course that EXACTLY mimics the profile,location and temps of the Olympic course......YES!!!

trainerman wrote: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

A problem in this country (federation) is that a few individuals and the athletes are in complete control of all that happens. Don't think for a second that you as an individual association rep. on the national level can get anything accomplished. After the 2000 games the athletes decided that the two most important aspects of the trials were: #1) PRIZE MONEY!!!!!

2) A fast course

The real reason we have not deviated from our selection process is fear of litigation. If we had a group of selectors , as most countries do, they'd be in worse shape than Sadaam's judge and jury.

I guess I will be in the minority here, but I have to agree with Malmo on this one. And, I’m coming into the thread having never run the Olympic Qualifying standard. I’m not sure that I would say that 2:30 marathoners are “weekend warriors” or draw comparisons between them and the local Kiwanis’s flag football team, but perhaps comparing them to very good college football players who went undrafted after their college careers were over. However, I’m not sure Malmo meant what he said quite as literally as everybody assumed; rather, I think he was simply trying to make a point. But, I'm not here to defend Malmo, I just happen to agree with him.

To me, the 2:20 – 2:22 range seems just about right to me in order to qualify for the Olympic Trials marathon. I say it is right for the following reason – a lot of people (whether they realize it or not) have the ability/capacity to run that time. There are lots of very talented runners who if they would stay with it after college, increase their mileage slightly, add long runs to their training regimen, and keep doing workouts once a week would be able to hit that standard. Conversely, there are many not so talented runners who, if they increase their mileage to 120-130-140/week, train their ass off for a few years, increase the distance/quality of their long runs, and keep doing workouts once a week would be able to hit that standard. I think “LOGIC” was making a similar point earlier in this thread about all of the SEC XC runners who could qualify.

I happen to fall into the category of not so talented runner. At one point in time, I wanted to try and make the standard. I trained my ass of week after week, running 120’s for months on end and then running 140’s for about 5 weeks. I ended up getting injured, but one thing I learned is that even if I wouldn’t have made the standard, I would have been close. And, that should provide all of the “inspiration” that I or anybody else would need. And, because the standard was very difficult, yet at the same time very achievable, it seems to be a GREAT standard that maintains a certain level of prestige. After I got injured, I went back to working full-time for personal/family reasons and didn’t continue to pursue my efforts to reach that standard. There is a big piece of me that has always regretted that decision, but lowering the qualifying standard would have done nothing to change that decision. In fact, lowering the standard might have “cheapened” it to the point where it might not seem as worthy of a goal. Again, the standard seems very difficult, yet also achievable. It is very hard, but not impossible. That seems to be the essence of a great goal (think about beating your own best PR – very difficult, yet achievable). If the Standard was 2:30, I would have achieved it long ago (along with tons of others) and it would have been no big deal…no great accomplishment.

It may seem like I am relying solely upon my own personal experience to make conclusions about a Standard that impacts many runners. But, I’ve seen (and see now) others that view the standard in a similar fashion. For example, I’ve got a very good friend who ran at the same college as I where he was a multi-time All-American in cross country. He’s tried to make that Standard three times now and has narrowly missed each time. He’s got one more shot to do it, and that has kept him working hard every day for the past 10 years. If the Standard was 2:30, he would have reached that his first year out of college and I’m not certain he would have kept at it (or at least kept at it with the same rigor) for such an extended period of time.

An old high school rival of mine went from being a good high school runner to a good collegiate runner, to a very good post-collegiate runner that was able to just slip in under 2:22 and make the qualifying time in 2004. He shared his training log with me. In looking through it, it became clear that he made a several year commitment to reaching that Standard. He took his training to a whole different level – both quantity and quality and it paid off for him. He was able to reach that very difficult, yet achievable goal. If the goal was 2:30, he would have reached it without every having to make that “big jump” in his training and he wouldn’t have been forced to make a total commitment to reaching the Standard. Since reaching the Standard, he’s continued to improve and now runs for one of those Elite Training Groups referenced by Orville earlier in this thread. If the Standard was 2:30, he would have never run 2:21:56.

