Glenn Latimer - Qualifying Standards Contradiction?

"I know there are some people who think we should let in a lot of 2:30 runners in the hope that they’ll be inspired to run 2:12 in a few years. But that’s ridiculous. Anyone who studies the sport knows that things don’t happen that way..."

It sure as hell does happen that way.

Lattimer does not have passion for the sport, nor is he "...(any)one who studies the sport..." to quote him directly.

Dick Beardsley bio from wiki:

Beardsley ran his first marathon in 2:47:14 at the 1977 Paavo Nurmi Marathon in Hurley, Wisconsin. In subsequent marathons, he steadily lowered his times: 2:33:22, 2:33:06, and 2:31:50. Beardsley is the only man to have ever run 13 consecutive personal bests in the marathon, and is in the Guinness Book of World Records for the feat.

In 1980, seeing that the qualification time for the U.S. Olympic Trials Marathon was 2:21:56, a mere 10 minutes faster than his best time, Beardsley entered the Manitoba Marathon in Canada and made the Trials by 2 seconds.

At the Trials he ran 2:16:01 for 16th place, continuing a streak of PRs (personal records) that eventually spanned 46 months and 13 marathons.

He was so encouraged that he decided to try running full-time for the next four years with the hopes of making the 1984 U.S. marathon team. It was the height of the 1980s running boom, and running shoe companies were looking for the next Bill Rodgers. Beardsley managed to secure a sponsorship from New Balance, which signed him for $500 a month and all the shoes he could wear out.

Now a professional runner, Beardsley took 10th place at the 1980 Nike/OTC Marathon in Eugene with 2:15:11.

Six weeks later he took 9th place at New York with 2:13:55.

In January 1981, Beardsley took 2nd place at the Houston Marathon with a 2:12:48 PR

and less than a month later took 3rd at Beppu in 2:12:41.

Eight weeks later, Beardsley ran the first-ever London Marathon in 2:11:48 (another PR), tying for first place with Norway's Inge Simonson.

Three months later, Beardsley ran what he considers his breakthrough marathon, a 2:09:37 win at Grandma's. In the wake of his successes at London and Grandma's, New Balance doubled his stipend to $1,000 per month. Beardsley was thrilled.

His PR spree ended, however, when he took second in the '81 Stockholm Marathon (2:16) and the '82 Houston Marathon (2:12).

Then came Boston '82 and Beardsley's famous "Duel in the Sun" with Alberto Salazar, where he ran 2:08:53 and once again took second by a mere 2 seconds.

Two months later he again won Grandma's in 2:14:49, but came out of the race with Achilles tendon problems; the injury persisted and later in the year he managed to take only 30th place at New York with a 2:18:12.

Beardsley had the tendon surgically repaired in 1983 and hoped to recover by getting a "bye" into the 1984 U.S. Olympic Trials Marathon, but he was turned down. He went into training and reinjured the tendon in a futile attempt to qualify for the Trials at the Los Angeles Marathon in early 1984.

Does he assume that because his no-talent fat ass ran 2:23 that anyone with the slightest bit of talent should be able to run ``2:19? It seems like that's his snotty-nosed attitude.

Also, didn't Trent Briney run 2:21 to qualify and then ran 2:12 (finished 4th in 2004)? I'm sure we could think of lots of %%2:19 guys who instantly dropped large chunks of time to become contenders.

another example wrote:

Also, didn't Trent Briney run 2:21 to qualify and then ran 2:12 (finished 4th in 2004)? I'm sure we could think of lots of %%2:19 guys who instantly dropped large chunks of time to become contenders.

Recall also that much of the 2004 race was led by a guy by the name of Brian Sell with a 2:19:59 qualifying time before he faded in the closing miles. And we all know what happened to Sell 4 years later...

Exactly. The marathon is all about long-term development. It's not just about talent. Glenn needs to think long and hard about how whatever standard they set affects the future of the sport, beyond the upcoming Olympics.

