2:15 Olympic Standard.

No go wrote:

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.

that's their prerogative, run for money or run for the glory of competing in the Olympics. I think that most would choose the Oympics though.

the new qualifying standard has certainly generated a huge amount of interest.

How about countries with lots of athletes who can run under 2.15 send everyone they can and have a really competitive race for a change.

im bored with seeing championship races that are not even half as exciting as big city marathons like Chicago, Boston, London, Paris, New York, Berlin, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Tokyo, Beijing etc etc

I WANT ATHENS 2004 TO BE THE BEST MARATHON EVER

Soooooo slow

OK 2.15 is slow these days but you will always get a runner who makes a breakthrough in the Olympics. who had heard of Josiah Thugwane before Atlanta '96? not many people.

whos to say a 2.14 runner cant run 2.11 in Athens to win the Gold medal?

I like the basic idea, but I think politics would be an issue. If Kenya packed the event and swept, there would be a lot of nationalistic grousing.

What if a country were given a maximum percentage of qualified athletes if the count went past 15 or 20? (They could send the greater of that 15 or 20, or half {one-third, one fourth) of their qualified athletes.)

That would keep the athlete count at perhaps 100-120, large enough to be exciting, but not unreasonable.

Wayne

Athens will produce several surprises due to the challenging nature of the course. Think back to Barcelona in 1992. Horrible marathon conditions of temperatures in the 80's+ and the humidity above 80% as well. Mix that in with the flat course, but the final 10K uphill and you have very difficult conditions. Obviously, runners from the Orient ran tremendously (Japan 3 in the Top 8!).

I've been watching the footage of the race every Saturday here at the store. Below are the Top 8 finishers:

Marathon (42.195 km.)

1 Hwang Young-Cho KOR 2.13.23

2 Koichi Morishita JPN 2.13.45

3 Stephan Freigang GER 2.14.00

4 Takeyuki Nakayama JPN 2.14.02

5 Salvatore Bettiol ITA 2.14.15

6 Salah Kokaich MAR 2.14.25

7 Jan Huruk POL 2.14.32

8 Hiromi Taniguchi JPN 2.14.42

Before 1992, Hwang Young-Cho (KOR) has modest PR's of 13:59.70 and 29:32.01, times usually not considered quick enough for an Olympic Champion. He was an unknown.

Your silver medalist, Morishita (JPN) had established himself as a contender, running 13:37.64 and 28:01.98 a couple of months before the Games. He had also run 2:08:53 in Oita in 1991.

How about Stephan Freigang (GER)? As a 23-year old, he ran 2:09:45 at Berlin in 1990, but proceeded to run all of his shorter PR's AFTER Barcelona (he eventually would run 13:30.40 and 27:59.72).

Nakayama (JPN) was a true marathoner and strength runner. How else can you explain a 13:43.80, 5000m best and a 27:35.33, 10,000m PR? He ran 2:08:15 in Hiroshima a whopping 7 years before his Barcelona race. He also had great track credentials, placing 3rd in Helsinki in the World Championships 10,000m run.

Salvatore Bettiol (ITA) was a classic Italian distance-man. The Barcelona Olympics were his definitive race, as he set his stunning 29:58.8, 10,000m PR six years after Barcelona. He also ran 2:09:40 for 4th in London in 1994.

Salah Kokaich (MAR)? Who was this guy? I love watching the footage, as the announcers (Hirsch and Liquori?) have no idea who Hwang or Kokaich are.

Jan Huruk (POL) was another solid trackster with good credentials- 8:38.63 steeple, 13:34.63, 28:18.42 and running 2:10:07 for 2nd in London only a few months before Barcelona.

Taniguchi (JPN) was one of the world's fastest marathoners at the time, with his 2:07:40 at Beijing in 1988. In the following year, in 1989, he improved his 5000m and 10,000m times to 13:49.17 and 28:34.18. Nothing stellar, but a 2:07 nonetheless.

I think by reviewing old races young marathoners can realize that success in the marathon is not necessarily dependent on how fast you are on the track (a tired argument), but of dedication, perseverance, and a gift for endurance. The USA in 2003 had about 50 runners under 29:30 for 10,000m, yet will one of the win Gold in an upcoming Olympics?

