2024 OTQ standard

Ray wrote:

Exactly my point. No way CIM should be in there. They were there only because they were the national championship. Boston? Maybe there can be some discussion about grandfathering them in. It has been done in the past. My opinion....I wouldn't count Boston. You want to run the trials? Do it on a record eligible course in the 3 years you have. Not that difficult, if you are an elite or even semi elite athlete. If you're not an elite or semi elite athlete you probably should not be in the Olympic Trials.

Having run CIM I think it's pretty equivalent to a totally flat course given it is net downhill but also has some uphills in there. If you use a more objective source like the grade-adjusted pace on Strava it confirms that assessment.

That said, one benefit of scratching CIM/Boston/Grandma's/etc. is that there would then be an opening for another marathon to step up and be a "go to" race for people to OTQ. I think that could lead to races that are specifically set up for fast times like The Marathon Project - which would help bring times down in general. Even if it's not net downhill like the other races I think it was still a decent amount faster since the setup was so perfect.

bad trolling. wrote:

This is actually not true. Running USA does statistics every year, and more women than men participate in every distance up to the half marathon. In the marathon open age group, there’s more women (there’s more men with all the age groups combined).

“Fewer women are near the top, because fewer women try to be their best.”

You have no basis for this statement, so stop with the sexist, condescending opinions.

Everything you don’t like isn’t “sexist”. GTFO with dumb remarks like that.

His statements clearly were sexist.

Merversion wrote:

If you want to read more than you've ever thought you would on this topic and still see no clear vision, try this:

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/cases-for-large-us-olympic-marathon

Man, I don't know Kevin Beck at all, but what a whiny, condescending article.

- "I didn't get to race in super shoes, waaa."

- Calls the USATF board a bunch of names

- Whines about social media's influence on running

- Assumes anyone who wants to increase the number of participants has selfish motivations

Offending people is a really ineffective way to persuade people to your point of view. This is just a rant.

His ONE valid argument is the cost of supporting a larger race. This is pretty much negated by having non-A standard qualifiers pay their own way, though. Otherwise this is elitist drivel.

bad trolling. wrote:

His statements clearly were sexist.

The statements were also true. I am not applauding when I say this. See how many men ran within a certain % of the men's WR and compare to how many women within the same % of theirs. If you use a huge number, 80%, for example, you won't 'prove' what the objectionable poster suggests. So start with 1%, then 2, 3, and so forth. You will find that more men are within a category you could call 'elite', or one you deem 'sub-elite', or a slower one yet, than their are women who meet the same standard (5% off the WR, 10%, or whatever).

I was disappointed when I found out that this was true. The very best of the best men vs best of the best women are equivalent, of course, or even the top 3 or 5 or so. So a WC final in anything with a qualifying round (i.e., not 10000) or a London marathon field (if looking only at true podium contenders) will seem similarly deep. But if you are looking at the list of ALL invited London athletes, even those likely getting hotel and airfare but no significant appearance fees, you will see a faster drop off on the women's list than the men's.

So, in short, the best woman is certainly as good as the best man. If you had the best 6 in a given event all in the same race, the 6th woman and 6th man are likely to be similar when compared to the top seed or WR. But the 115th best man in the world is almost certain to have a superior performance to the 120th best woman. What I mean by that is he will probably be more than 11% faster than the woman I'm comparing him against.

The 11% is approximate, but close, when comparing men's vs women's performances against each other. You can pick an event and do the math comparing the 2 WRs, but you don't really need to bother. Simply compare the 100th best women's time to the W's WR and the 100th best men"s time to the M's WR. These can be all-time or annual lists, or, for the purposes of this thread, US only, annual or all-time.