You give one example. That proves nothing. There are thousands and thousands who start at 2:47, hell even a lot faster and can't get close to 2:20.

haha, YO wrote:

You give one example. That proves nothing. There are thousands and thousands who start at 2:47, hell even a lot faster and can't get close to 2:20.

Astronauts land on the moon!

The broader the base the higher the pyramid. More 3:00 marathoners will lead to more 2:40 marathoners. More 2:40 marathoners will lead to more 2:30s... and so on.

This ain't rocket science. It's a numbers game.

How big is Kenya's base for their pyramid? Must be gigantic.

While that's all well and good, it seems like he believes that the OT is not going to be watered-down just to make it a carrot. He didn't say that his improvement was motivated by wanting to run in the OT, so he probably (rightly) figures that there should be motivation enough for runners who have what it takes to run 2:19 or 2:17 or 2:12 eventually without including them in the OT before they show enough improvement. There are several marathons each year for 2:19-2:30 marathoners to run well and shine in, shouldn't matter if the OT doesn't include them once every 4 years.

Correlation is not the same as causation. Relying on the OT to motivate improvement is pretty flimsy. Forget the OT entirely for 2:19-2:30 runners, we need better yearly incentives to keep them in the sport and improving.

another example wrote:

Does he assume that because his no-talent fat ass ran 2:23 that anyone with the slightest bit of talent should be able to run ``2:19? It seems like that's his snotty-nosed attitude.

Also, didn't Trent Briney run 2:21 to qualify and then ran 2:12 (finished 4th in 2004)? I'm sure we could think of lots of %%2:19 guys who instantly dropped large chunks of time to become contenders.

Anyone who complains about or is against making the OT standard for the marathon faster is insane.

This is a qualifying race for the Olympics, not a feel-good circle-jerk for sub-standard (by Olympic standards, of course) runners to be able to say "I raced at the trials". If you want to improve in the marathon, there are tons of marathons to run in for that purpose. The trials ought not to be one of those races. You have to EARN that. You might as well say that we should be letting 14:10 guys and 3:50 guys into the trials because they might be inspired to run 13:20 and 3:35.

Morning Zoo w/Dick Gobbler wrote:

Anyone who complains about or is against making the OT standard for the marathon faster is insane.

This is a qualifying race for the Olympics, not a feel-good circle-jerk for sub-standard (by Olympic standards, of course) runners to be able to say "I raced at the trials". If you want to improve in the marathon, there are tons of marathons to run in for that purpose. The trials ought not to be one of those races. You have to EARN that. You might as well say that we should be letting 14:10 guys and 3:50 guys into the trials because they might be inspired to run 13:20 and 3:35.

Best post yet.

Look, we can all agree that what Latimer said about 'that just doesn't happen' or whatever it was, in reference to 2:30 guys improving to 2:12 guys....we can all agree that was garbage, and get pissed about that statement. We can all agree that the guy says some pretty ridiculous things.

But let's not let that cloud our judgement. His statement that the purpose of the trials race is to select the best team for the Olympics and allow them the proper time to prepare is dead on. He's 100% correct. The purpose of the race is not to encourage people.

We all know a 2:25 guy who busted his butt for years to try and get 2:21:59. And I think that's awesome. They put the work in and played by the rules they were given. I'm not knocking them. But be realistic, they're not going to qualify for the Olympics that year, they're not going to even factor in the Trials race, unless they just go out hard to get on TV. This is a national championship, and if the top guys in the race would be out of sight at halfway on your best day, you don't need to be there.

Sure, we've got examples of guys like Briney and Sell in '04. Well, guess what? Sell got rolled up the last few miles. And Briney had a great race, but still didn't qualify. And I'm pretty sure Sell had something like a 2:17 at that point, not 2:19:59 like another poster said. Maybe I'm wrong. Sure, Sell qualified 4 years later, but he probably would have gotten there eventually anyway. He would have plugged away and improved race after race, just like the Beardsley story cited above.

