Changed Marathon Trials numbers

AN,

Do you still work in the industry? Just curious about how connected you currently are. Although I often don't agree with your posts, I do think that they are well thought out and consistent. Thanks for your input.

EricMBlake wrote:

The funny thing with the 30% rule is that the IAAF has a more liberal rule for 2008 Olympics then "30% start-finish separation rule". Grandma's (Duluth) has to be over 30% start-finish sepation rule but is listed on the site as a qualifing marathon:

http://www.iaaf.org/documents/pdf/standards/OLY08/2007%20Marathon%20qualifying%20events%20Osaka%20Beijing.pdf

If IAAF keeps the same list for 2012 but USATF changes to "30% start-finish separation rule" then a US runner could obtain the Olympic "A" Standard with a sub-2:15 at Grandma's but not have the Olymmpic Trial Standard because the course "is not legit". That would be a bummer to leave runners who have the Oly Games "A" Standard out of the US Oly Trials. A little thinking should happen before they announce these things.

Thanks for that link Eric I didn't find it during a 3 min. search.

Yes, IAAF is more liberal - 50% sep. vs. 30 for USATF. Somehow Grandma's (and Boston) get a waiver, as they're fare outside even the IAAF limit.

2) I'm not sure why this decision was made or that it has a positive rather than a negative impact on US distance running. I don't think it "raises the bar" because it doesn't have any impact on how many people will hit the Olympic standard or have a legit shot at the Olympic Team. The standard would need to be lowered to 2:14 or better for that. Also, it doesn't seem like the size of the field needed to be reduced. The number of qualifiers under the old standards were never likely to exceed 200 and that's a stretch and still not a big field.

Just seems like to me that the major reason behind the whole change is some people at USATF wanted to prove they could do whatever they wanted (which I guess is true).[/quote]

Glenn said that this move was to improve athlete development, and it does "raise the bar".

However, you are right that it doesn't seem to affect the top guys anyway, unless you have some vision and look down the road. It immediately affects the 2:19-2:22 guys, which apparently are about 80 in number from the qualifying list. (Wow, that's more than I thought!) So for those 80 guys, they're told they have to achieve sub-2:19 or else don't bother having Olympic dreams. Even if 20 people make that jump, there are 60 people who the USATF has said you are not important to us. As of yet, they haven't offered an alternative for the 60 people they are leaving in the dark, not to mention the scores of 2:23+ guys who were attempting to make the standard.

I realize someone is going to look at the 20 people who make that jump and look at it as success, but I wonder what the heck those 20 people were doing. I twice ran the B standard, but I never ran a marathon where I wasn't trying to do my best. If I could have run sub-2:19, I would have. If I did, it meant more prize money in my pocket. There have to be stepping stones along the way. I will say I like the 65 half as a stepping stone. 2:22 was a stepping stone to 2:20, and then there was 2:18 (Oly B), and 2:15 (Oly A), and then the standards are set by the competitors in the field (You had to beat Brian Sell to make the team this year.) That is the real standard anyway. Throw 200 people in the race, and you'll have people racing each other to come out victorious. Simple. And you'll be developing 200 people instead of 65.

The word "development" isn't in USATF's dictionary.

Hey Ray, remember back in the old days when we were fighting Brooks and the track mafia. They didn't understand development. Now it is MLDR who doesn't get it. The enemy is ourselves.

Avocados Number wrote:

I didn't just "try" to give "an example," as you stated. In fact, I think I accounted for every sub-2:10 marathoner in U.S. history,

Is it only aided for US runners then? What about Steve Jones? Frank Shorter? Ingrid Kristiansen? Catherine NDereba? Lee Bong Ju? Moses Tanui? Rodgers Rop?

All of them ran Boston more than once. All of them ran MUCH faster elsewhere. Those are just off the top of my head.

As to whether Boston on a windless day is faster than Chicago on a windless day, I take no position on that.

I do. It's slower, no doubt. I've raced on both more than once.

As for world records at Boston, of course there haven't been any set in recent decades. Under modern standards, there can't be any set at Boston.

Yes I'm aware of that. Don't be coy. No man has run faster than the world record time, whether it was counted or not in many many decades. No man has broken 2:07 there even though, by my count 59 performances have broken 2:07 through out the world elsewhere on "non-aided" courses. How do you account for that?