Again, if you look at the 4th fastest in a given year, let's say, you will see a more closely spaced group, and the 9000th time may go back that way, but when you use a number that is relevant to the topic of the thread - very good, national class or better runners - you will see a more closely bunched, 'deeper' men's field. And if you use 2020 US lists, Hall's performance alone will skew things, simply because their were no US men running an equivalent time. In fact, I'd discourage 2020 altogether. Their were some fantastic invitational races where the podium contenders were probably all in the top-10 currently active (displaying comparable W's vs M's fields), but there were many fewer races for runners 2 tiers down: those for whom this topic is relevant, and a group slightly more densely populated by men than women. Results from a year with a full slate of events containing not only Oly/WC caliber athletes but a wider spectrum will demonstrate the thesis.

I'm not happy that is the case, but feel free to disprove the contention of the poster to whom you objected.

Perhaps a loophole should be set aside for anyone who has scored well on Rue Paul's Drag Race.

moist wrote:

Merversion wrote:

If you want to read more than you've ever thought you would on this topic and still see no clear vision, try this:

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/cases-for-large-us-olympic-marathon

Man, I don't know Kevin Beck at all, but what a whiny, condescending article.

- "I didn't get to race in super shoes, waaa."

- Calls the USATF board a bunch of names

- Whines about social media's influence on running

- Assumes anyone who wants to increase the number of participants has selfish motivations

Offending people is a really ineffective way to persuade people to your point of view. This is just a rant.

His ONE valid argument is the cost of supporting a larger race. This is pretty much negated by having non-A standard qualifiers pay their own way, though. Otherwise this is elitist drivel.

Yes, he certainly takes on a purist gatekeeper perspective in this. Beck has done fine writing when paired with a good editor, like years ago at Running Times. However, as indicated it's been a long time since that was a reality. I know the point of a blog is to let fly, yet the amount of self-indulgence, incoherence, and god complex at the above link renders this nothing more than a personal diary. (Looking at some of his other recent entries, they contain a whole lot of me, myself, and I with little else.) Who besides those who already agree with and readily affirm his views is going to really read over-wrought entries like this? That could be the direct intent of the tone he uses. What is a great defense against dissent or even thoughtful discussion? Fatigue the reader with nuclear option excess verbiage. This is clearly a guy who lives in his own head way more than average, it's apparent that he's incredibly out of touch. Does anyone have any idea if he is active at all in the sport, whether in grass roots contributions or in any sort of governance? Maybe that question answers itself, given the amount of time and effort he puts into crafting that blog.

Bumping this - does window open this fall or next fall?

Men- 2:17

Women- 2:37

Window opens January 2022

Is there a link for the 2024 standards?

Yea do we have a source here?

anonymous lion wrote:

I don't know if I would want sports separated by levels of testosterone... I think sex assigned at birth would be better but I'm sure there would be problems with this as well.

One of Caster Semenya's arguments is that she was assigned female at birth, and so (based on that) should be allowed to compete in the women's division and only the women's division.

I think testosterone is much much better. Based on the reading I've done (including Joanna Harper's excellent "Sporting Gender") I do not have any concerns about competing against a transgender woman who has fully transitioned. In some ways, I think I have an advantage - a lifetime of experience competing in a woman's body with a woman's hormones - that transgender women do not.

I do have serious objections to those who have NOT transitioned to female levels of testosterone competing in the women's division. Even if they've believed and been told from birth that they were female.

Any update here? Trying to decide if I should go for $ or OTQ time in the fall.

bump

See username . Any update from USATF on this? Marathons in the fall will be here before we know it..

bump it (louder) wrote:

See username . Any update from USATF on this? Marathons in the fall will be here before we know it..

No

anonymous lion wrote:

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.

.

Boo hoo. This is sports. Run faster.

The Ghost of Brian Sell wrote:

Does anyone have any idea if he is active at all in the sport, whether in grass roots contributions or in any sort of governance? Maybe that question answers itself, given the amount of time and effort he puts into crafting that blog.

He sniffs jocks on the outskirts of Boulder, I believe. Gives nothing back.

It's going to be 2:05 & 2:20. Track race.

THIS IS HOW WE BUILD THE SPORT