So, the count continues: USA only had four (4) Olympic Marathon Trials qualifiers, and all were big-boy professionals
Meb Keflezighi
Dathan Ritzenhein
Jorge Torres
Tim Nelson
I know many of you don't care that the sport is becoming professionalized, but today's lack of depth in supposedly the biggest and most important domestic marathon showcased that the typical 2:19-2:25 guy is leaving the sport.
Congrats on tightening the standards and killing off the future.
by by....I read in another thread there was 275 sub 2:20 runners in boston in the 80's. If you can't break 2:20 you are not talented enough to be there.
RuKiddingMe! wrote:
by by.....
Would you care to edit anything?
What if they made the standard sub228?
whatever the standard is, people just step UP and run right under it. look at the A standard and B standard from 2008 - the majority of qualifiers ran between 2:21-2:22, not because that was all they could do, but because it was all they needed to qualify.
the womens american record almost qualifies for the mens trials, think about that.
Lekuta wrote:
I know many of you don't care that the sport is becoming professionalized, but today's lack of depth in supposedly the biggest and most important domestic marathon showcased that the typical 2:19-2:25 guy is leaving the sport.
Congrats on tightening the standards and killing off the future.
Wrong. It just shows that trialists are packing the fast marathons to get the standard or going to the US marathon champs. And, the hard fact is that anyone who is running 2:19-2:25 in this day and age should not be thinking that they have a shot at the olympics or at a professional running career. East Africans are routinely debuting at 2:05-08. And they are skipping the track to hit the marathon, which means even more of them competing at the marathon. So, the sad, hard truth is that the USATF is really being pretty lenient with their standards. And the whole point of boosting the standard was to be able to provide for expenses for all the trialists, not just that A standard runners.
I agree that the problem isn't the standard, it's the athletes current inability to rise to the challenge. Remember back in 04 when the best Americans were all 13:20+ in the 5k? Were at a point where collegians are now flirting with that barrier and will struggle to find backing resources because 13:20 just ain't that great on the national scene anymore. The expectation was high then and as a country we've been trying to meet the challenge-it's getting closer, but the olympics surely has to be the true test for our nations development and answer to the challenges of the world track and field scene
The
1983 NYC results--this should put the American times from yesterday into perspective.
85 men sub 2:22, that is VERY impressive, and yes it should cause us Americans to have a few questions.
Are we simply not running enough?
Anyone chasing a standard will not likely run NY because it is not a fast course.
The typical 2:19-2:25 is not leaving the sport. He is just not choosing to run at NY.
Maybe they could tinker with the qualification process and base it on time or place.
Maybe top 10 or 15 Americans at NY, Boston or Chicago get auto bids to the Trials plus anyone under 2:20 anywhere.
toro wrote:
The typical 2:19-2:25 is not leaving the sport. He is just not choosing to run at NY.
Right, like at Boston and Chicago, hobbyjogger nation has effectively shut out NYCM to the majority of 2:19-2:45 men by requiring them to pay entry months and months in advance.
Abq Native wrote:
85 men sub 2:22, that is VERY impressive, and yes it should cause us Americans to have a few questions.
Are we simply not running enough?
85 of all nationalities went sub-2:20 in 1983, yesterday 16 of all nationalities went sub-2:20. It's not just Americans.
When it comes down to brass tacks what's the point of being the 85 fastest guy at New York? There's no prize money, you put in a ton of training, end up spending a bunch of your own money because you're not getting any sponsorship. All that so you can say at the water-cooler at work "I was top 100 in the New York Marathon" where you'll get a response like "cool, how far was that marathon?".
So are our top guys not training enough. No. Do we have the same number of people in the age range capable of being sub-2:20 doing that training. No.
yikes... wrote:
1983 NYC results--this should put the American times from yesterday into perspective.
http://www.athlinks.com/time.aspx?eventid=60270
1,477 ran sub 3. I would have never guessed so many did it then.
Personal excellence is its own reward, should I be surprised that this wouldn't occur to you? What compelled "the 85 fastest guy at New York" [sic] 27 years ago that is so irrelevant today?
"Personal excellence" went out when it was no longer cool to ask "What was your time?" when someone told you they ran a marathon. We're all winners now!
RuKiddingUs! wrote:
RuKiddingMe! wrote:by by.....
Would you care to edit anything?
Perfect spelling can't save him when he doesn't have the capacity to think anyway.
hardset nipples wrote:
Personal excellence is its own reward, should I be surprised that this wouldn't occur to you? What compelled "the 85 fastest guy at New York" [sic] 27 years ago that is so irrelevant today?
Yes it does occur to me, and if you don't understand the differences between now and 27 years ago I certainly don't have the time to explain it to you.
Personal excellence can get obtained through many avenues besides running. Look at the typical comments here on Letrun. The 85th fastest guy is the 84th loser. How much satisfaction do you get from an accomplishment that most of your acquaintances don't understand enough to appreciate, and even those inside the sport deride as something you should have worked harder at?
Getting a 2:20 isn't something you just walk out the door and do, it's not a 16 week training plan. Today people have the choice of putting in an extra couple hours at work, spending that extra couple hours with their family, or maybe honing that golf game.
They could also choose to go run in "booty shorts" or "fag tights" for a couple hours a day for a few years just to have anonymous jerk-wads call them a slacker for not beating the Africans. They could turn down those late afternoon meetings and working breakfasts. I'm sure their bosses will understand how important running is and not place them at the top of the lay-off list. They can explain to their girlfriends how they can't go out clubbing tonight because they have to get in 8 before work, or they explain to their wives how they're too tired after the long run to clean out the garage, and of course explain to everyone why you don't have kids yet.
So explain to me again exactly why you don't think the general population doesn't look at a sub 2:20 as the ultimate means of obtaining personal excellence.
Very well said keith
Nice post Keith...
Spot on. I just posted on another thread that I coach several mid-upper 2:20 marathoners. They all run between 75 and 100 mpw and quite honestly, it was a stretch to ask for that kind of commitment for the 16 weeks that they did it for.
Are they all talented enough to run sub 2:20:00? Yeah. I have no doubt. Would it take years of toiling at 100-120 mpw? Yeah. Is it worth it to them? No.