Joanie's time from 1983 came at a time when the women's world record was still having minutes lopped off it. The women's record still has a way to go before it's as stable as the men's record, yet still, Okayo's course record from 2002 (another near perfect day) is only the 16th fastest time ever.

"msuxc1" wrote:

"It immediately affects the 2:19-2:22 guys, which apparently are about 80 in number from the qualifying list. (Wow, that's more than I thought!) So for those 80 guys, they're told they have to achieve sub-2:19 or else don't bother having Olympic dreams."

"Throw 200 people in the race, and you'll have people racing each other to come out victorious. Simple. And you'll be developing 200 people instead of 65."

I dunno...we've heard a lot about people saying "the USOTM is my dream" or "my Olympics." One would assume that many of them are among the 80 guys that "msuxc1" identified.

So how are such guys, presumably not all 80 but presumably some, "developing" one they've achieved their "dream"? By their own definition these guys have already developed once that gun fires.

My point is not "these guys suck". Indeed, my resume and head-to-head competiton demonstrate that pretty much every single one of these guys is better than me....

...my point is that these guys have been cheapening themselves by goaling up for 2:22 at all costs.

Consider Benji Durden, who used to say that he was happy when whe broke 5:00 pace for 1 mile before graduating HS...happy when he broke 5:00 pace for 3mi before graduating college...and happy when he broke 5:00 pace for 26mi after college.

If he were that same 15:20ish 5K guy coming out of college today, the LetsRun.com conventional wisdom would say that if he was really really diligent and really really lucky, he had an outside shot at 2:22 if he ran St George on a good weather day with a pace group.

EricMBlake wrote:

A little thinking should happen before they announce these things.

You do remember that we're talking about USATF, right?

The issue seems to be that there are 2 kinds of guys who were "B"s in '04/'08.

The first group is those who have been in the sport for a while, whose PB is somewhere in the 2:25-2:28 range and make a major effort (total focus on training, finding the perfect, even aided course, race) to achieve 2:21:59.

The second consists of generally younger, or least less experienced guys, who run 2:25-2:28 in their first try at the marathon, maybe off of less than totally focused training, who then run 2:19:01-2:22 in their second effort.

It's this second group that has the potential to produce a Brian Sell-type runner down the road (and I'd wager 99% of the Hanson guys fit this profile), but now, instead of getting Trials-type experience after their second race, are going to have to train a bit harder, race a little smarter to get the 2:19.

Not saying this is good or bad, just how it will be under the new system. The guys who lose out are the ones who have to make a Herculean effort just to get the B, who view the OT as their Olympics. Most of the second group will make the necessary effort to clear the newly raise bar.

Of course, it's this second group that would have made up the team for the World Half, and they were deemed "not good enough" or "not worth sending" this year, but that's another issue that I won't get started on here.

So let me get this straight. If good, sub-elite runners (the type who run 2:20-2:25 marathons) want to run a US Road Championship or Cross-Country Nationals or whatever, they have to pay for a USATF membership. Yet by raising the standard all the way to 2:19, USATF is now basically saying they don't want those types of guys at the Olympic Trials because they aren't good enough. You can say that those guys just need to man up and run 2:18:59 all you want, but that's a world away for a 2:24 guy. 2:22 seemed attainable and was a good goal to chase. 2:18:59 tells that guy to forget all the work it takes to run the marathon and either quit the sport or just go make a little money in local 5k/10k's.

JimG wrote: the team for the World Half

Is This Right wrote:

2:18:59 tells that guy to forget all the work it takes to run the marathon and either quit the sport or just go make a little money in local 5k/10k's.

Rather, it's a quitter mentality that tells him that, not some arbitrarily assembled numbers.

The drop in numbers will effect the whole race. There will not be as many breakthroughs under 2:19. Say 40 people qualify and show up on race day. What are the odds of all 40 running under 2:19? More then likely there will be less then 25 people running under the standard.

Also, there is a 1.5 year window. If they run the race in the fall again that leaves athletes one shot at Chicago, the only viable marathon that will fall within the 30% seperation and 1 meter drop per Km rule. Either that or you are left to go overseas. Now how many are going to do that?

3x10 wrote:

JimG wrote: the team for the World Half

I thought it became 20k?

