Changed Marathon Trials numbers

I thought it was funny that Bob stated the reason to lower it was to keep from Deena from qualifying.

However, we should lower it to 2:17 or 2:15 since this standard would be below the paula course record at Chicago or if we really wanted be macho men we should just lower it to 2:15.

On a more serious note I think the 10km standard of 28:30 will be tough for a young an upcoming strength marathoner type like Benji Durden, Conover, or others who ran between 2:09 and 2:12 in the past.

800 dude wrote:

The simple truth is that 2:22 is beyond the genetic capability of most trials dreamers. It is fortunate that they continue training for it anyway.

Why is it fortunate that people continue to train for something that is beyond their genetic capability? From my experience, that just leads to injury and exhaustion, and there are huge personal costs involved in devoting a good portion of one's life to running 5,000 to 7,000 miles per year pursuing a goal that one is "genetically" incapable of achieving.

I actually believe that most guys who have run 2:22 on a legitimate marathon course are "genetically" capable of running 2:19 or faster. That doesn't mean that they will, or that they should even try. But if it's important to them to squeeze a little more out of their talent, this gives them some incentive to do so. Although I'm not absolutely certain, I'm pretty confident that the change will result in considerably more sub-2:19 U.S. marathoners and sub-1:05 half-marathoners. I don't know if that's a worthwhile social goal, but it doesn't seem any less worthwhile than the goal of producing more sub-2:22 marathoners, and it seems like a reasonable goal for a USATF committee that's apparently trying to raise competitive standards in U.S. road racing.

In any event, I believe that the more significant change for the sport as a whole -- depending on exactly how it's implemented -- is the change in course standards. For years, people have used USATF's laxity in course standards to market and justify the odd practice of running down hills and mountains for the purpose of achieving alleged "PRs" for various distances -- especially the marathon and half-marathon. Among other things, that's created, both literally and figuratively, a "race to the bottom" among road races in the U.S., and has also effectively penalized some very good races that have not engaged in such practices. As I've said before, this is a matter that -- unlike the precise time cut-off for trials qualifiers -- goes to the integrity of the sport. Removing USATF's purported seal of approval from at least a few races won't turn things around entirely, but it seems like a big step in the right direction.

It appears that not all of the members of his committee where present.

60% of the time the vote to change the standards is unanimous all the time.

I talked with Kevin Hanson this morning and asked him his opinion. He did not disagree with changes but did admit that changes should be made. He made a comment that no one has mentioned in this thread. Tie the qualifying times with age.

For example:

Under 24years old 2:22

Under 26 years old 2:19

Under 28 years old 2:17

All others 2:15 the Olympic A Standard

This would allow development and encourage young guys to stay in game for enough time to find out whether or not they are capable of taking their running to the next level.

This is the best comment on the thread so far.

Funny story. A few days ago, after running my first marathon (2:34), someone asked me how I did. "Well," I replied. The person then asked me, "Did you qualify." I responded that no, I was still a ways off, although given a few more marathons and more training it was a big goal of mine for 2012. Also, I added, the qualifying window won't open for over a year. That last comment got me a puzzled look, and only then did I realize that he was asking if I had qualified for Boston.

I appreciate the thinking outside the box, but this is the MARATHON. People don't necessarily START running them until they are 25-28 years old... and there's been elite guys i.e. Mbarak Hussein that didn't run their PR until closer to their 40th birthday. Mid-30's seems (generally) to be the peak. I think that pushing guys to run the marathon too early would be very detrimental to long term development.

So you believe that 2:19 is a better solution?

Damn, people on here are so bitter and jaded. I wasn't criticizing you. I said I APPRECIATE you thinking outside the box. I just don't think EITHER one is a solution. For me (as I said 1-2 pages ago) the problem is all the negativity and back-biting within the sport. That is what really holds us back (as a sport). You obviously care about the sport enough to think of constructive ideas... I SUPPORT that (I just didn't support the first idea that you came up with). With regards to an age graded standard vs. a flat 2:19... I would go for 2:19. It doesn't mean I think it is the best option possible, but I don't see the benefit from hurting some people MORE just so others are hurt a little less. It shouldn't be a trade-off.

