Are the new standards of 2:18 and 2:37 too easy in this new era of super shoes? Trials qualifying kicked off at the beginning of 2022 for marathon times and Houston had 10 men and 13 women under the standards. Using the half marathon to qualify doesn't start until 2023, or there would have been several more.
So far, the opinion that the women's standard was tightened too much doesn't hold up.
What does too easy mean exactly? How many people is the ideal amount of people you want to compete at the trials?
Probably yes wrote:
What does too easy mean exactly? How many people is the ideal amount of people you want to compete at the trials?
I think ideally the top 100 men and women?
2:37 is still pretty easy for the women, 18 minutes off the American record and 24 minutes off the world record, while 2:18 is a minute ahead of the women's American record, 12+ minutes off the men's AR and 16+ minutes off the WR. The men's standard remains harder but we have a lot of sub-2:13 guys now, so we can easily fill the team with Olympic standard guys.
Yes
Pick It Up wrote:
Probably yes wrote:
What does too easy mean exactly? How many people is the ideal amount of people you want to compete at the trials?
I think ideally the top 100 men and women?
Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.
zvcxzcvx wrote:
The men's standard remains harder….
No it isn’t. The men’s standard had 157 men at 2:18 or faster vs 83 women at 2:37 or faster in 2020. The women have more room to develop. Seeing how the women stepped it up in 2020 with the record field size, they are continuing to step it up with the tougher standard for 2024.
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
Pick It Up wrote:
I think ideally the top 100 men and women?
Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.
What's the harm in people in the race who have no shot at the top 3? It's such a small field anyway...easy for all the realistic hopefuls to navigate. Getting TO the trials is the dream of many. Why not let the have that?
Flagpole wrote:
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.
What's the harm in people in the race who have no shot at the top 3? It's such a small field anyway...easy for all the realistic hopefuls to navigate. Getting TO the trials is the dream of many. Why not let the have that?
What's the harm in having drink tables manned by people dressed as clowns? What's the harm in having therapy puppies at the starting line and at the finish?
If it's a top flight sporting event then treat it thusly. If it isn't then why debate having a cutoff at all? Let in everyone with Rudy dreams who can pay the entry.
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
What's the harm in people in the race who have no shot at the top 3? It's such a small field anyway...easy for all the realistic hopefuls to navigate. Getting TO the trials is the dream of many. Why not let the have that?
What's the harm in having drink tables manned by people dressed as clowns? What's the harm in having therapy puppies at the starting line and at the finish?
If it's a top flight sporting event then treat it thusly. If it isn't then why debate having a cutoff at all? Let in everyone with Rudy dreams who can pay the entry.
1) Clowns are silly. Therapy puppies are silly. Having 100 or so runners in a marathon is not silly.
2) I didn't say get rid of a time cutoff. 2:18 is solid. Could a 2:18 guy run out of his mind and run 2:11 at the trials and then with some subpar performances from others sneak in for 3rd? Well, I like the chance to be there.
3) To push back with your extremism, why have trials at all? Why not just choose the top 3 based on times from previous marathons?
Houston is a really good marathon to target times, which many athletes did. Bit early to be making major judgments on this issue.
Flagpole wrote:
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
What's the harm in having drink tables manned by people dressed as clowns? What's the harm in having therapy puppies at the starting line and at the finish?
If it's a top flight sporting event then treat it thusly. If it isn't then why debate having a cutoff at all? Let in everyone with Rudy dreams who can pay the entry.
1) Clowns are silly. Therapy puppies are silly. Having 100 or so runners in a marathon is not silly.
2) I didn't say get rid of a time cutoff. 2:18 is solid. Could a 2:18 guy run out of his mind and run 2:11 at the trials and then with some subpar performances from others sneak in for 3rd? Well, I like the chance to be there.
3) To push back with your extremism, why have trials at all? Why not just choose the top 3 based on times from previous marathons?
1) Yes, including marathoners with 2:11+/2:29+ marks is silly in the context of selecting a team to send to the Olympic MF Games to compete against the best in the world.
