When will we know the standards for the 2024 olympic marathon trials?

Well lets just see if we can have the 2021 olympics first.

kjshkjshd wrote:

are they expected to change?

Whatever they are, you don't need to worry about them.

The 2020 Marathon Trials fields were the biggest ever (by a lot). The standards for 2020 were set before Vaporflys were widely available. Now that everyone and their mother has carbon-plated shoes, I predict the standards on both sides will be two to three minutes quicker.

Never saw a definitive answer for 2021. USA will send 2020 Trials qualifiers?

RE timing: 2020 Standards were announced in July 2017.

NoVan wrote:

The 2020 Marathon Trials fields were the biggest ever (by a lot). The standards for 2020 were set before Vaporflys were widely available. Now that everyone and their mother has carbon-plated shoes, I predict the standards on both sides will be two to three minutes quicker.

I agree with this. I thought 2:19 was fine when it was made but totally underestimated the improvement the vaporfly would offer. I thought it was a marketing gimmick. When it was 2:18 in 2016 before they had to raise it only like 50 or 60 had the full standard, the half standard that time was too soft. US marathon is deeper now at the sub-elite level.

I think 2:17 full 63:00 half is appropriate given the shoe factor. I could even be talked into 2:16. I think the OT's should extend beyond those who can make the team but would like see the cutoff target between 100-150 total of each gender. I think this is a reasonably sized group for the marathon but still, every one of those would be quality runners. In 2020 there were too many marginal D1 talents in the field since guys who would have been 2:21 or 22 runners 4 years prior were now running 2:18.

My prediction is they stop with the auto-time; which had been tied to the Olympic standard which is no longer a thing.

I predict they will make a ranking similar to the World Athletics ranking system and take the top X runners.

Set the standard as such:

Marathon WR on January 1, 2022 + 15 minutes (both men and women)

Half Marathon WR on January 1, 2022 + 7 minutes (both men and women)

If the current records stand, then you must beat 2:16:39/1:05:01 for men, 2:29:04/1:11:31 for women.

Let's be honest, if you are roughly 4-5K behind the marathon mark, then you need more training or you do not have the talent. The Olympic Trials have to stop being a participation trophy event for sub-elites to justify their Peter Pan existence.

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Set the standard as such:

Marathon WR on January 1, 2022 + 15 minutes (both men and women)

Half Marathon WR on January 1, 2022 + 7 minutes (both men and women)

If the current records stand, then you must beat 2:16:39/1:05:01 for men, 2:29:04/1:11:31 for women.

Let's be honest, if you are roughly 4-5K behind the marathon mark, then you need more training or you do not have the talent. The Olympic Trials have to stop being a participation trophy event for sub-elites to justify their Peter Pan existence.

I would be fine with that marathon standard on the mens side but the half is way to soft. I can tell you 65 is so much easier that 2:16 despite what conversion tables tell you. Any mid 29 10K guy can threaten that with some tweaking to their training.

On the women's side I get the method but we'd wind up with like 15 women in the trials. There is a much bigger gap between women's WC to sub-elite vs on the men's side. I think something in the 2:37-38 range is fair on the women's side. The absurdity of 500 women or whatever it ended up being at the trials in 2020 shouldn't happen again. It was basically Boston lite.

No time standard. 100 fastest men and women that apply.

That won't work. You'd end up with 130 men and 30 women.

There were about 200 men who qualified. Maybe drop it to 2:18 but that's it. There were 500+ women who qualified. Drop it to 2:40-41 and that changes to about 200 who could do it.

Or you can look at it in a positive light as a stretch goal to incentivate runners to reach their best, much as BQ's do for us middle of the pack'ers. What's the harm in having a few dozen additional runners at the OT when most of them are paying their own way? The roads can handle thousands of runners obviously, unlike the restrictions on a track venue.

ilonggo wrote:

Or you can look at it in a positive light as a stretch goal to incentivate runners to reach their best, much as BQ's do for us middle of the pack'ers. What's the harm in having a few dozen additional runners at the OT when most of them are paying their own way? The roads can handle thousands of runners obviously, unlike the restrictions on a track venue.

___________________

If we had a better system for developing post-collegiate marathoners, I might agree with people who want to tighten the standard. As it stands, the trials standard keeps people running and improves the visibility of the sport. It's not insane to consider the top 200-500 athletes in any sport "elite," even if they aren't world class. It's true that people hear Olympic Trials and think all competitors have a shot, but it's silly to pretend that being in the top few hundred in the country makes somebody a hobby jogger. Nearly every other professional sport in this country has hundreds of athletes competing.

That said, the real problem with the shoes is not that they bump up the times. If that were the case, simply tightening the standards would cut the field size. The problem is that they probably change the nature of marathoning, meaning that people who wouldn't otherwise be competitive in the marathon can now compete with those who can hold their own without the shoes. Some runners can handle the fatigue of the last 5-6 miles in regular shoes; others consistently blow up. The NYT study found that VF runners were significantly more likely to run negative splits than those in normal shoes. I've also read numerous stories of runners who had been marathoning for years but suddenly had a breakthrough in 2017-2019. There also seems to be a huge range of variation in shoe response, with some people getting a few minutes and others getting 5 or more minutes. Long story short: we need to learn more about the shoes. Personal take: I don't like what the shoes have done to road racing, even though I love how they feel and get a lot of joy out of running in them.

KILL the MF half mary standard, for the love of all that is holy!!

Let's hope the womens standard gets much harder. The fact that 3 times as many women qualified as MEN is ridiculous. It's also ridiculous that 18-34 year old men need to run 2:57-2:58 marathon to qualify for boston and women can qualify for the OLYMPIC TRIALS with a time only 12 minutes slower.

They need to make the womens standard 1:11 half and 2:37 full to better align the standard with what the men have to do.

If Trump wins there will be no OT in 2024.

Well if Trump wins the media outrage will continue for another 4 years, in which case I would not count on a trials for 2024.

Any why announce standards... there’s not even any races!

The actual answer to your question is...they will be discussed in committee at the 2021 annual meeting and announced in early 2022giving about 6 months less time to qualify. Simple solution for the women would be to lower the standard to 2:42 and only allow record eligible courses. That would get the numbers down to about equal for men and women.