2:15 Olympic Standard.

What everybody forgets(including me) when they get into this kind of discussion(a similar one is the the fact that Canada won't relax the 2:12 A) is the fact that there are a large number of sports at the Olympics. Those sports are just as important to the participating athletes as the marathon is to the track fans and athletes. How, for example, would you feel if you were a swimmer and the 50th best in the world but couldn't make A because only the top 30 in the world were able to do it and, in the meantime, the 300th best marathoner went. Good for marathoner but the swimmer would feel that he or she got screwed. You can't look at the idea in a vacuum no matter how good it is. In my case, I got reminded about this by a marathoner who is on the bubble in Canada and he was defending the status quo.

Hodgie-san wrote:

It is always interesting to watch a race with say 20-30 runners under 2:13. How many ever run a pr or even within several minutes of their best on the day?

Maybe 10 percent?

In terms of having a great race for the medals, near 300 runners who have run under 2:15 would be an awesome race. There has never been anything like it. I for one would love to see it.

True that. A training partner of mine got his marathon pb in the 87? World Cup in Korea. Finished about 57th but just got dragged along.

16x say:

>the marathon event does not have any more "special" athletes nor get any more "special" treatment than the other track and field events, so the entire discussion is mute.>

I disagree, the marathon is special, the signature event of the Games. It can and should have more competitors because it can easily handle it.

hornet say:

>I can see the pandamonium now. There will be like 1500 Kenyans at the olympic race all capable of doing 2:15 or better. When they can`t win they will just blocade other prospective contenders, cuz Kenyans are renowned for team sprit.<

Then they all get DQ'd, eh?

It certaintly can handle more than the other events, besides racewalking, but is not more special, and holds no more interest than the 100 meters or the 1500.

16x wrote:

It certaintly can handle more than the other events, besides racewalking, but is not more special, and holds no more interest than the 100 meters or the 1500.

Certain Nordic races could handle more athletes(not saying they should).

So what I gather from all that is that Guest and Special Ed are the obviously the same poster since Guest answered to all of the remarks I made to Special Ed.

Reading is fundamental.

I was adding to the discussion, and in my opinion, the marathon does not deserve special attention, nor extra athletes and in the US, you must go through the trials to qualify. They never saved a lane for Carl Lewis or Gail Devers. You already know this.

I agree that the marathon is a "special" event simply in the fact that, logistically, you can double the field and not take up more time or resources to put on the event.

The marathon is also special because of the variables and unsure nature of the event...example:

Assuming this were possible...Run the same 400 meter race 100 times--including the top 300 athletes in the world. You might get 4 or 5 different winners.

Run the same marathon 100 times with the top 300 athletes in the world, and you could get 30+ different winners.

Actually, you are yet again incorrect.

Go back and check, I initially replied to your post and said nothing inflammatory. All my posts have been replies to your posts.

The only remarks I commented on you did not make to special ed, you actually made them in a response to "SI." However, your post began with a reference to me.

For a 3rd time, reading is fundamental. Go back and check the posts and you will see I am indeed correct.

The marathon is different from many other events because it resonates more with the average weekend athlete, I would argue. This means you can get more people to watch it (given good presentation, of course).

In addition, I suspect that the number of marathoners at the Olympics, as a percentage of people worldwide who run marathons, is probably much smaller than that for the vast majority of other events in the Olympics, including quite a few track and field events.

The number of runners world-wide who have broken 2:15 is small enough that the race could handle it (and could conceivably be more interesting for TV purposes than it is now). If 2:15 seems a bit too easy, why not make some rule roughly parallel to that in use for the U.S. Olympic trials: national Olympic committees can pay the way for up to 3 athletes (selected according to a process each committee can choose); everyone else has to pay for their participation.

I see two prospective scenarios that would be different than the current one:

1 - allow all athletes "in" under a certain time standard. If you say that there have been 267 this year, then we can see that there would be somewhere around 300, since "extra" people would go and run sub-2:15 in order to go to the Games.

This presents problems. One, the obvious one that all endurance events would then lobby for increased participation and they would actually deserve it. This would cost a lot. Two, if the race followed form and the winner was the usual 2:09-2:11, there would be a runner through the chute nearly every second for 5 minutes (300 seconds). This would be just meaningless. You would also have guys who deserve to be in the top-10, top-30, or whatever clawing their way through the field instead of racing like normal. Clearly some would have an off-day and finish past 2:15, but not many. I also don't see why the people who have just run 2:14:50 need to be in the race? In this scenario, there would be 200 people in front of them if they ran to form. This wouldn't make it "better" to qualify for the top-50 runners who all entertain hopes of top-10 or 15 but just make it non-exclusive after the guys who have run 2:10 or better.

People will argue that they can fit 255 in the NCAA XC race and that is only 10k. However, there is MUCH more separation in a race like that than there would be in an all-star marathon such as this.

Also, people would trip.