We need to take advantage of the difficult courses and not the flat and fast time trials of this day in age. Athens will prove once again that marathoning is an art of endurance, strength, and intelligence. We can beat the Africans in the marathon, just let the course and conditions level the playing field a little.

Athens will be interesting to watch...

Thanks Grod, that was a nice report.

I am curious how you got all these stats? You certainly can't remember the track PR's of that many runners. So how does one track down the PR's of guys who ran in the 13:40's at their best? TaFnews is no help there. I am curious because I like to look up obscure stats like this, especially from the past.

Also, pretty sure this is incorrect...

****

Nakayama (JPN) was a true marathoner and strength runner. How else can you explain a 13:43.80, 5000m best and a 27:35.33, 10,000m PR? He ran 2:08:15 in Hiroshima a whopping 7 years before his Barcelona race. He also had great track credentials, placing 3rd in Helsinki in the World Championships 10,000m run.

*****

Only the last sentence is wrong. In 1983 it was Cova, Schildhauer, then Kunze for the bronze I think. I don't think there was a single Japanese runner in the field. Were you thinking of 1987? or 1991?

It was Helsinki 1987. Thank you for the correction. If you haven't purchased "A World History of Long Distance Running" by Roberto L. Quercetani, I would strongly recommend it. The BEST compilation of distance running over the ages. It can be purchased at Track and Field News. Quercetani is on the board at T&F News for the Athlete of the Year Rankings, as well.

Just doing some research, as we were all hammered in college to do.

16x wrote:

It seems you would like to appeal the entire concept of the Olympic Games...let's just have a big track meet, unlimited entries....blah...blah...

Let me try to help you here. Saying "Let all sub-2:15 guys into the Olympic Marathon" - be this a valid idea or a poor one - is not the same thing as saying, "Let everyone into the Olympic Marathon." In fact, these two sentiments are not even in the same f***ing galaxy, as most people can determine at a glance.

The "blah, blah, blah" portion of your post was right on the money, though, since you consistently have a very difficult time following the discussions in these threads, choosing instead to drag as much negativity onto the board as possible. Oh well - when in Rome, I guess...

O.K. one more time for Special Ed and his Special Guest.....

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.

For the same reason that Micheal Johnson and Cathy Freeman had to run the trials, KK athletes should have to run the trials and why would everyone under a certain standard get to run the Olympic Marathon - why didn't all the 44 second guys in the world get to run the Olympics in Seoul? Because you can take only three.

Thanks Special Ed for turning the entire thread into another junior high school retard spit session - find one f***ing name and stick with it.

Actually 16x, I didn't turn this into a spit session at all.

I wrote that I think it would be advantageous to relax the standards a bit because one country holds most of the cards. Hence, I advocated adjusting for this. I also suggested dominate athletes should be able to skip the trials. Your response was:

"It seems you would like to appeal the entire concept of the Olympic Games...let's just have a big track meet, unlimited entries....blah...blah..."

To which I replied:

"Actually, I didn't advocate the 2:15 standard at all. I also didn't advocate unlimited entries.

I advocated letting a few more of the best guys who won't make it because their country is a virtually all-star team of distance running.

In the U.S., I advocated letting a dominate athlete skip the trials.

Reading is fundamental."

I wrote reading is fundamental because no where in my posts did I advocate opening up the Olympics to everyone.

Your response to this was:

"Thanks Special Ed for turning the entire thread into another junior high school retard spit session - find one f***ing name and stick with it."

And somehow I turned this into a spit session?

I repeat, reading is fundamental.

How about if we keep the old 2:12 standard and require all countries to send three if they meet that requirement. Allow every country to send at least one but no 3 hour+ guys from bumf*** like in past. Give these athletes all the perks of the Olympics then fill a field of 300 with the next fastest in the field (which may actually include one of the fastest who didn't get picked by their country). Allow those runners in but make them pay their own way and make them line up behind the selected athletes at the start, just like they do to seperate the elite athletes from the other runners at Boston and other races. Just think, KK could have an off day at the trials and still go and some slow guy can still surprise and get in just like before.