Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

Logic wrote:

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

Tony Robbins would have a big toothy grin right now. "Personal power" comes from within, not from handouts.

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

Mark, Here is my 2 cents worth.. I think that this is a fantastic idea, something that personally I have thought about for a very long time.

Why the change from 2:30 in 1972 to the 2:20? I don't know, obviously we haven't seen an improvement in U.S. marathoning as a result of the faster standards.

Part of the problem seems to be that there aren't any intermediate standards once you go beyond the Boston Marathon. After 3:10 (the fastest qualifying time at Boston) you have this huge jump to 2:20 and most runners just can't seem to grasp that even though it may be an easy qualifier to some (or so they like to say) I am sure that there are sore legs and a recovery factor involved for those guys too.

For some reason 2:30 seems to somewhat bridge that gap.

The same goes for a guy either in or out of college that may be able to break 3:00 and run 2:40, the jump to 2:22 is huge, but open the doors to 2:30 then you start to get realistic and the guy says hey, I can crank out 5:45's. He trains for it and bingo! he is in and has not killed himself trying to get there, or better yet he is not injured.

I even think that for the top performers that the relaxed standard means that they can save a little in the tank by not getting to the trials all exhausted and overtrained. Maybe they will crank out a 2:18 or maybe a 2:14 or better yet at the trials place in the top three or even win there, get a little pay day and go on to the Olympics.

I believe that one of the problems both with the current standards and even the trials themselves is that a runner can cash in all their chips just to qualify and then when he gets there (if he gets there) he has to turn around and race hard. By the time the Olympics rolls around he is either injured or just out of gas from all the months of training and racing leading up to the games.

The 2:30 standard in no way cheapens the trials but rather gives athletes a way by which they can get there healthy and then race.

It also gives hope to aspiring young runners knowing that this is something that is within their grasp and that they can do. By increasing the race size it gets more interesting for the viewing public and for television. With this type of event, maybe some of the big networks like NBC or ABC might get interested, just like the old days when they used to broadcast the New York Marathon and Boston in its entirety. Publicity? Exposure to the sport? yes! and you can probably bet your bottom dollar that there would be a lot of it. Something that would most definitely be good for all of us this sport of ours that we like to call running.

Why not make the trials part of an already existing race? Why not give the elites a one hour head start so that they could avoid the masses and get to their aid stations uninhibited during their part of the race. I think that this would save a lot on course logistics, race costs for road closures, parade permits porta johns and police protection, ect. The timing would already be set up as well as the starting and finishline areas.

Too many here think a Cinderella story might emerge if the standards for OlyTrials qualifying are lowered. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Yes, if the standards were lowered and more runners qualified, the general lot of US diatance running would be improved. However, it would have no impact now or in the future on selection of the Oly team.

scotth wrote:

Too many here think a Cinderella story might emerge if the standards for OlyTrials qualifying are lowered. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Yes, if the standards were lowered and more runners qualified, the general lot of US diatance running would be improved. However, it would have no impact now or in the future on selection of the Oly team.

I agree. Current or future Olympians are not concerned with with the Trials standard is because it's automatic for them either way (a jog). Why not develop depth with the trials?

Agreer wrote:

Current or future Olympians are not concerned with with the Trials standard is because it's automatic for them either way (a jog). Why not develop depth with the trials?

Why should we develop depth w/the Trials? For what purpose?

Here's something that might make all happy: hold a sub-2:30 only marathon championship every non-Oly year. I fail to see the magic in doing it just for the OTrials.

ray wrote:

Some would say that development doesn't belong in the trials. But hey, if it belongs in the games, why not the trials?

Ray, here is where it seems you infer development belongs in the Games. Where does development belong in the Games?

I'm sort of lost on your point of the media and the Trials.

Let me ask this:

With 50-100 runners, how many papers will run a story on their local athlete in the trials? With 250-300, how many?