2 - we could do the same as above but lower the cutoff to, say 2:13. Well, that pretty much has all the drawbacks of all the systems ever proposed. The 2:16 marathoner from Ecuador doesn't get to go, people on the bubble work too damn hard and are flat at the Games. I don't see that this one has any merit.

The current system seems to work pretty well. There must be a reason why Abera won so many in a row (in current times) and why there can be so many repeaters over history (Bikila 2X, Shorter 2 medals, Lismont 2 medals, Cierpinski 2X, Wolde 2 medals).

I do strongly support the idea of allowing a team of 6-10 if they are under a certain standard. And dominant runners should be given an automatic entry, perhaps any medallist in the Games or the WC in history should be allowed entry and then your nation could fill out their team of 6-10 on top of that.

I agree that some nations have 15 or so runners capable of going for medals, but allowing everyone under 2:15 in probably would not be the best way to facilitate letting these types in.

Hodgie-san wrote:

mplatt,

Which in your opinion would be a better RACE:

Current system or a race with the top 300 FASTEST runners in the world over the previous 12-18 months?

mplatt say:

>Running a fast time -on it's own- is not always indicative of racing ability.<

It's the best measure we have and anyone is welcome to go for a time whatever legitemate course they choose.

You idea for a race with the top 300 people sounds like a good idea, maybe reserved for World Cahmpionships.

But the Olympics is a more prestigious event combined with the unigque factor of being inclusive to all countries.

Representing your country as an Olympian should be of the highest honor and a grand accomplishment.

Flooding the Olympics with 2:15 marathoners that have not distinguished themselves otherwise would water down the

The prestige of the Olympics.

There should be some glory to being an Olympian. Simply running a 2:15 marathon does not rise to the level of accomplishment the would distiguish one as an Olympic representative of your country.

I'll state my point again.

The Olympics should be limited to the 3-5 best athletes a country has to send.

There should be no time standard as there may be cases in which the best athletes have not obtained a standard.(John Treacy)

If the country decides that a race is the best way to chose athletes (and in most cases it is) then time should be a non-factor. If on a 95 degree day this February Todd Resser and Kevin Collins finishing one and two and run 2:15:30-35 while all of the other sub 2:15 studs can't ahng with them, then they are the best racers and deserve to have the honor and prestige of representing this country in the Olympics. Not some other athlete who is simply a fair weather-flat course time trialer.

I don't have a lot of respect for a 2:15 marathon but I do respect racers. winners, regardless of time.

Why has happened to US marathon running.

The US was faster at virtually ever distance event 20 years ago.

mplatt:

Just to beat a dead horse...

platt say:

Your idea for a race with the top 300 people sounds like a good idea, maybe reserved for World Cahmpionships.

But the Olympics is a more prestigious event combined with the unigque factor of being inclusive to all countries.<

So, the OG are more prestigious & therefore should have a SMALLER number of the world's best?

platt say:

>There should be some glory to being an Olympian. Simply running a 2:15 marathon does not rise to the level of accomplishment the would distiguish one as an Olympic representative of your country.

I don't have a lot of respect for a 2:15 marathon but I do respect racers. winners, regardless of time.<

You are assuming that most of the 267 sub-2:15 runners are not racers, in your opinion, because they may have run their time under favorable conditions. Some did some did not.

I think the core of this issue is where the trade-off is between letting a few guys in who may not necessarily deserve to be Olympians versus making sure you have all of the world's best runners in the field.

Personally, I would rather make sure everyone was included and risk having some athletes who might not belong than make the race too exclusive and risk having a top 10 or medal contender left home.

Dennis wrote:

Personally, I would rather make sure everyone was included and risk having some athletes who might not belong than make the race too exclusive and risk having a top 10 or medal contender left home.

yes, of course, we wouldn't want to be exclusive when it comes to the Olympic Games...

Special Ed wrote:

............... Oh well - when in Rome, I guess...

.....run barefoot like Abebe Bikila?

good point Special Ed, what a hero that guy was.

relaxing the Olympic qualification will allow other relatively unknown guys the chance to compete and win a medal.

Hodgie-san wrote:

You are assuming that most of the 267 sub-2:15 runners are not racers, in your opinion, because they may have run their time under favorable conditions. Some did some did not.

I am surprised there are only 267 sub 2:15 guys over the last Olympic qualifying period.

Man this sport has really sunk in terms of participation if that number is true.

The problem I see is that this country could end up sending 30-40 guys to the Olympics. Well, wes should have at least that many men running 2:15.

I guess you could draw you scenario out furhter and we could allow the US to send 10 teams from the NBA to the Olympics instead of just one.

Additionally, making the Olympic marathon a time qualifying race therefore eliminates the Olympic trial race. I think that is a bad thing. The Olympic trials race is a great race and our only true Marathon National Championships.

If you gave an entry to all those sub-2.15 runners to go to the Olympics. A very large percentage of them wouldn't come. They would still not see themselves as competitive and would be too interested in seeing how they can turn that 2.14 time into some cash elsewhere.

You know it's true. Don't believe that the lure of forever calling yourself an Olympian outweighs the lust for the greenback.