I was reading an article about a 65:xx / 2:18:xx guy and his goal at OTs is to make the Olympic team. This surprised me--I know a lot of the runners on that level have slightly more realistic goals, like maybe sneaking into the top 10, and the LetsRun nerds such as myself know there's only a handful of guys that actually have a chance at top 3, so how common is it for these guys to think they'll improve on their PR by 15 seconds per mile while everyone else blows up?
Why are there 3 spots? There should be unlimited amount of spots. Just cause you qualified doesn't mean you'll make the team. If you run a qualifying time you should be automatically selected to the olympic marathon.
Kevin Ca Racer wrote:
Why are there 3 spots? There should be unlimited amount of spots. Just cause you qualified doesn't mean you'll make the team. If you run a qualifying time you should be automatically selected to the olympic marathon.
what about paula?
I don't necessarily disagree with Kev's suggestion that anyone with a qualifying standard should be in the Olympic marathon. That would mean 60 Kenyans (or maybe 110) but hey, so what? I really do mean "so what."
If you have no goal of making the team (even if unrealistic), why bother with the trial race?
I ran it a while back as one of the slowest qualifiers. It was my Olympics -- a very interesting glimpse into a world I didn't see much of.
I too was interested in the OP's question. My take was about 20. Many of
of the seriously hopefuls dropped out at 20 when they saw it wasn't working out for them. They could avoid the last painful/damaging 6 & try for the 10k.
My guess is 90% of the field. Probably only 4-5 think they can be top 2...but most everyone else has to believe they can be third somehow....
Most analysts are thinking it will take 2:11 at a minimum to make the team and possibly 2:10, though that has only happened once (1980 Kyle Heffner third in 2:10:54). It would be difficult to drop more than three minutes or about seven seconds per mile so 2:14 guys do have a shot at top three if they have really stepped up their training and have a great day. This would mean about 20 guys have a shot, though for the second ten it is a long shot. Kyle Heffner went from 2:16 at 1979 Nike-OTC to 2:13 at 1979 Dallas White Rock to 2:10:54 at the 1980 Olympic Trials, but he spent several months after White Rock alternating 105/110 and 130/140 mile weeks at 8,000 feet in Colorado coming down once a week for a tough training session with Frank Shorter's group in Boulder. Check out more of what Heffner did before and during his 1980 Trials race to make the team http://www.garycohenrunning.com/Interviews/Heffner.aspx
The thing with the marathon is that a lot can happen. Favorites can have bad races, and the marathon is much less forgiving than any other distance. A bad race in the marathon, even if you're Ryan Hall, could mean not making the team, DNF, etc. I would think anyone with a 2:16 PR or faster has got to think they have some chance of making it, though 2:14 or faster would make things more realistic.
As for why even run the race if you're a 2:18 guy, what kind of question is that? You mean you wouldn't run in the OLYMPIC TRIALS if you qualified? Just saying you were in the race is a huge accomplishment.
Allowing anyone with the standard to run in the Olympics would remove some of the prestige, which I think would be bad.
Any one else notice Galen Rupp is now entered in the marathon trials per USATF website?
just curious, not hatin wrote:
I was reading an article about a 65:xx / 2:18:xx guy and his goal at OTs is to make the Olympic team. This surprised me--I know a lot of the runners on that level have slightly more realistic goals, like maybe sneaking into the top 10, and the LetsRun nerds such as myself know there's only a handful of guys that actually have a chance at top 3, so how common is it for these guys to think they'll improve on their PR by 15 seconds per mile while everyone else blows up?
From my experience, a lot more people than most of the posters on this site seem to think. Moreover, contrary to the views of those "Letsrun nerds" who "know there's only a handful of guys that actually have a chance at top 3," there are often a good number of guys (although perhaps not as many now as there were in past Trials races) who have perfectly reasonable expectations that they can contend for one of the top three spots. For example, a guy who has run 2:15 on a moderately challenging course, or under less-than-ideal weather conditions, or with relatively light training, or while juggling running with a fairly demanding job, may have perfectly reasonable expectations of running under 2:12 and picking off runners from the lead pack for a third-place finish. If he doesn't pull it off on race day, perhaps because of a last-minute injury or illness, you may never know how close he came, but you can bet that he has a pretty good idea how close he came.
I remember talking to Kyle Heffner about this stuff many years ago. Perhaps none of the "experts" thought that he had a chance, but he knew that he did, and he was fortunate that he was able to put it all together on race day. For every Kyle Heffner (third in 1980), Pete Pfitzinger (first in 1984), Mark Conover (first in 1988), and Peter de la Cerda (second in 2000, although not qualified to run in the Games themselves), there have probably been at least fifteen or twenty other guys who reasonably believed that they had a decent shot at finishing in the top three.
There are some runners who get a lot of attention on this site, but have no realistic chance of making the team. There are other runners who stay under the radar, training hard for their one big race. If things go well, you'll come to learn their story; if things go badly, you'll never know how close they really were.
I'm going with 90%.
Even with those with the slowest PR's think in the back of their minds they think there's some chance that everything will come together for them, they'll have the race of their life, discover some untapped ability, or whatever and the top guys will have a bad day, get injured, etc., and they'll sneak onto the team.
Being a bit delusional is what keeps a lot of runners trying to get better. Really, being delusionally optimistic is a great asset in life in general.
These athletes are successful because they don't go into a race already defeated, even if it's a long shot. That is the difference between good and mediocre runners.
"Victorious warriors win first then go to war. Defeated warriors go to war first then try to win."
TLW wrote:
These athletes are successful because they don't go into a race already defeated, even if it's a long shot. That is the difference between good and mediocre runners.
Here's another try at that sentence (really, I'm not that crazy)-
Even those with the slowest PR's think in the back of their minds that there's some chance that everything will come together for them, they'll have the race of their life, discover some untapped ability, or whatever and the top guys will have a bad day, get injured, etc., and they'll sneak onto the team.
1% everybody except rupp
It's impossible to get on the team. No one gets that. 3/100 chance you'll get on the team. People have 3% chance of getting selected. You should just give up. Some of these runners are annoying thinking they'll make the team when they didn't do it in 2008.
I can think of several runners who would have a realistic chance in making the team but things would have to go really perfectly.
stuck with match.com wrote:
1% everybody except rupp
So everyone except Rupp thinks they'll make it? Wouldn't that mean 99%? There's a reason you're stuck with match.com--what girl wants a bonehead?
And I said wrote:
stuck with match.com wrote:1% everybody except rupp
So everyone except Rupp thinks they'll make it? Wouldn't that mean 99%? There's a reason you're stuck with match.com--what girl wants a bonehead?
680 math sat score biotch