It's now the World Road champs - last yr. was 20k, this year was half.

3x10 wrote:

Rather, it's a quitter mentality that tells him that, not some arbitrarily assembled numbers.

Maybe for some, but for many I don't think that's it at all. Like I said, 2:18:59 is a world away for a 2:24-2:30 guy whereas 2:22 was a little more attainable. The faster the standard, the more both talent and the ability to train full time become a factor and guys good enough to run in that range understand that. They're not quitters; they just understand their limitations. For non-elite runners who don't have a ton of natural ability and have a life outside of running, it takes a lot of sacrifices and hard work to run a fast marathon. Many are already training as hard as they can while still working full time jobs, etc. When you set the standard at 2:19, you exclude a lot of those guys. Then again, maybe those guys don't belong in the Trials in the first place. However, I do think those guys are good for the sport, and if you take away one of their biggest goals, you may lose some of them. Hopefully not.

I can't believe I have followed this thread all the way through to this point, but I find the different responses fascinating. People who are strongly opposed to this change act like the only thing that exists, and the only thing that matters for the 2:20-2:25-range U.S. marathoner, is the Olympic Trials. Yes, it's a nice goal, a big accomplishment, a pat on the back, but a 2:19 OT standard does not mean that 2:20 is now a completely worthless time. Sure, it no longer grants you entry to the Trials (so opposers will say it's "worthless" in the eyes of USATF), but that's a single race that happens once every 4 years. If you don't agree with this change, is the Olympic Trials the only reason you get out the door in the morning and train to run your best marathon? 2:20 is just as fast as it was a week ago and a highly respectable time in the eyes of your peers. The only difference is 2:20 no longer grants you entry to a single event (granted, an important one).

The Olympic Trails was a big goal for me as well, one I didn't achieve, but I just don't see how this will completely change my approach to the sport or alter my motivation moving forward, except that now I might dream about running a few minutes faster. 2:20-2:22 was never guaranteed to anyone. If you goaled up to run 2:20 and fell short at 2:23, were you worthless in 2008? You didn't get to run the Trials, but you're still at 2:23 guy; a pretty damn good runner in the eyes of anyone who knows a shred about the sport.

While 2:19 will certainly be out of reach for some people, maybe a lot of people, I still think this gets the general pool of U.S. marathoners running faster, especially the current NCAA guys who graduate to the marathon over the next 4 years. Did someone on here mention that there were 80 qualifiers this year in the 2:20-2:22 range? Why, because all those guys were genetically predisposed to run 2:20-2:22 at their limit? No, because that was the cut-off for the Trials and that was where the primary focus was time-wise for the semi or sub-elite U.S. marathoner. Okay, so now it's 2:19, and it's not SO far removed from 2:20-2:22 that it completely eliminates that group.

Like I wrote before, chances are very slim that I line up for the Trials in 2012 given the new standard, but that's one race I can't run in a 4-year span, not a reason to piss on my dreams of running a fast marathon. I'm not trying to be all "rah-rah" here about the new standard, but honestly, there is more purpose to life and running than the Olympic Trials.

The problem is the 30 year olds that are fighting to hit 2:22. They will never be professional runners (THEIR SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME). The Olympic Trials is a professional event. It should be treated as such.

There may be a young buck that deserves to get in on a 2:22 as he progresses to 2:15 but the 30 plus year olds that have run in the trials and will NEVER break 2:15, do not belong.

Can you imagine a professional in any other sport trying to hold down another job and then being pissed because they didn't let him into the All Star game?

I think choosing a wife and kids and another career is admirable, but that is your choice. Don't blame USATF or anyone else that you have chosen not to make running your profession.

What's lost in the discussion is how few guys actually ran sub-2:19 on "approved" courses during the '08 Trials qualifying window. I posted these stats a few days ago, but here they are again:

35 - sub-2:19:00 (the 2012 standard)

63 - 2:19-2:22

28 - downhill courses (not including Boston)

8 - 10k time

134 runners total

Sorry but not me wrote:

Don't blame USATF or anyone else that you have chosen not to make running your profession.

If there were major support available you might could say that. However, a guy out of college who has a 10k PR of say 29:30 might have a lot of potential at the marathon, but initially he's not gonna be able to make a living off running so he's not going to be able to choose it as his profession.