Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

Orville Atkins wrote:

We need higher goals. The top 100 from the 18 months before the marathon trials sounds right.

The goal should be an Olympic gold medal or as close as one can come to it. The lower ones goals are the lo;wer the achievemant.

I can assure you that the runners of the 70s and before had much loftier goals than going to the trials. One must aim for the top spot to have any chance of achieving it.

Mills, Schul and Shorter did not have goals of anything less than gold.

To the first point: maybe we should just invite Meb and Abdi, because logically, that's all who have a reasonable chance at a gold medal.

To the second point: Mills, Schul, and Shorter do not represent the goals of every single good U.S. runner. I know plenty of people who would have been thrilled to have their career vindicated by a trip to the Trials, and plenty more whose only goal was to make the team. I guess they're unworthy by your standards?

malmo wrote:

Soryy, kimosabi, you are wrong on all accounts. I'm big on grass roots development, and what I have to say IS positive feedback. The notion of allowing 2:30 marathoners in an Olympic Trials is the negative direction.

In no other sport would anyone suggest that allowing week-end warriers to the big dance adds something to the event. It does not. The NFL playoffs are right around the corner. Would allowing the Kiwanis Flag Football Champion add anything to it? Would allowing softball teams from the Kearney Nebraska Parks and Rec league in the MLB playoffs make them more exciting or meaningful? All in the name of development, you know.

Poor analogy, Malmo. He's not trying to get a Parks and Rec team in the NFL, he's trying to expand roster sizes so a few more guys can have the NFL experience. Don't know if you followed football as a kid, but in the 1960's roster size was 40. Now it's 53 plus a group of reserves. Is the quality of the game better or worse because of it, or did it ultimately have negligible effect?

We need to select from the very top runners in a race mthat duplicaates the Olympic race and where any one of the top runners can meet ours and the Olympic standard to be selected to the team.

The trials are not held to motivate lesser runners. That should be done during the four years between Olympics.

If you expand the field to 300+ runners then it becomes "just another marathon". Why not drop the 10k standard to 30:00 and have a few hundred people show up. We'll turn it into a road race...just another race. I think you should take the 100th best time of the year before qualifying starts and make that the B standard. So the question is what was the 100th best time of 2005? My guess is that it's around 2:25.

Alan

random thought

Present Day:

We have less people with the ability to run under 2:15 now with faster standards.

Past:

We had more people under 2:15 with slower standards.

Now if we were to look at the idea of cultivating great talent and wanting people to run faster and bringing more people into the sport by making the standard faster, well, we tried that and it hasn't worked.

Do you think Meb and Abdi and Culpepper will slow down or not train as hard because we lower the standard to 2:30? I don't think so.

To me competition is about pushing yourself as hard as the next guy to win the race. With less people running we have less people to push ourself against.

Try to follow my math here.....SO maybe by slowing down the standard a 2:28 23 year old guy (fresh out of college) can run against a 2:27 guy and compete for a PR. The following year he has a goal to run 2:25 because he ran with a 2:27 guy (Now age 24.) With natural progression and desire he will probably run faster with time. So maybe a 2:24 or faster the next year and so on. So if he ran the trials at age 23 he can try for the next trials at age 27 potentially be sub 2:20 by then. With 4 more years under his belt (age 31)he might be at 2:15 or faster. Now, if this guy was mildly talented this is believable (BELIEVABLE doesn't mean it will happen but IT IS BELIEVABLE). How about if someone who occasionally runs,is extremely talented, but has no desire to train hard, is now motivated because the Olympic standard is a little slower and he can make it. He has HUGE potential. At what cost? A few more volunteers, more gatorade, etc. This is for something that happens once every four years. What we're missing is the possibility of more people running other races to qualify. This means more people running more races year round, which means more exposure and more people getting involved. It's possible one of these people could be the next Meb or Shorter or Culpepper or etc.

Once again I ask, at what cost? Minimal cost to maximizing potential for growth.

I totally disagree with both you and malmo. A 2:30 guy is not a weekend warrior. When you see comments like that you get an understanding why so many people give it a year outside of college and then give it up.

Listen, 2:30 isn't a great time. But there's a pretty good chance if you take a sampling of all the guys who ever had a PR of 2:30, it would include a lot of guys who later went on to run 2:10. One of my best friends ran 2:34 as a debut and ended up at 2:14 and probably had 2:11 potential. Why keep this guy out of the trials when his PR isn't yet 2:22?

