Let's inject some reality into this game:
http://www.runschief.com/my_weblog/2007/10/us-mens-olympic.html
Let's inject some reality into this game:
http://www.runschief.com/my_weblog/2007/10/us-mens-olympic.html
So you're saying you want 8 people to run in the trials?
That's a lot of fun.
No, what I'm saying, is that it makes no sense to let someone who ran 2:20 run the race.
Or, can you shed some of your infinite wisdom with us?
Hey, let's open the race up to 2:30 marathoners., Sound good? That way, they will only be 3 miles out of medal contention.
Do you know who you are talking to?
The better question is do YOU know who YOU are talking to? Letsrun posters, that's who. I'm suprised this thread hasn't been flamed a bazillion times already.
In any case, it's hard to justify your argument when we don't have to go very far back in history to find a strong counterexample: Trent Briney ran fourth in '04, only about 30 seconds from making the Olympic team. If the standard had been even 2:18 he may not have been able to toe the line.
What purpose could we possibly have for making the standard ridiculously high, so that only the top 10 or 12 runners even get the chance to compete for the spot? We frequently see unheralded names at the very top of the results; raising the standard significantly would just make it that much harder for B-list runners to have breakout, career-changing races. Again, we don't really have to look far back in history for examples. And what of world-class runners who have the chops to compete for a spot but have been injured or have had a string of bad races and didn't put in that high of a performance during the qualifying window? Surely you wouldn't suggest that we have a committee making subjective judgments on who gets to compete for the spot and who doesn't...
I think 2:22 is about right, especially when considering that someone may have run in particularly adverse conditions.
I know he's not an American, but for illustration Robert Cheruiyot ran 2:16 at this year's Chicago. If you made the standard 2:14, then someone of his caliber might not get in.
Also, so what if you have a few dozen extra runners in the race. Somehow I don't see how your typical 2:21 marathoner is going to get in the way of the real race.
sorry, I meant to include the following factual support in my previous post:
Trent Briney's pr going into the '04 trials was 2:21:10.
In your write-up you say "I'm sorry, but if you can't break 2:14, you have no business being in the trials." The following runners do not have a sub-2:14 marathon in the qualifying window (many of them ever):
Dathan Ritzenhein (2:14:01)
Jason Lehmkuhle (2:16:27)
Josh Cox (2:20:55)
Fasil Bizuneh (2:18:14)
Josh Rohatinsky (no marathon)
Dan Browne (28:10 10k)
Now, granted I don't think that any of these guys will make the team, but I think all of them have at least a glimmer of hope...so they have "no business" even trying? They aren't deserving of the opportunity?
Didn't Mark Conover make the team after coming in with a 2:18?
BR's 2:09 came after a DNF, 2:28, 2:19, 2:36, 2:21.
Flame away. I invented this game. Ask around, I was the original Track and Field Message Board.
You were what 9 years old when I started this?
Do some research, you will know my story.
I feel bad for you if your claim to fame is talking about running on the internet. Some of us to prefer to be recognized for what we've done with our legs, not with our fingers.
You're a clown.
Schiefer wrote:
Flame away. I invented this game. Ask around, I was the original Track and Field Message Board.
You were what 9 years old when I started this?
Do some research, you will know my story.
http://www.runschief.com
I'm 46. And I did do some research. It's mentioned in my previous post.
Congratulations on your running achievements. Thanks for your website.
My claim to fame?
Let me tell you, my claim to fame, the very least of which is talking about track on the internet.
I am not going to bother to explain any of this to you, because you just don't get it.
Schiefer
Schiefer wrote:
My claim to fame?
Let me tell you, my claim to fame, the very least of which is talking about track on the internet.
I am not going to bother to explain any of this to you, because you just don't get it.
http://www.runschief.comSchiefer
You're funny. I like all that. You had a messageboard therefore you can spout nonsense and people will believe you.
