Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

Citizen Dick wrote:

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 have to say, for all the anti-intellectual feel of his post, Citizen Dick got an awful lot right.

As I've continued to think about this topic, I am starting to think that perhaps we are arguing about the wrong thing. Perhaps we should be looking at many/most races awarding development money instead of prize money.

We have, in this country created a scenario where Kenyan and other athletes strip much of the prize money from our races and take it back home. It does a lot of good there, but it also has the impact of taking away the subsistence living that many high level racers could make in the 70's and 80's by virtue of the under the table payments ond/or the early prize money. It is the group who could grab off this prize money - the strong post-collegians who have been lost to other sports or careers due to lack of opportunity. I believe that some states have well-intentioned laws that may prohibit this, but it would certainly change the face of American racing to an American face. That would mean that reporters could interview race winners, not just in print, but on radio and TV and would likely establish the role models that these young American athletes would be able to emulate.

I hope this post will be discussed in a meaningful way, and not pointed to as bigotry, nor as a jingoistic rallying cry. Please try to keep the discussion of this point civil.

I hear what you are saying, but I still am not convinced how bringing along, helping develop and improving sub 2:30 runners is going to impede, curtail, or hinder those under the 2:22 barrier. I believe that it is all tied together and once one threshold is crossed, many will want to improve and build to move on to the next step. No one wants to get worse. It seems like such a win win for everyone.

Agreed. You might get some people resting on 2:30 laurels, but this is more than outweighed by the group of former 2:22ers attempting to run 2:18 now. Some will make it, but more of those who fail will hit something like 2:27 and still get a trials qualifier.

From the slower end 2:30 also seems like a reasonable standard, from a local training group aspect. 2:30 types can still go on a training run with virtually anyone, and their increased presence / motivation gives greater motivation / help to the 2:22 types now attempting 2:18 to a greater extent.

I don't know if that last paragraph makes sense. Anyway, letting in more runners by lowering the standard any further makes it a vastly different race to manage.

I guess for many, many years, scoring 1600 on your SATs was a big deal. There were a good number of people that have come before you that had done it, but relatively speaking, obtaining a perfect score put you in a fairly elite group of folks.

Recently, they changed the SAT format/scoring and in recent years, many more students than ever before have achieved perfect scores. Since they made it significantly easier to achieve a perfect SAT score, doing so is no longer that big of a deal.

It takes an incredible work ethic and an almost insane dedication to run 2:20/2:22. It is what makes hitting that standard such an accomplishment. I would hate to see that lost on future generations, as I feel that is what recent generations (including mine) have lost a sense of -- the notion that it takes consistent, hard work and dedication to accomplish great things.

Running a 4:00 mile on a legitimate track is a great accomplishment. You've either done it, or you haven't. Nobody shortens the track to 380m so that more people can achieve it. Lowering the qualifying standard, feels like shortening the mile. There are some things you just can't make easy...running is one of those.

Hoovis

American Marathoning is not getting better. Yes, thecnically we took home two medals at the olympics in Athens, but those were hardly Americans. If everyone on the message board looked in their citys phonebooks for "Keflezghki"(sp?), i would be f'ing impressed if someone found that last name at all. America is funding athletes from other countries just to represent us at the olympics.

We will get a medal in the 1500/3000 at the next olympics, and it will not be through Webb, rather Lagat, another Kenyan. Like the previous 2 or 3 post said, the african atheletes are coming over here to steal away all of the prize money, so that they can go back and train with better supplies and conditions. And the smartest of them, meb and lagat, just say hell with the poor living and come here to train, and represent "their new country".

In Tampa, Fl we have a race called Gasparilla Distance Classic that runs a 5 and 15k on saturday, and a half and full marathon on sunday with a respecectable 20-30k total atheletes. theres a $5k dollar purse for winning the 15k and marathon BUT ONLY LOCAL atheletes are eligible.

So when Joseph Zepherinius from god-knows-where and Oleg Strijakov from Russia take first and second with 2:18 and 2:19, nobody gives a shit, the prize money stays in the surrounding counties and goes to the 3rd and 4th place runners.

Why should the OT Marathon standard be lowered? It's already the weakest of all the Olympic T&F events... We haven't had anyone medal in the 1500 recently, should be lower the standard to 3:55? Of course not.

Regarding the posters who said that 2:22 is "out of reach" for college runners - it certainly should NOT be out of reach for XC All-Americans. Anyone who is good enough to be a DI All-American should be able to run sub 2:22 with a 6 months of marathon training.

Is Deena not American by your standards either?

I cannot fathom that Tony Robbins or any other motivational speaker would ever sign off on the notion that lowering the bar would actually increase performance, can you? It's only through ambitious goal-setting and implementation that you will ever give yourself a chance to succeed.

What we do know is that long ago our public schools bought into this concept that knowledge is relative and all attempts to quantify performance are to be avoided at all costs, lest we "stigmatize" the children. "Everyone is a winner," they bleated. The Educational-Industrial-Complex was proven wrong. Lowering the bar only leads to lower performance.

I thought it would be at least another five more years before 90's nostalgia kicked in. "Remember the days when less meant more?"