That's what the borderline guys should have to do. Plug away and get better until they belong there. Yeah, it'll suck, but life's hard. Sure, it'd be great if there were more races with incentives for 2:15-2:25 guys like another poster suggested, but it's not the responsibility of the USATF to use the Olympic Trials and the National Championships for that purpose. Maybe let's make Boston hard to get into again. Maybe these guys could go for top American money at Chicago. I don't know. But the national championship race is not the place.

We've got examples of guys who almost qualified for the Olympics who barely made the trials. Can anybody give an example of someone who did qualify who would have been excluded by this new 2:19/1:05/28:30 standard? Anyone?

What you're missing is that the Trials offers a very rare opportunity for our sport to affect the public consciousness. Every 2:44 woman from Podunk has a hometown article and every citizen of Podunk (except those that on letsrun) root for their local hero and wonder if that crazy runner will be in London.

It also keeps many people in the sport. If you haven't noticed there is a dearth of competitive post-collegiate runners.

Plus, it's a friggin' marathon and the road can contain more than the 10 people that actually have a chance.

But be realistic, they're not going to qualify for the Olympics that year, they're not going to even factor in the Trials race

if making the team is the only reason to have the race, they might as well only allow 2:12 or better, because realistically, there are only about 5 guys who have an actual shot of making the team. hall, ritz, meb and maybe a couple of others.

and if it's about being competitive at the actual olympics, they should scrap the OT altogether and just pick our best 3 guys. it's pretty apparent who they are.

clarksonxc wrote:It would seem to me that judging from his own experience, where he improved from 3:20 to 2:23, it would be feasible for someone who has run 2:30 to be 'inspired enough' to run 2:12 eventually. I don't think it's extremely likely that a 2:30 guy would eventually make the team, but you never know. Taking this into consideration, I would think he would be more inclined to include the 2:30 guys, knowing perfectly well the improvements he made.

Thoughts?

While you have good intentions, i think you are missing most of what he's saying. He wasn't a 3:20 marathoner after years of running. He was a 2:23 guy after 2 years of training for a marathoner coming off of surgery. He's talking about 2:30 guys, who for the most part have been serious runners for years, ran in college, etc. They aren't relatable situations like you're trying to do. He improved drastically only because he was no where near his potential to begin with. I think he'd agree that if a guy who had never trained for competitive running went out and busted a 2:30 right away, that they could probably become an elite runner. That would be a fair comparison to the statement you're trying to make, no what he actually did.

So fucking what? These runners don't stick with it for the Shit Creek Times coverage.

Droping wrote:

What you're missing is that the Trials offers a very rare opportunity for our sport to affect the public consciousness. Every 2:44 woman from Podunk has a hometown article and every citizen of Podunk (except those that on letsrun) root for their local hero and wonder if that crazy runner will be in London.

It also keeps many people in the sport. If you haven't noticed there is a dearth of competitive post-collegiate runners.

Plus, it's a friggin' marathon and the road can contain more than the 10 people that actually have a chance.

giffypop17 wrote:

But let's not let that cloud our judgement. (Latimer's) statement that the purpose of the trials race is to select the best team for the Olympics and allow them the proper time to prepare is dead on. He's 100% correct. The purpose of the race is not to encourage people.

Actually, my "judgement" is quite clear, unlike your spelling!

I really can't believe the condescending, elite snobs that bubble to the surface in these debates. Obviously, the purpose of the race is to select the best runners for our Olympic team. However, if you can do that and still encourage developing 2:25 marathon runners at minimal expense to the USOC/USATF, why NOT do it? As others have implied, the extra publicity and "buzz" for the sport would be tremendous!

Condescending much? wrote:

I really can't believe the condescending, elite snobs that bubble to the surface in these debates.

So don't, and kindly piss off back to RW.

Red Glare wrote:

So don't, and kindly piss off back to RW.

So that you can continue to enlighten us with your mature, articulate conversation, right?

There's no enlightening you, son.