Watching the Olympic Trials is fun but they aren't a good way to pick a team. They should get rid of it. No top Marathoner should have to peak twice in quick succession, it's not conducive to success at the Olympics.
I like the olympic trials because you don't just want the person who ran a good race in the past 12 months, you want to send the person who is competing well right NOW (a month before for the track events and six months before for the marathon). If you go based on who has the fastest times of the season you could have someone who generally isn't as good but had one race where the stars aligned. Yes you could technically have that at the trials, but it's less likely that the trials was their magical day than one of many opportunities during the rest of the 12-18 months before the trials.
There are valid arguments for both sides. In 1984 Seb Coe did not make the British team at the trials. The selectors picked him anyway and he and they were roundly criticized and then he won the 1500 Gold.
The worst thing that has happened for the marathon at least, is cutting the field from traditionally 120 athletes to 80.
Got to make sure we get enough skateboarders and team sports in.
Yep. Let's cut the distance running fields down to the absolute minimum and make sure that you have to be a world class machine to make the Olympics all the while they hold an entire tournament for 7 a side rugby teams with not even comparable levels of talent or dedication.
Limiting each country to three, World Athletics will just keeping going down the rankings list until they’ve filled the field. I’d be surprised if the Americans don’t send a full set.
What it does do, however, is create a situation where the final team won’t be known for some time.
The only way I see someone from the top 3 not making it is if they didn't run any halfway decent half marathon/marathon races in the entire year of 2023 and then somehow place top 3 with a time slower than the 2:08:10 olympic standard. For marathon you need two scores to get a ranking. If someone had a 2:13 or better plus a 2:11 or faster top 3 finish at the trials it is likely good enough to make it. But if someone DNF every race in 2023, but qualified for the trials from a race in 2022, they would need to run another respectable race sometime in 2024 before the submissions are made (I believe this has to be right after our trials will be held for track and field) to get a ranking. Let's say hypothetically they place 3rd in 2:10:45 and get some bonus points that make it equivalent to a 2:09 with no bonus points, they would need to run either another 2:13 marathon or a 61 minute half marathon somewhere to qualify. So really if you want to qualify but can't hit the 2:08:10 then you need to have a respectable marathon performance (2:13 or better or 61 half) from 2023 plus finish top 3 at the trials. The US will likely have 20+ guys in this situation and a couple people with the sub 2:08:10 (assuming someone like Rupp/Mantz/Korir or a couple other people may be able to hit this next fall). A 2:12:00 marathon in 2023 plus a 2:11:30 or better 3rd place finish at the trials will be enough to qualify by ranking, I'll bet some money on that. The faster they run at the trials allows for a more polarizing second best performance. For example a 2:09:30 3rd place trials finish could allow for only a 2:14 second best performance and still be fine by ranking.
Theoretically an athlete can make the US Marathon Team by having never run a marathon before the Trials if: he/she made the OTM by the half standards, then finished in the top 3 with a time of under 2:11:30/2:29:30. As long as there are other USA athletes who made the Olympic standard (time), or finished in the top 5 Platinum Level Marathon, or in the top 80% of rankings as of Jan. 30, 2024....one week before the OTM.
But I highly suggest that anyone really wanting to make the team run a fast marathon (sub 2:11:30/2:39:30) before the Trials just in case the weather is not favorable at the Trials.
I am not American so please excuse if I am not in possession of all of the information that you have.
Can you tell me where the 2.11.30/2.29.30 times come from, or are they just benchmarks of your own opinion ?
Can you explain why you think a US athlete running just under those times would be able to be selected ? Surely that is likely to be too slow to gain an IAAF invite based on Ranking Points ? I thought the Ranking Points invites are personal to the specific athlete and not awarded to a Federation for use as they wish.
Perhaps I am talking nonsense, but hopefully you can explain where I am going wrong.
Why wouldn't one of the top athletes in the world be able to get into a World Athletics sanctioned meet?
How many people want to run a diamond league and how many of them actually get to run one?
Athletes who are already stablished have a much easier path to international meets than athletes who rise one year and dont have the connections to run in good meetings. For me this method is pretty unfair
You’re all forgetting that indoors counts for rankings, and some meets have ridiculous bonus points. This benefits the US and Europe more than anyone.
For example - winning the 3000 at Millrose gives a massive points score. So American athletes running indoors will get more than enough opportunities to score points without necessarily needing the DL.
The new standards have completely destroyed national level meets here in Australia.
One of the major drawcards for athletes was to go after the standards at such meets. It was also a big spectacle for fans to watch as local athletes did so.
Now, they're so far out of reach that these meets seem to lack any significance.
