2024 OTQ standard

It was and it will.

MEN - 2:15:00

WOMEN - 2:50:00 (not a typo)

Bud Fox wrote:

...

MEN - 2:15:00

WOMEN - 2:50:00 (not a typo)

Bud, that huge disparity between the men's and women's times looks idiotic. Why would they want twice as many women running the trials than men?

Bud Fox wrote:

It was and it will.

MEN - 2:15:00

WOMEN - 2:50:00 (not a typo)

So brave and inspirational! #fastwomen

hull n oats wrote:

Bud Fox wrote:

It was and it will.

MEN - 2:15:00

WOMEN - 2:50:00 (not a typo)

So brave and inspirational! #fastwomen

So we have to endure a "you can do it!" twitterstorm of fans of 2000 OQ women.

Twitteriti wrote:

hull n oats wrote:

So brave and inspirational! #fastwomen

So we have to endure a "you can do it!" twitterstorm of fans of 2000 OQ women.

It's beyond idiotic to have the women's qualifying time be 1/2 hour behind our fastest women, while the men's qualifying time is less than 10 minutes behind our fastest men. Who came up with that stupidity?

Bud Fox wrote:

It was and it will.

MEN - 2:15:00

WOMEN - 2:50:00 (not a typo)

No it wasn’t.

Men - 2:17:00

Women - 2:38:30

These won’t happen, but I would like to see something like this for the ‘B’ standards. Had these been the standards last cycle, that would’ve given us 100 men and 100 women (not counting qualifiers who got in with the the HM time).

I originally though 2:18:00 and 2:37:00 because these times are 5% slower than the Olympic standards of 2:11:30 and 2:29:30, but that would give you almost twice as many men as women.

GBohannon wrote:

Men - 2:17:00

Women - 2:38:30

These won’t happen, but I would like to see something like this for the ‘B’ standards. Had these been the standards last cycle, that would’ve given us 100 men and 100 women (not counting qualifiers who got in with the the HM time).

I originally though 2:18:00 and 2:37:00 because these times are 5% slower than the Olympic standards of 2:11:30 and 2:29:30, but that would give you almost twice as many men as women.

Then it would seem like our women need to step it up a bit.

I actually don't hate this even though I am a firm believer that having a few more athletes at the marathon trials doesn't hurt the integrity of the event and gives a great target to the serious serious sub-elite marathon crowd.

Why not just do top 250 for each gender. With the caveat that anyone with the Olympic Standard gets in automatically (imagine a world where 251+ American men break 2:11:30!). Only those with the Olympic Standards get their expenses paid by the organizers. This eliminates the potential financial disaster of having to pay for a ton of qualifiers expenses the way Atlanta Track Club did this year. Also, it gets rid of the possibility of having twice as many Women than Men.

This does make it a bit harder to pinpoint a time to shoot for if you are aiming to get into the trials but have no shot at the Olympic standard but that's exactly how it works in every other event. The people with the "A" standard are in and then they take people off the descending order list until they fill the decided upon field size.

I do love the idea of the top 250, but that may be because I am a 2:25 guy (done without super shoes in 2018) and feel like I would have a shot in that scenario if I improved and was a heavy shoe responder.

No matter what the changes are, the women’s time needs to come down. I hate to say that as a “liberal” who coaches girls and truly supports women’s athletics, but 2:45:00 is a joke as the OTQ. Based on percentages and comparisons to the world’s elite, that would be like letting 2:28 dudes in.

I guess a reason why I don't like this idea of having the top 250 for each gender is because you wouldn't find out if you are going until very close to the trials. Say someone is ranked 235 in November but then 12 people run faster at CIM and 10 people run faster at Houston... Something like that where you thought you were going to go but end up not making it at the last second. I think that would really suck.

Another downside is that right now if you are injured going into the trials it's no big deal if you run the first few miles and drop out but with this rule you would be taking the spot of someone who might be able to finish the race.

I do like that this plan allows for the same number of men as women. Then you won't get angry feminists complaining about the trials standards being sexist.

At the trials, 68% of the women's field ran slower than the qualifying time to get into the event. Over 10% ran over 3 hours.

Who cares? Those people have no chance to qualify anyway. Many would be happy to get the call and we are only talking about a handful of people. You don't want to go? Okay. The next guy in line will be happy to take the 250th spot.

I heard no discussion at the annual meeting on standards.

I stated in other threads that I thought the women should go to 2:42 and 1:13 with submissions from record eligible, certified courses and no exceptions. Zero appeals. Zero aided courses. Plan your attempts carefully and get it done

I like a variant: top 250 as of 4 months before the trials. Then everyone who hits a certain standard in those last 4 months also gets in. Maybe also only allow people to qualify with a half-marathon in the last 4 months.

Faster than ever wrote:

Who cares? Those people have no chance to qualify anyway. Many would be happy to get the call and we are only talking about a handful of people. You don't want to go? Okay. The next guy in line will be happy to take the 250th spot.

Maybe you missed what anonymous lion was saying. He was feeling bad for the people getting booted OFF of the list at the last second, not for the people making it at the last second.

I like that idea. Definitely takes care of getting kicked out at the last second.

I still have a feeling like it would be bad for injured runners who know that on the starting line they aren't going to finish the race but maybe if runners also had to declare that they were running it 4 months out and then nobody else was allowed in that would fix the problem.

Slightly off topic but are there any rules for transgender people running at the trials? I remember watching the trials this year and the announcers were praising some transgender woman (Man->Woman) who was running.

Personally I think it is absurd that someone who was born a man is able to compete with women. Those gender hormones definitely hinder performance but I don't know if it is enough and I don't think they should be allowed to compete until the science is settled.

In my eyes it should be 2:15 and 2:32.