Somehow, many on this thread seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is the qualifier for the Olympics. Maybe we’ve lost sight of what it means to be an Olympian (not that I know, I’ve only ever read (and dreamt) about such things). This is not a qualifying standard for Boston or for some other race…it is a qualifying standard for the Olympic Marathon trials. IMHO, the ONLY thing that they should change about the Trials is the timing of it. I hate the fact that it forces our nation’s best runners to double peak (once for the Trials and once for the Olympics). I would NOT advocate changing the Standard. The sole goal of the Olympic Trials qualifying standard should be that it is very difficult, yet achievable. Personally, I think it is just that.

Hoovis

I am glad to see you agree with me Hoovis.

A bit of advice that was given to me and I give to others younger than I: Go to good races and try to win, the times will come.

There are all sorts of marathons around, all sorts of great races accessible to all, enter them, try to win or climb to that level. Focusing on time is simply not the best way to approach this sport, training to race people is.

Hoovis 2 wrote:

I hate the fact that it forces our nation’s best runners to double peak (once for the Trials and once for the Olympics). I would NOT advocate changing the Standard.

Hoovis

Wouldn't lowering the standard to 2:30 solve the problem of double-peaking?

Well said Hoovis.

And if you are who I think you are, congrats on the good running you did this year. You raised your game again and it was noticed by many. Better things to come in 2006.

The Olympic trials marathon is more than a race to select the best marathoners to represent the U.S. at the Olympics. It is a way to make money for USATF. By lowering the standard and charging an entry fee USATF would raise more interest and money. If you really think that the trials isn't for development then why not have 2:10-12 as the standard. Because lets face it you haven't run 2:10-12 you aren't going to beable to compete against guys that have run 2:04-7. So I really do think it is for development.

I actually think we should have no standard. Just make Twin Cities,Chicago,New York, or Boston the Trials race and take the top three Americans. None of this criterium course, little marathon crap. If they really want more interest have the race get attention at a big race against real(African) competition. That is what we do every year with the U.S. Champs at Twin Cities anyway. So why switch it for the trials?

I don't have time to read all the posts in the thread so forgive me if anything I say repeats something that was said before.

In the brief time that I had to scan the other posts, one thing caught my attention: claims that lowering the standard to 2:30 would cause logistical headaches.

I'm sorry, but what kind of hapless organization is USATF if they can't pull off a 250 person marathon? How many Joe Blow marathons are there in the US with more than 250 participants? How many Turkey Trot 10ks are there with 1000 participants? If the USATF can't manage such an event, then that says a lot about what kind of organization they are.

I would bet that my own podunk hometown could put the Olympic Trials on with strictly volunteer support. Make a 6 mile loop course with aid stations at the mile markers and 4 laps (of the course) plus a finish on a high school track. With 250 competitors, you need only the same staff that pulls off any typical 250 person 10k (but they have to man the aid stations for 3 hours instead of 30 minutes). They have to have 4 times as many cups at the stations, but they have 30+ minutes to refill them each time the runners go by. You have no increased need for port-a-johns. No extra cops (they just have to shut the road down for a longer amount of time).

Who the F*** needs a goodie bag? Goodie bags are put together by sponsors...an advertising gimmick...if USATF is paying for them they are retarded!

What ever happened to 250 people, a start line, a finish line, and a watch? Why do we need to pamper ourselves with goodie bags, post-race luncheons, pre-race luncheons, and a media circus? Anyone who is serious about running can show up to a cheesy footrace and compete. All we need is someone to tell us when to show up at the line. This extra bullcrap became a part of roadracing when the fatso tourist runners started racing. All the frilly shit is there to lure in these people. Real competitors will race their next-door-neighbor down the street barefoot for a nickel and the bragging rights...they don't need a free shirt and complimentary massage to get them in the race. I wouldn't even need a goddamn shirt to tell everyone I ran in the Trials...if I was in the Trials I'd tell everyone with my mouth. Do they need trophies? HELL NO! If you win the trials, you're going to the Games, baby...who needs a goddamn piece of wood to tell people you're a stud? You're on TV for god sakes!

what a second. aren't you contradicting yourself? if your high school mate pushed himself to get under the 2:22 mark and is now pushing himself to get even better, who's to say that someone getting under the 2:30 mark, and thus able to participate in a competition such as the Oly Trials, isn't going to bust his hump to get his time under 2:22 and when he meets that goal, push himself even further. your logic is flawed.if the point is to encourage and develop talent, the standard showed be relaxed a bit.