I guess that they are pretty much going all in with the stupid random point system which nobody understands
I was looking at the throwing standards and man, they are laughably high. Like the discus standard. Based on the 2020 finals, only two men had performances in that final that meet the new standard. The entire thing is silly.
The men's 10,000m standard is 15 seconds faster than the Australian record.
Other than Conner Mantz, who can meet the marathon standard?
Probably a few. People tend to rise to standards. Rupp and Mantz for sure can reach it, Fauble has a PB that is very close which is from a hilly course, he goes to a flat race and he probably gets the standard. Then there's outsiders like Frank Lara, who ran most of Chicago with Mantz before blowing up, he's close. There'll be surprised over the next year as well. Maybe Joe Klecker will see an easier path to the Olympic team in the marathon than the 10k. If Brett Robinson and Cam Levin's can run 2:07, then I don't think 2:08 is a prohibitive standard
Oh great, this will only lead to more time trials.
Not necessarily. It looks like it is much easier to qualify by world ranking. Hopefully this leads to better daimond league meets, and generally more competitive fields.
The new standards have completely destroyed national level meets here in Australia.
One of the major drawcards for athletes was to go after the standards at such meets. It was also a big spectacle for fans to watch as local athletes did so.
Now, they're so far out of reach that these meets seem to lack any significance.
How many world ranking points do you get though by winning one of these meets? I think they need to make the national championship of many of the countries worth a lot of points.
Oh great, this will only lead to more time trials.
Not necessarily. It looks like it is much easier to qualify by world ranking. Hopefully this leads to better daimond league meets, and generally more competitive fields.
Have I missed something here? Hasn't the Diamond League dropped races longer that 3,000 meters? If so, how are people going to get ranked or time qualifiers at those distances?
The new standards have completely destroyed national level meets here in Australia.
One of the major drawcards for athletes was to go after the standards at such meets. It was also a big spectacle for fans to watch as local athletes did so.
Now, they're so far out of reach that these meets seem to lack any significance.
Yeah that is a great point. I remember very well the days of the Melbourne meet at the old Olympic Park, usually sandwiched between another very good meet at SOPAC and something good at either Brisbane or Canberra. When the standards were a little softer there used to be nights of multiple qualifiers - it was a great era.
I think the big question mark right now is going to be how generous World Athletics is dishing out meet status because this is the only problem. If all Aussie meets are low category meetings where the placing score is bad - then you are 100% right in what it will do. Athletes, with not much chance of hitting an auto Q mark, would be crazy to still run well in a meeting in Australia when they could run the same time in Europe - even finish a little worse in a race, yet end up with better "bonus" to their base time score and hence a better total performance score. Your ranking score is taken from the average of your 5 best performance scores so if there were at least say 3 meets in Australia (and maybe 1 in NZ) with decent status, it would still be an incentive to run there.
The new standards have completely destroyed national level meets here in Australia.
One of the major drawcards for athletes was to go after the standards at such meets. It was also a big spectacle for fans to watch as local athletes did so.
Now, they're so far out of reach that these meets seem to lack any significance.
How many world ranking points do you get though by winning one of these meets? I think they need to make the national championship of many of the countries worth a lot of points.
Winning Zatopek gives 60 extra points - which is massive. A 27:00 10,000 for men is worth 1226 points. Taking 60 points off gives you 1166, which is 27:38. So national champs are definitely incentivized already - the onus is on athletes/coaches to make it fast. I’m surprised Bideau didn’t have Stewie or Brett pace a portion given how few opportunities there are to run a good 10,000.
But to the earlier posters comment - the domestic Australian season is terrible, and has been for a long time, in the context of distance athletes running fast times. You get the odd result from someone like Stewie or a Pete Bol, but it’s the wrong time of year and there isn’t enough depth. The top times are almost always run overseas in May-July at European/US meets. So the idea that these standards have had any impact on national meets (at least from a distance perspective) is laughable. Most Aussies aren’t thinking about running 3:33/13:05/27:00 in January.
How many people want to run a diamond league and how many of them actually get to run one?
Athletes who are already stablished have a much easier path to international meets than athletes who rise one year and dont have the connections to run in good meetings. For me this method is pretty unfair
You’re all forgetting that indoors counts for rankings, and some meets have ridiculous bonus points. This benefits the US and Europe more than anyone.
For example - winning the 3000 at Millrose gives a massive points score. So American athletes running indoors will get more than enough opportunities to score points without necessarily needing the DL.
And yet, the 3000m is not even run in the Olympics.
Thanks for the info.
In a nutshell, it seems to becoming more and more apparent that the ‘World Rankings’ schtik is based on political fiefdom in setting up meet participants through back door politics.
Go ahead and correct me if I’m wrong. But if you do, you can start with explaining how this year’s Milrose 3000m athletes were selected, and why some were left off the list.