Nostalgia sure ain't what it used to be....

I think you missed the boat on the SAT example. It was not changed because high school kids were getting into college and could not write worth a damn.

Someone mentioned earlier that the standard was 2:30 in 1972. When did it become 2:22 / 2:20?

I have this funny image of Bill Rodgers in the early 70's going, 'Hm, 2:30. I can probably do that. It would give my life more meaning than 2 packs of cigarettes a day.'

I disagree that 2:30 should be the B standard. Who needs the field deepened? There were enough guys running in it last time. The guys running 2:20 won't be even near the 2:30 guys, and the guys running 2:20 have no shot at making the team anyway.

The ONLY reason to up the time to 2:30 is so that more runners can say they were in the Olympic Trials. It would do NOTHING to further the sport at all.

I'd say even that a 2:30 entry time could HURT the Trials as someone who might have to train pretty hard to run 2:22 could coast along in their training and run 2:30. Maybe if the 2:25-2:35 guys were pushed a bit to try to get under 2:22 they might find they are even better than that. Keep the time at 2:30 and it's too easy. SO many people could get that time.

Bad idea.

Just wanted to share some stats about the Men's Olympic Trials marathon. For all of the results from 1968-1996 go to this link:

http://www.runnersworld.com/events/road2sydney/mens_trials/history/home.html

For 2000 results:

http://www.marathonguide.com/results/browse.cfm?MIDD=1256000507&Gen=M&Begin=1&End=78&Max=78

For 2004 results:

http://www.usatf.org/events/2004/OlympicTrials-Marathon-Men/results.asp

As you can see the standard has moved up and down over the years as well as the numbers of qualifiers and finishers.

1968 Alamosa No standard 129 start / 22 finish

1972 Eugene 2:30 standard 98 qualify / 66 finish

1976 Eugene 2:23 standard 87 qualify / 49 finish

1980 Buffalo 2:21:54 stand 225 qualify / 125 finish

1984 Buffalo 2:19:04 stand 201 qualify / 108 finish

1988 Jersey 2:20:00 stand 136 qualify / 77 finish

1992 Columbus 2:20:00 stand 112 qualify / 55 finish

1996 Charlotte 2:22:00 stand 135 qualify / 90 finish

2000 Pitts. 2:22:00 stand 104 qualify / 78 finish

2004 Birming. 2:22:00 stand 104 qualify / 70 finish

And lastly, found it interesting that in 1996 the Olympic Games A standard was 2:16 and the B standard was 2:25. That was less the 10 years ago.

Most posters here are missing the point regarding motivation. Motivation to excel comes from within and people either have it or they don't. Most college aged runners are not fazed by the 2:22 standard rather, they are scared by the idea of the marathon itself.

In my opinion there are various reasons for this. They fear the committment of marathon training. They believe that they will lose their speed. They lack the attention span to focus on a race longer than 15-30 minutes. They believe all manner of myths about pain, fatigue, "The Wall", etc. I've raced everything from 400 meters to a 50K ultra and the shorter stuff hurts so much more than the marathon. The marathon is all about pacing and metering your energy. You have to run smart in a marathon and most runners don't get that. They still buy into the shorter distance mentality of gutting it out while turning the legs as fast as possible and eventually blow up. Most athletes move up to the marathon once they are too old to compete on the track. Some try to squeeze one in after already peaking for their track, road, or XC season. Both approaches result in poor performances.

Lowering the standard will not accomplish much at all. It will allow a few dozen guys to get in on half-assed performances. It will let a few more who could physically never go faster than 2:25 in. It will allow a handful masters to qualify. So what? Fans will not flock to the course in droves to see an additional 100 entrants. The press will not care any more than they do now. It's just another 100 dorky looking guys with no muscle tone or charisma toddling about the roads on a weekend morning. If they won't send a reporter to cover Meb, they won't send him to cover a 43 year old high school guidance counselor or a 24 year old former state champ ambling to midpack glory.

The Olympic Trials exist to select our Olympians. They were not created to give local heroes an ego trip or a running vacation. They are not a feel good event to keep 22 year olds interested in fitness. If an athlete truly wishes to get the standard, let him work hard to get it. If he can't commit to attaining the standard, then he was never a threat to make the team. Lowering the standard is just our sport's version of giving every kid on the soccer team a trophy. It rewards a lack of dedication, a lack of talent, and debases the efforts of those who truly want it and have sacrificed and suffered to make it.

[quote]kenyanrunner wrote:

...two medals at the olympics in Athens, but those were hardly Americans. If everyone on the message board looked in their citys phonebooks for "Keflezghki"(sp?), i would be...impressed if someone found that last name at all. America is funding athletes from other countries just to represent us at the olympics.

We will get a medal in the 1500/3000 at the next olympics, and it will not be through Webb, rather Lagat, another Kenyan...And the smartest of them, meb and lagat, just say hell with the poor living and come here to train, and represent "their new country".[quote]

Know your history!

Meb came over as a 13? year-old, running away from civil war, stopping in Italy along the way. He is not American born, but he's an American. He went to high school here. He wasn't brought over as an athlete to attend a college. As far as the concept of Lagat medalling in the next Olympics, it's doubtful. He's probably too old.

