Amby Burfoot says: do away with the Olympic Marathon Trials

I think the trials are necessary because it showcases the athletes performance for all to see. At least the organizers attempt to duplicate the projected race (hills, weather etc). If the Olympics marathon is projected to run in hot weather and by selection we send an athlete that's only good in cool weather. You can expect a DNF and a waste of money for sending someone unprepared. Have the trials and let them compete in conditions they'll be facial in the Olympics.

if your vote ratio of down to up exceeds 5:1, you might want to change your tune. Yours is 10:1.

Imagine rupp drops a 2:07 in Chicago while our team goes 20/30/60th. Would you wonder if he would have been the better choice? What is more likely to indicate medal potential: the Chicago run or the OT run?

reality is that even if Rupp is better, he isn’t good enough anymore to be a medal threat. We aren’t talking about leaving Noah Lyle’s off the team cause he had food poisoning before the 200. If you don’t have an AR, Wc medal, or a top 3 time in the world, I see no point in even talking about this.

Emily Sisson is arguably the top US woman's marathoner of the last 5 years. She ran the perfect trials race of a heavy favorite. Stretched it out a bit early then tucked in and let the pack around her drop one by one. She took no chances and just ran a smart race to be in a good position at miles 24, 25, and 26. Mantz and Young did the same thing. If you're a medal contender, an average day should get you on the team, regardless of what everyone else does.

Outside of that, we get to enjoy the stunning efforts and spectacular failures of everyone else in such a great race.

I would strongly disagree with the idea of giving the person with the fastest marathon time in the last year an auto qualifier. Reason being all the variables of different marathon courses. For track races, I think I could get on board with considering giving the fastest time in the country in the last year an auto qualifier slot. Haven't thought that one all the way through at this time.

I think if the top marathon time in the country got an auto qualifier you'd have some runners looking at the races on majorly downhill point to point courses as their ticket in. So then maybe the system needs to not allow times at races like St George or Steamtown. But then do you also take Cal International and Boston off the list? Just too many variables and exceptions.

Well, the Olympic Trials proved that Galen Rupp is not ready, nor would he be ready for Paris. That's the problem with Andy's system: bias on past performance. Older athletes like Rupp, D'Amato, and Hall are past their prime and can be hit or miss as we saw on Saturday. I do like the Japanese system: Trials for Top 2 selection and then a 3rd by committee. It's the best of both worlds... now, it doesn't solve the US only being able to send 2 men..

While amusing on occasion, dude has never really been capable of much in terms of high level discussion. See clinging to the status quo with anecdotal evidence. As has been stated already on this thread, the petulance is to be expected. Unfortunately, it is squarely enabled.

I confess - and I am certainly not the only one - to having been excited watching Jim Walmsley running with, and at times in front of the lead pack (up to about mile 16), at the trials four years ago. I think it makes the selection a lot more exciting to allow athletes that have never run a marathon a shot at Olympic glory. Fiona O'Keefe was a good example this year. Plus, the bottom line is that Americans don't really have a shot at winning an Olympic marathon gold, so for many, it is more exciting to watch the trials than the Olympics because an American has to win!

It's not the best way to select the team, but it is really fun and one of the best events American running fans have. We need it

This sport needs more racing and competition, not less.

You can't take away one of the few races that actully matters and fans can follow.

End of discussion.

In order to make the selections in the fairest possible manner, you need the contenders to line up and race each other head to head in a marathon. There is no need to make it any more complicated than that. If you want to get rid of the trials, fine, have them all race a major marathon like Boston or NY. That would also be entertaining and fair at the same time. Anything less than a marathon with head to head competition is nonsensical.

This article actually hints at a much bigger point.

With every professional sport there is a tradeoff between athlete performance and entertainment.

A good example of this is in the NBA they are playing 82 games, back to back nights, traveling all over the country. Athletes get tired and beat up and aren't performing their best. But 82 games is better for the fans.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, just about everything in running caters to optimal athlete performance. Bowerman never racing then doing private time trials is great for their performance, but awful for the sport/fans/enertainment.

I hold the opinion to grow running as a sport athletes perfomance will suffer. They need to race more. And everything that comes with that.

This article summarize the tradeoff between performance and enertainment. The trials is one of the very few and very best pieces of enertainment the sport has.

I have a feeling that our Olympic Teams would be comprised of mostly Nike athletes if we selected a team.

I too like the Japanese system but if we use Olympic medals as the measure of which works better ours wins. Since 1968, when our current system was created, US men have won four medals, one being gold, and Japan has won two medals, neither being gold. I do not know if Japan has used the same system since 1968 or not but whatever they've done in that time span has not given them more medals than what we have.

"Prior performance does not ensure future results"

Both true for running and writing.

Swing and a miss

You left out the women, who lead us 4-3 in medals, 2-1 in golds. Plus as the obvious factor of proportional populations. We should be leading, and by a lot more.