I don't have time to formulate a better argument right now but I'll check in again tomorrow. I am pretty sure I can make an argument that you will at least partially agree with.

i'm jumping into this thread pretty late in the game, and i haven't read every post so this may have already been covered.

do you really think that the ability to run in the olympic trials - especially if the trials race has a couple hundred entrants - would be enough to motivate a 2:28 guy to train for 8 years to become a 2:15 guy?

maybe it wouldn't hurt and maybe that is enough to support an increase in the size of the field. however, if i were in the shoes of a 23 year old and i had the ability to run in the olympic trials/us champs once every four/once every year - but i didn't have any funding or realistic near-term shot of actually making a team, i would not keep it up full-time. i would need more than the carrot of running at us nationals. it's just not enough (for me at least) to have the honor of running at the u.s. championships each year. maybe the first time it's pretty cool, but after a while it doesn't make much of a difference whether you competed twice or eight times at u.s. nationals.

(this, incidentally, is not merely a hypothetical for me - i made the choice i outline above a few years back - in a track event though, not the marathon)

..."just another marathon". what are you basing this comment on Alan? How can you say that? Boston has mystique, even with a 3:10...granted, it is saturated. but saying sub 2:30 for the Trials is not opening up the race to every hack out there. it still is a pretty limited and unique field.

Runningart2004 wrote:

If you expand the field to 300+ runners then it becomes "just another marathon". Why not drop the 10k standard to 30:00 and have a few hundred people show up. We'll turn it into a road race...just another race. I think you should take the 100th best time of the year before qualifying starts and make that the B standard. So the question is what was the 100th best time of 2005? My guess is that it's around 2:25.

Alan

Giving up a year out of college is a personal choice. I contend that runner simply didn't have the right talent and mindset to begin with. The system exists to take our best talent to world class competitions. It does not exist to validate years of training or to massage fragile egos. This is not youth soccer. If a runner really wants to improve then he will take the time and effort to do so. If someone graduates from university and isn't immediately offered a corporate CEO gig, should he just give up and never find gainful employment?

The argument that keeps coming up in this thread is that 2:23 - 2:30 guys feel like they should be rewarded simply because they are great guys who run a lot. By that logic, every guy who is really passionate about beer league softball and can hit slow pitch home runs should be tendered a minor league baseball contract because he might become the next Derek Jeter. Otherwise, he might just give up on rec league softball because he doesn't have a big goal.

2:30 is a very good weekend warrior. Don't confuse the guy who has a job, a family, a mortgage, and a time consuming physical hobby with truly elite and professional athletes. The guy who won't take the vow and dedicate himself 100% to running never had a chance at true running greatness to begin with.

As Yoda said in the Star Wars movies, "Do or do not. There is no try."

if you break 2:22 do they pay your expenses?

If I'm fresh out of college and fresh out of a job and am a 30:00 10k guy. I'm more motivated by the prospects of picking up $3k for a win in Birmingham (or incert any one of 5 or 10 "B" marathons) with a 2:20, or getting on with the Hansons or Zap Fitness then I am making the Olympic marathon trials where I have no shot. The trials don't pay and won't develop me.

Guys like this (us) are motivated by 2 things. Love of the sport and making a living. They love to combine the two if possible. Give them more opportunities to do that and they have more opportunities to develop. Running in an Olympic Trials when don't have a snowballs chance in hell making the team doesn't get them anything.

You want to help distance running in the US by developing the fresh out of college, good but not great runners then boost the local and regional road race scene by boosting the number of "B" races with $15k-20k prize purses. Get more prize money opportunities and good club systems going. But lowering the standard for the trials doesn't help a thing but old and slow guys being able to brag to the kids "I ran in the trials once".

There are so many better grass roots ideas then softening the trials standards.

This whole thread is off base.

Mark - if you really want to help the state of US marathoning there are so many better ways then lowering a trials standard. Give these guys more opportunities to develop and make a living not entice them into one race where they can't do either.

who is saying this? i have yet to read it. i thought the idea was to develop and grow talent. to me, that is the theme that i hear resonating throughout many posts...not what you are saying keeps coming up.

Pathfinder wrote:

The argument that keeps coming up in this thread is that 2:23 - 2:30 guys feel like they should be rewarded simply because they are great guys who run a lot. By that logic, every guy who is really passionate about beer league softball and can hit slow pitch home runs should be tendered a minor league baseball contract because he might become the next Derek Jeter. Otherwise, he might just give up on rec league softball because he doesn't have a big goal.

2:30 is a very good weekend warrior. Don't confuse the guy who has a job, a family, a mortgage, and a time consuming physical hobby with truly elite and professional athletes. The guy who won't take the vow and dedicate himself 100% to running never had a chance at true running greatness to begin with.

I like your post Logic,

I have been there and done that when there was no money in the sport. I had great careers both on and off of the roads. I am still attempting to run at 69 years of age. Enjoy!

Orville Atkins wrote:

The trials are not held to motivate lesser runners.

Malmo wrote:

In no other sport would anyone suggest that allowing week-end warriers to the big dance adds something to the event.

Apparently, the official word of the day is "condescending!"