I was in the room when the new standards where discussed. Granted, not all of the members of the committee were there (very rarely on any committee). There were several athletes and they were all in favor of the new standards. Infact, everyone in the room was in favor of it...no one against. It should be noted that at nearly all USATF Annual Committee Meeting, the public is welcome. Anyone can voice their opinion. It's very open and democratic. I have been going to these things for years and it has only been in recent years that athletes attended and spoke up. If you have a problem with these standards or any other policy speak to your fellow athletes - they are the ones driving the decisions.

Iwasthere wrote:

It should be noted that at nearly all USATF Annual Committee Meeting, the public is welcome.

Daddy was using the plane and I didn't want to fly to Hawaii commercial with the commoners.

For all you new kids who keep mentioning 1984 and the "200" qualifiers. Take a look at where about 100 of them came from.

I'll give you a hint. It was one race with a freak tailwind.

I was there. I qualified with a 2 minute PR.

I apologize if my question came across as an attack? It honestly wasn't meant that way. I just didn't understand your response. Mbarek ran well under 2:15 at 40 years old, so he would have never been excluded.

Yeah, I didn't mean he would be excluded. He'll probably still qualify as a 50 year old! I meant that less talented athletes have the potential to keep running PR's until they are at least 39 years old... so it seems unfair to limit them by age. Also, the marathon is so much about years and years of mileage and consistency. That is the beauty of it. Someone really can keep knocking off 1-2 minutes per year until they are up there with the big boys.

That's nice, but USATF has decided that it no longer wants 200 qualifiers for the OT marathon, it wants a field of 65-85.

Old guy.. wrote:

For all you new kids who keep mentioning 1984 and the "200" qualifiers. Take a look at where about 100 of them came from.

I'll give you a hint. It was one race with a freak tailwind.

I was there. I qualified with a 2 minute PR.

This race will now become the Hanson-Brooks Show. They will have 20 of the 60 person field. The 2:19-2:22 guys have a difficult time training and working 45 hours a week in corporate america. These same guys will either become 2:30 guys or quit and become full time runners so that they can run 2:18. This will do nothing to advance the sport. These guys may run 2:18 or even 2:16 but never 2:10. So how has changing the standards raised the bar? It hasn't. MLDR does a poor job of thinking a situation through.

Old guy.. wrote:

For all you new kids who keep mentioning 1984 and the "200" qualifiers. Take a look at where about 100 of them came from.

I'll give you a hint. It was one race with a freak tailwind.

I was there. I qualified with a 2 minute PR.

I was there, too, and I agree with your implicit point that a number of those 200+ wouldn't have run under 2:19:04 on a loop course, although it's pretty safe to say that most (perhaps 150) would have. (I didn't qualify that day, by the way. Like a number of guys on this thread, I was pretty demoralized when the qualifying time of 2:19:04 was announced in early 1983, and I didn't qualify for the 1984 trials. As things turned out, I didn't get to the trials until a long time later.)

If I were the king of the sport, I would exclude that course and all other aided courses as qualifiers, and I would be willing to bump the qualifying time up to 2:20 in return.

I've been there too. Have been for many years. Couldn't go this year because I just couldn't afford it. Time wise or financially.I'm going to say your dead wrong. It is not a democracy. Things have changed dramatically over the past 4-5 years. We used to vote on everything and have an open forum. Now we just get told things. Huge difference. If you don't see it then you're part of the problem.

Iwasthere wrote:

I was in the room when the new standards where discussed. Granted, not all of the members of the committee were there (very rarely on any committee). There were several athletes and they were all in favor of the new standards. Infact, everyone in the room was in favor of it...no one against. It should be noted that at nearly all USATF Annual Committee Meeting, the public is welcome. Anyone can voice their opinion. It's very open and democratic. I have been going to these things for years and it has only been in recent years that athletes attended and spoke up. If you have a problem with these standards or any other policy speak to your fellow athletes - they are the ones driving the decisions.

This thread was discussed today in Hawaii. Glenn found it ironic that the 2:20-2:22 guys that "aren't elite" wanted airport pick ups and special fluids and all of the amenities of the "real runners", are now the biggest whiners about the change in the standards. "The playing field has been changed and we no longer will be forced to listen to a 35 year old 2:20 marathoner" GL