Opening it up does something important for the sport - generating desperately needed publicity. Even if the guys don't stand a snowball's chance in hell, it likely builds a whole lot more awareness that the trials marathon is happening. If for no reason other than this, more is at least potentially better.

scotth wrote:

Too many here think a Cinderella story might emerge if the standards for OlyTrials qualifying are lowered. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Well Scott, you will have to forgive me. There's something inherent with being a coach (as well as a former Olympic Trials participant) that likes to actually see the sport progress, rather than stagnate as it has for the last 20 years. It's certainly a despicable trait, and one that you obviously don't possess.

Of course, it was also my hope that some of my more stubborn brethren (like the gentlemen quoted above with the sentences that are in desperate need of Viagra) might actually be open-minded about the entire matter. Apparently, that is not going to happen either. Instead, they prefer to maintain a condescending, elitist, mediocre status-quo, and that is truly sad.

Logic wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you're guilty of faulty logic. You are essentially arguing one side of "the chicken or the egg" fallacy.

On the flip side, I should point out that the standards were softened after the marathon runners became slower (since they are based upon a statistical sampling). That means the standards weren't the cause, but were symptomatic of poor performance that was already occuring.

Why change the standard? Is there something wrong the way it is? I'm running after the sub 222 mark to qualify and I definiately don't want the standard to be lowered. I might not get there but I don't want to say I got there b/c they lowered the stardard. What are the other countries stardards?

I do not think there are any other countries with standards or an official olympic trials race (except maybe Japan). The USA is the only country in the world that I know of that has an Olympic Trials marathon race with a qualification time to enter.

Most other countries are either too small and don't have at least three guys to make the Olympic A standard to start with, or else they select their team based on other races like Boston, London, Chicago, NY, etc.

Here's the deal with the US, we may not have a lot of guys running 2:08, but we always have several guys with the potential to be under 2:14 (or the Olympic A standard) and since we are a democratic nation we decided the best way to select the team is for it to select itself, hence the Olympic trials.

Sure countries like Kenya and Japan have a bunch of guys that can make their Olympic team time-wise. Not sure about the Japanese system, they might actually have a trials race like a national championship with a cutoff time for entry like our trials, but Kenya just selects their team.

Anyone else with more information on this topic, feel free to add.

IRunXC wrote:

Well stated! What you say makes a lot of sence and should be examined by the powers that be.

Do you guys supporting this really think that someone will run a 2:29 and then improve in a year to 2:10 and make the team? The team has been composed of 2:10-12 types every year even if they didn't run that fast at the Trials.

Do you appreciate the difference between two runners who, on an average day, run 2:28 and 2:12?

That is 16 minutes. As in, the fastest guys will be putting 37 seconds PER MILE on the slower guys. They would be out-of-it by mile 3. A 2:30 marathon is a good achievement, but that is the end of it. It is in a different league than aspiring Olympians. A good high-school runner can run sub-2:30 and it is close to the equal of a 15:15 5k/ 32:00 10k. Do you think we should start allowing good high school runners in the Trials? Do you think we should start paying for them to be Trials Tourists?

Sorry, this is a really stupid idea.

I think (and have thought this for 25 years) that they should widen the Q window to like FOUR YEARS or so, as I have always thought that it would be better to not have to qualify for the Trials, then run them (at a peak), then run the Games. Also, if you were ill or injured the year before it puts a lot of stress on you to get a Q in. I would say that would be the way they should make it easier and more accessible.

The Oly Trials used to be really, really special. And it was regarded as a major competition even for those who had NO SHOT at making the team (we had a LOT of 2:12-2:14 marathoners back then who really had a far outside shot at making the team). The reason is that if on your best day, you run 2:14 and another guy runs 2:10 on his best day, and there are enough of those guys around ON THAT DAY (Rodgers, Tuttle, Meyer, Salazar, Hodge, Pfitz, Gordon, Durden, Pfeffer, Heffner, Tabb, Mendoza, Shorter, Kardong, Bjorklund, etc.) THREE of them will make the team and you will not.

You can't be a 2:14 runner and hope that you have a great day and run 2:14 and tons of people inexplicably have a bad one and you make it that way. And this approach works even worse if you are at 2:28.

Perhaps you think that you will be a 14:40/30:30 track runner after 5 years of college and you will try the marathon and run 2:28-29 and then somehow lightning will strike you and you will suddenly be transformed into a 13:35/28:30/2:11 guy with some kind of shot at the Team?