Schiefer, you are so full of shit. I looked you up. I've seen your site. Your legacy? You're full of it. You left no legacy. You have no glory. Honestly, stop being so f***ing pretentious because you aren't.
You, Schiefer, are like the cocky new freshman on a college team trying to talk about what hot shit he is and how fast is 4:29 1600PR. You're not the hottest new thing out there. Be humble, you f ucking douche.
If you left such a legacy, if you were so important to the sport, then how about you make some constructive criticisms? You're the type of guy who probably thinks there's no need for an olympics because we can just pit the top runners in the world automatically. Why have an Olympics when every four years you just make Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell race? Why bother with eats? Why didn't we just have a two man race between hicham el guerrouj and bernard lagat in '04?
Honestly, cutting the standard down is the wrong way to go. Do you think setting a 2:14 standard will help things? No. Absolutely not.
If anything, the standards should be relaxed to 2:30. Sure, the race will have more people, but will it be unmanagable? Absolutely not. The idea behind setting the race at 2:30, however, is that suddenly you open up the possibility of qualifying for the Olympic Trials to many, many more runners. What if there was a potential 2:10 guy out there, out working 70 hour weeks and could manage a 2:33 marathon every year. Would he have an incentive to put his job on hold and go for it? If he was 11 minutes off of the standard, probably not. If he was three minutes off the standard, then why wouldn't he try to chase a dream. Who knows, suddenly he's training and finds out he can run a 2:25. The next year he keeps going and he hits that untapped potential and runs 2:12.
You could have tons of 2:10 guys out there who have given up early or never tried at all. The more guys that you elevate to a certain level, the better success you will have.
It's one of the reasons some programs are better than others. Not to specifically draw on a high school example, but York has a great program because they get so many kids coming out each year for cross country, because it's just such a legacy there. If you up the Trials field to get bigger, then suddenly you'll have a big pack of guys running 2:20, 2:15. More than you would have if you hadn't given them hope. These guys will meet, get together, and train even harder, pushing eachother faster and faster.
In summary, you left no legacy and you have already been forgotten.
Do you know who you're typing to?
``a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D81438F936A15757C0A965958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/V/Villanova%20University"%%a baton dropper
haha, good post. Lets see if we can get it in there for a little easier paste job....
This is who scheifer kinda reminds me of, in regards to his arrogance anyway:
http://johnfitzgeraldpage.com/aboutus.aspx
I also typed in the keywords that he wrote about on his site, and I wasn't pleasantly surprised. Was there something that was supposed to impress me? And also, why is a miler commenting on the marathon trials? I mean, I saw you qualified for the Olympic trials in 92, but with a mile PR of only 3:59, did you really belong there? Realistically, there was no way you were going to qualify for anything because you obviously were not going to be in the top 3, right?
midwesta wrote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D81438F936A15757C0A965958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/V/Villanova%20University%22%%a%20baton%20dropper
I'm all for cutting-down people who have overinflated egos, but sounds like the baton incident had nothing to do with how good a runner "scheif" was.
In any case, referring to the original post, I want to be clear that I do not support a RELAXING of the qualifying time. I think 2:22 is far enough, I don't see that a 2:28 guy is really showing the potential to run 2:10 and qualify, although you never know. Really, my original point was that there is no good reason to tighten the standards either. And I also wanted to make the point that, regardless of the OP's highly dubious claim to be internet royalty, nobody who understands or respects professional distance running would ever argue that 95% of the field at this year's olympic trials "have no business being there." Is there any respectable authority in american distance running who would argue that having only 30 guys compete for the olympic team instead of 130 is better for the sport?
don't know if I agree with Schieffer on this or not, but you can't seriously believe that a guy who has run as fast as he did for the mile has no idea about the marathon trials and therefore can't comment on them.
Dude, not to be mean, good for you, but who cares?
It's nice, but it doesn't save you from being an asshole. Who you are doesn't even matter here, you're just talking about the trials. So why bring it in?
Tool.