The OTQ standards should have been 2:20 and 2:40... convince me I'm wrong

You're wrong because you are trying to pick "pretty" round numbers.

No, they should have been 2:14 and 2:28. All slower runners are hobby joggers.

We know that you are bummed Seth but you still have mountain running.

This is an Olympic trial and not a parade.

I'll never understand the disconnect that most runners I meet in person are incredibly pleasant and encouraging people, many of whom regularly read Lets Run. And yet the dominant culture of LRC is so vindictive, toxic, and nasty.

Let me see: The OQ standard is 2:11:30 for men and 2:29 something for woman and you pretend that 2:20 for men (8 and a half minutes slower than the OQ and just 9 minutes faster than the woman's standard) is a meaningful competitive standard?

What do you smoke bro???

I think USATF wanted standards that were not completely out of line with the WA standards (2:11:30/2:29:30) and also shrink both fields to a manageable number. Your 2:20 standard would probably swell the size of the men’s field.

The new men’s standard is 6:30 slower and the women’s is 7:30 slower than WA. The old standards were 7:30 and 15:30 slower.

Many runners fell at the 2020 trials. Smaller fields will help.

I agree with you OP. I think softer standards are better for growing the sport.

NERunner03533 wrote:

I agree with you OP. I think softer standards are better for growing the sport.

The problem is a 2:26 marathoner can put on a certain pair of shoes and turn into a 2:19 marathoner overnight.

aztec the moronic wrote:

NERunner03533 wrote:

I agree with you OP. I think softer standards are better for growing the sport.

The problem is a 2:26 marathoner can put on a certain pair of shoes and turn into a 2:19 marathoner overnight.

Amend that to say “….a certain pair of shoes on an aided course….”

AXC wrote:

Finally with the faster standards the final qualifiers are going the be the amateur professionals. The people putting off real life to dedicate themselves to running for a couple more years... kinda depressing. In 2020 the final qualifiers were the professional amateurs, those who are not putting off the rest of their lives but continuing to run at a high level... totally inspiring!

This is an interesting way of looking at it.

I agree with you that there's a lot to be gained and little to be lost by having fields of the size you'd get with 2:20/2:40 standards. Changes from the 2020 standard were needed to more nearly equalize the sizes of the men's and women's fields. However, I'd be in favor of larger fields overall, for the reasons you state.

+1

A 2:20 runner has no chance of making the olympics. Hell, a 2:15 runner probably has no chance of making the olympics. It’s like having 1:55 800m guys, 3:55 1500m guys etc running at the Olympic trials. Yeah they are impressive times to run but there’s no way you’ll go to the olympics.

Perhaps make a more competitive US marathon where you need to run sub 2:30 or 2:20 or something along those lines to get in, but I honestly think the Olympic trials standard should be 2:15 or faster.

Nope those are too soft. To make it meaningful it needs to be limiting. With that mens time you would have seen almost 400 guys in the field. I think you can make a better case for 2:17 then you can 2:20. It should be targeting 150-200 runners.

The women's is probably about right. After the top-end American women's marathoning is not as deep as on the mens side. For example, the men's standard is 12.5 minutes slower than the AR while the women's is 17.5 minutes slower than the AR. Hopefully, we see this drive more women into that sub-elite range rather than having a lot of mediocre former D1 runners who decided to train for a year clog up the field like in Atlanta.

CopperRunner wrote:

A 2:20 runner has no chance of making the olympics. Hell, a 2:15 runner probably has no chance of making the olympics. It’s like having 1:55 800m guys, 3:55 1500m guys etc running at the Olympic trials. Yeah they are impressive times to run but there’s no way you’ll go to the olympics.

No one has ever given me a good explanation as to how having extra runners in the back of the pack at the Olympic trials makes the quality of the top runners any worse

NERunner03533 wrote:

I agree with you OP. I think softer standards are better for growing the sport.

I disagree. Raising the standard will produce better runners. The standard in the '80s was 2:20. Forty years later it should be notably faster. Hell, the new shoes are likely worth 2 minutes.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

The women's is probably about right. After the top-end American women's marathoning is not as deep as on the mens side. For example, the men's standard is 12.5 minutes slower than the AR while the women's is 17.5 minutes slower than the AR. Hopefully, we see this drive more women into that sub-elite range rather than having a lot of mediocre former D1 runners who decided to train for a year clog up the field like in Atlanta.

US women have been substantially outperforming the men in the marathon in recent years at the top, with a a softer more inclusive OTQ standard. So if anything I think it is more likely that having a more inclusive men's standard could raise the men's standard at the top instead of saying that the women's standard has to move to be more restrictive like the men's