Good grief gentlemen, are some of you who seem to be so dead-set against this 8-minute adjustment to the "B" standard even listening to yourselves? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen even one compelling counterpoint against this proposal. The vast majority that I have seen are heavily tinged with a condescending sentiment that seems to come from "distance running aristocracy."

I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen, but just because Meb & Deena came home from Athens with medals does not mean that the American marathon environment is healthy! Please take a closer look at our lack of Oly and WC medallists over the last quarter-century, and with all due respect to our naturalized citizens, don't start using people like Meb and Mark Plaatjes as positive examples.

Implementing this small adjustment to the standard is a golden opportunity to spark renewed interest in the marathon at the grass-roots level, as well as potentially motivating young collegiate athletes to attempt the distance in the first place. Contrary to what several of our esteemed colleagues have professed within this thread, it would not fill the race with "lesser runners" or "week-end warriors," nor would it tarnish the level of prestige.

Try to remember your roots, gentlemen! If we want to grab our youth's attention away from the Internet, PlayStations, and HDTV, we need to do something! This proposal has the potential to make a long-term impact, with very little cost or risk involved to the athletes or the establishment. As someone previously said, it's a win-win situation!

altitude wrote:

random thought

Present Day:

We have less people with the ability to run under 2:15 now with faster standards.

Past:

We had more people under 2:15 with slower standards.

Your "facts" are ass-backwards.

1979 -- ?? under 2:13, 13 under 2:14

1980 -- 14 under 2:13, 21 under 2:14, 29 under 2:15,

1981 -- 13 under 2:13, 26 under 2:14, 44 under 2:15, 143 under 2:20

1982 -- ?? under 2:13, 21 under 2:14

1983 -- 23 under 2:13, 32 under 2:14, 44 under 2:15, 193 under 2:20

1984 -- 11 under 2:13, 13 under 2:14, 25 under 2:15, 123 under 2:20

1985 -- 11 under 2:13, 13 under 2:14, 26 under 2:15, 70 under 2:20

1986 -- 8 under 2:13, 17 under 2:14, 21 under 2:15, 79 under 2:20

Year 2:14 2:20

1987 9 75

1988 8 54

1989 8 44

1990 -- 6 under 2:13, 8 under 2:14, 11 under 2:15, 53 under 2:20

1991 3 74

1992 6 45

1993 5 45

1994 10 41

1995 1 56

1996 5 35

1997 5 ??

1998 2 ??

1999 2 ??

2004 -- 5 under 2:13, 6 under 2:14, 10 under 2:15, 32 under 2:20

Well, I am going to chime in again.

While I do not care what the standard is here are my three main thoughts regarding this issiue, then I am done with it.

1st - the race should mimic the actual marathon course/conditions

2nd - the qualifying time should be set so that about 100 runners are in the race. I think that is a big enough number so it does not feel like a dual meet yet small enough that not evry Tom, Dick, and Harry get in.

3rd - I think having people in the race DOES build the sport. I live in a smaller community. If I can improve my PR by 1 minute 3 seconds and get in then I am sure that our local paper would do a story. What if a few kids read that and decide to get into running becuase of that? Well, if that happens to most runners in the field then maybe one of those kids somewhere will turn out to be an Olympian? Never know?

You either have the mindset or you don't. No amount of screwing with the standard is going to change your mindset. One of the reasons there were faster runners 20-30 years ago is that there were more 20-30 year olds. Baby Boomers. Good runners don't chase standards. Whether the standard is 2:22 or 2:30 doesn't matter. I don't see how it's going to make someone train harder or decide to "become a marathon runner". Why would you want to do that when they let 300-500 people in the damn race? Keeping it at around 100 gives it this "elitest" aura to it...which is good.

Alan

History of sub 2:14 wrote:

http://www.runnersworld.com/events/road2sydney/mens_trials/news/0504_214_hist.html

Look like the peak of US distance running in the marathon in terms of depth was in the early 1980's (1983 - 32 guys under 2:14)

The standard to qualify for the trials was

1972 Eugene 2:30

1976 Eugene 2:23

1980 Buffalo 2:21:54

1984 Buffalo 2:19:04

So of the runners who ran in sub 2:14 in 1983 they knew the standard would be 2:23 or better (and was getting faster with each trials), faster than in 1972 and faster than Mark has proposed, yet we had the greatest depth at the marathon.

By looking at the above link and the trials standards one can come to the conclusion that by slowing the standard we actually hurt US marathoning as we had less sub 2:14 runners in subsequent years after slowing the standard.

The original theoroy of this thread doesn't hold water when the stats are looked at. As the standard was slowed the # of sub 2:14 runners diminished. The fastest standard we have had (2:19:04 in the 1984 Trials) produced the most number of sub 2:14 Americans in the qualifying year before it (1983 time for an early 1984 trials).

So finally we have gotten to the truth. If we want faster marathoners make them shoot higher not let more of them in.