2. I didn't say you did. 2:18 guys don't suddenly run 2:11 at the OT. Show me any time that's happened. If you honestly believe that has or certainly could happen then why not say the same for 2:30 or 2:45 guys? The odds are essentially the same.
3. Back atcha: why not let 100 into the 10,000 and add a couple qualifying rounds and give the top 8 on the performance list byes into the final?
4. Bonus: did Japan's MGC Race suffer for a lack of OT tourists?
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) Clowns are silly. Therapy puppies are silly. Having 100 or so runners in a marathon is not silly.
2) I didn't say get rid of a time cutoff. 2:18 is solid. Could a 2:18 guy run out of his mind and run 2:11 at the trials and then with some subpar performances from others sneak in for 3rd? Well, I like the chance to be there.
3) To push back with your extremism, why have trials at all? Why not just choose the top 3 based on times from previous marathons?
1) Yes, including marathoners with 2:11+/2:29+ marks is silly in the context of selecting a team to send to the Olympic MF Games to compete against the best in the world.
2. I didn't say you did. 2:18 guys don't suddenly run 2:11 at the OT. Show me any time that's happened. If you honestly believe that has or certainly could happen then why not say the same for 2:30 or 2:45 guys? The odds are essentially the same.
3. Back atcha: why not let 100 into the 10,000 and add a couple qualifying rounds and give the top 8 on the performance list byes into the final?
4. Bonus: did Japan's MGC Race suffer for a lack of OT tourists?
What a weird thing to get worked up over.
I didn't say it had happened before, but its not out of the question. Bill Rodgers went from 2:21 to 2:09 in one marathon to the next, and when he ran 2:09. his previous PR was 2:19:34.
And, saying a 2:18 dude should have a spot at the trials isn't the same as saying a 2:30 or 2:45 guy should. You aren't very good at making points. I suggest you find another calling in life.
Trent Briney. 2004. Qualified with 2:21, finished 4th in 2:12.
Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:
2. I didn't say you did. 2:18 guys don't suddenly run 2:11 at the OT. Show me any time that's happened. If you honestly believe that has or certainly could happen then why not say the same for 2:30 or 2:45 guys? The odds are essentially the same.
You must be new here. Mark Conover was a 2:18 guy who suddenly won the OT.
Pick It Up wrote:
Are the new standards of 2:18 and 2:37 too easy in this new era of super shoes? Trials qualifying kicked off at the beginning of 2022 for marathon times and Houston had 10 men and 13 women under the standards. Using the half marathon to qualify doesn't start until 2023, or there would have been several more.
2:37 sounds about right for the women. The 9th place finisher in the 2016 Olympic marathon trials had a great race, running a 5 min PB in terrible, hot, conditions. Her qualifier, and PB, was a 2:40 (but likely not in super shoes). So if we say we want anyone who has a legitimate shot at a 10 finish in, then a 2:40 type from 2016 seems like a good cut-off. Well, 2:40 without super shoes is probably worth around a 2:37 with them, so I think it's a reasonable standard.
Not to be sexist, but male qualifiers should be able to beat women head-to-head. D’Amato nearly beat the men’s standard on Sunday, so it is a little soft.
A guy running just 1% faster (1:54) than Athing Mu shouldn’t be in the 800 Olympic Trials.
"2:18 guys don't suddenly run 2:11 at the OT. Show me any time that's happened."
>Gets shown multiple times that's happened.
women step it up. wrote:
zvcxzcvx wrote:
The men's standard remains harder….
No it isn’t. The men’s standard had 157 men at 2:18 or faster vs 83 women at 2:37 or faster in 2020. The women have more room to develop. Seeing how the women stepped it up in 2020 with the record field size, they are continuing to step it up with the tougher standard for 2024.
Say your goal was to OTQ, it's possible that a guy runs under 2:18 on a good day when he was shooting for 2:19. If a girl was just going for 2:45 she would be stupid to run any of her miles at 2:37 pace.