Anyone want to weigh in intelligently on the concept of development money instead of prize money?

Exactly. I will have a better chance of achieving 2:26 knowing that the standard is 2:22. If the standard is 2:30, it would be easier to think that 2:29 is "good enough".

Ordinarily I agree with what you write Malmo, but the problem I have with your argument is that you think that people won't train hard without a hard barrier to cross. That's not true. It's not like you've achieved the pinnacle of running if you qualify for the Trials. In fact, a lot of B-level runners probably see the trials as a pinnacle because of the difficulty of reaching the standard. Once they are in, the remaining goal is to make the team, unrealistic for most. So the only other goal to pursue is qualifying for the next trials and hoping things get better. But having qualified once, the bar is not raised...the goal time remains the same. They are trapped in a cycle of shooting for a B-level time.

On the other hand, the standard is hard enough to take anyone except for D1 all americans several years of hard effort to make. People in this group (I was one of them) are fighting hard just to get respect. Your boss won't allow you a flexible schedule because he doesn't understand your need to train. Your family and friends think you're wasting your time.

You can be a stoic "to-hell-with-you" type of guy and gut your way through this situation in spite of all the people working against you (I did this for a few years). But why? A 2:30 is not a bad time for a 23 year old kid. If you give this kid the badge of respect of "Olympic Trials Qualifier", not only will you get this person thinking like a winner, you will also get all the negative assholes off his back so he can tell people he's serious about running. Unfortunately non-runners don't understand the distinction between 2:10, 2:20, 2:30, 2:40. They only know about the Olympics. If you're not training for the Olympics, you're a joker. A young 2:30 runner shouldn't have to feel like that and fight the rest of the world to live the dream.

I guess the standard should be set wherever the running community decides "serious" running starts. I personally think a 2:30 guy is a serious runner because only a couple hundred people can do it. And because a young 2:30 runner has a pretty damn good chance of being a 2:20 runner by the end of his career if we can keep this runner in the sport. It doesn't hurt anyone except for the running elitists for a few more people to get the title "Trials Qualifier". And it sure helps the poor guy on the margin who currently is facing 5-6 years of hard training to be taken seriously by the rest of the world.

On another note, a different poster described my last post as anti-intellectual. I'm not anti-intellectual. I'm not even against the frilly tourist marathons (they have their place in the world). But the Trials is a selection for the marathon team. The frilly "goodie bag" elements of the marathon don't have a place in the trials.

Again, the main point at the beginning of this thread was just looking at ways to get more young guys into the marathon right out of college instead of fading into oblivion. No one can argue the numbers posted above that the the fields of qualifiers have gotten smaller and smaller despite the fact that the college performance lists for 5000m and 10,000m continue to be good if not better then 15-20 years ago.

People forget there is a huge difference between a 22 year old and a 27 year old in distance running strength and patience. All of those college guys who are solid 30:00 10k runners are in no-mans land when they get out of college. 30:00 is no joke, but where do they go from there? They have student loans (for you older guys who ran in college back in the 70's and 80's when there was a boat load of track scholarships, those all went away about 15 years ago for men when Title IX and gender equity came along, not to mention the influx of foreign runners in college on the few full scholarships continues to grow). These guys need jobs and have to be realistic about what they are doing with their life.

Certainly many diehards stick it out, but there comes a point when guys say it's not worth it and need some incentive that will inject some life into them and keep them going for another 4-8 years after college and take it to another level.

Maybe the time shouldn't be 2:30, how about 2:25 or 2:28? I'm just throwing out ideas here. A 2:25 is still a very honest marathon. The average man can't run 26.2 miles at 5:30 a mile pace, but there are a lot of good college guys who could take a crack at it or least attempt to right out of college and they be all they need to keep going.

People can say what they want, but the fact is that there are less and less guys staying in the sport after college and it will only get worse with the cost of college, living, etc. rising in America, not to mention the gap between the best in the world seems farther and farther away so even the top guys who are 28:30 guys coming out of college often times struggle for support and some direction and support to keep at it.

Citizen Dick wrote:

Ordinarily I agree with what you write Malmo, but the problem I have with your argument is that you think that people won't train hard without a hard barrier to cross.

When did I say that?

I said simply that 2:30 marathoners do not belong in an Olympic Trials. There are other more appropriate competitions for them to showcase and develop their talent.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

But since you've brought it up, I'll give you ten to one odds on as much money as you want to bet, if you think that a random sampling of 2:30 marathoners do not look soft and untrained compared to a random sampling of 2:15 marathoners? Double or nothing, I'll bet that the 2:45 marathoners look soft and untrained compared to the 2:30 runners. Do you think that this is a coincidence?

I ran in the 2004 Olympic marathon trials and placed top 20. I filled out the survey that was sent to me. I remember inputing prize money and fast course as very important. As all of you know, training for a marathon is tough and time consuming. I knew I was not going to win or even place top 3 but what motivated me day after day of fatigue was the possibility of obtaining a PR and/or winning prize money. I am in favor of lowering the standards if it does not impede the quality of this event.