It ain't gonna happen.

I know a guy who ran 1:59/4:19/9:10 in high school. He almost made Footlocker (10th place at Regionals I think). He ran at a BIG 10 School and was the top freshman his first year I think. He had injury problems and just finished 5 years and his best marks were 14:28 (soph) and 29:30 (junior) or thereabouts. I think had he been able to put 2-3 years together with no breaks he would have been about 13:55/28:40, but that is really immaterial.

He is now 23 and he ran his first marathon this Fall. He did 2:26. Does he belong in the Olympic Trials? Hell no.

The next go-round maybe he will reach 2:21, he has the talent, or maybe it will take 3 years. Or, maybe he will never make it. But he shouldn't get a free-pass just because a few yahoos think the bar is set too high.

Withheld is quoted>

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.

{Quote] Cobble out a plan for these similar ideas.

Being able to-A- run a 2:30 and -B- the ability to RACE A MARATHON under 2:xx require different skillsets/mindsets.

>>

We haven't created that. It is as old as time. A free market. The best runners win the races and they are attracted to the races that suit them the best and pay them the most. This was the same in the 70's as it is now. The only difference was that U.S. citizens won most of the places at these races.

How is it good for development to proetect U.S. runners from those who are better than them?

Darkness wrote:

Do you guys supporting this really think that someone will run a 2:29 and then improve in a year to 2:10 and make the team?

You know, I'm beginning to think that some of the skeptics who are posting on this thread must write part-time for The National Equirer or The Star.

Darkness, would you mind showing me exactly where somebody said that?

I don't think somebody said it, but what other reason would there be to include a 2:29 marathoner in the Trials than the idea that this demographic has a shot at making the team?

That is the point of the Trials. Deciding the TEAM.

If even you agree that someone whose best effort over time have yielded 2:23-2:30 HAS NO CHANCE AT the 2:10 level, then why are they there?

Without sarcasm, I am trying to understand what purpose this serves and what positive things it can do for the sport to include people who are clearly too slow for the Olympics in the Olympic Trials?

darkness wrote:

I don't think somebody said it, but what other reason would there be to include a 2:29 marathoner in the Trials than the idea that this demographic has a shot at making the team?

Well then, instead of blantly misquoting us, why don't you try actually reading the rest of the thread to find out?

darkness wrote:

Without sarcasm, I am trying to understand what purpose this serves and what positive things it can do for the sport to include people who are clearly too slow for the Olympics in the Olympic Trials?

Once again, why don't you try actually reading the rest of the thread to find out?

What is the purpose of having trials for the Olympics?

To promote the sport? No....

To develop US marathon talent? No....

It is to select as many as 3 individuals to represent the US in the marathon at the Olympics.

To say that the 2:19 standard for the '84 trials was a motivation for runners is the tail wagging the dog. That was the general population of runners and the standard to which they were running at the time.

These discussions back and forth about how many should be allowed into the race are meaningless. It would be NICE if I could say I qualified, whether it takes a 2:22 or a 2:30, but I know I (like almost everybody else posting) will not be in the top 3.

So it really comes down to those who know they can make 2:22, or 2:18 or whatever, and wanting to exclude those who are fractionally behind them, thereby making their achievement that much more "exclusive".

I say they just have it at Chicago, under normal marathon conditions w/ world class competition, and see how everybody does. More than enough time to 1) run your ass off against each other and the world and 2) recover for a Beijing summer of dust and heat.

My 2 fen...

Should we presume to place the best three Americans on the line, in the Marathon as in any event, we must recruit in mid-late elementary school by subjecting every child to sprint, endurance and explosiveness examinations. Only then shall we be able to affix the brightest bulbs into our Lite-Brite athletics firmament.

Until then, we have the trials-as-they-are, which are a shitty way of picking a marathon squad. I know that, Bill Rodgers knew that, we all know that. Does 2:30 make it worse? Debateable as it seems, that was the standard the last time an American won gold, not that correlation implies causality.

RunningArt - after reading your stuff on the physics thread, you're a poster child for 'a little learing is a dangerous thing.' Have the decency to let malmo do the talking for your camp heretoforth...