Proposed 2016 US Olympic Marathon Trials Standards Lowered From 2:19 to 2:18 and 2:46 to 2:43

Avocado's Number wrote:

I do have a problem with the 1:05 alt-B standard, however. I'd reserve the alt-B standard for extraordinary cases -- generally, legitimate contenders whose circumstances (injury, inexperience, selection of races, and so on) have made it difficult to get a good marathon time during the qualifying window.

I have major objections to this. Do you really want more Alan Webb-5000m-type drama, where you have to determine who's a contender before? The marathon has a virtually limitless size, why can't you let the race determine who's a contender and who isn't?

Nothing slower than 1:04, and I wouldn't object to making it tougher. Everyone else needs to run a real marathon. If the B and alt-B standards are 2:18 and 1:05, I think we'll see an awful lot of people focusing on the half-marathon instead of the full marathon. That seems a bit counterproductive.

I agree with this part, the half-marathon standard should be distinguishably harder than the marathon standard. But, I'd rather just see the marathon standard get slightly easier. At the end of the day, it's better to add in potentially bad runners than leave out potentially good runners.

willy k wrote:

At the end of the day, it's better to add in potentially bad runners than leave out potentially good runners.

Nobody who can run faster than 2:20:00 for the marathon is a "bad" runner.

I'm curious as to how this all went down at the USATF meeting. Was there actually any discussion, or did they just announce, "These are the standards"? Were any athletes consulted on this? I would find it hard to believe that Meb, Hall, Abdi, Shalane, Desi, and Kara feel that the race is cheapened by adding in an extra 50-100 people. USATF is just crushing the dreams of a number of dedicated people (myself included) who are on the fringe of being fast enough to qualify. To these people making the Trials is their end goal; it's their Olympics. Turning them away benefits nobody.

willy k wrote:

Do you really want more Alan Webb-5000m-type drama, where you have to determine who's a contender before?

I see how you interpreted my post. Let me clarify my remark about the alt-B standard.

I don't mean to suggest that the alt-B standard should be applied on a case-by-case basis. In particular, I do not approve of the process by which, for example, Alan Webb (at 5,000m) and Adam Goucher (at 10,000m) were able to jump over candidates with faster qualifying times to gain entry into previous Olympic trials competitions. I simply believe that an alt-B standard (that is, a qualifying time over a shorter distance, such as a half-marathon) should exist, if at all, in order to accommodate certain exceptional circumstances, and should be significantly tougher than the qualifying standard over the full marathon distance. In that respect, I think that we agree.

I do not agree with those who believe that the marathon qualifying standard should be relaxed.

sc coach wrote:

Just went to IAAF website. For no real reason compared 2012 times to Japanese--using new A standards

Men--25 U.S. men under 2:15, 41 Japanese men under 2:15.

The real out of sort is that there are 10 U.S. men under a 1/2 marathon time of 1:03 (understand that the standard is 1:05, but that is as far as the table went). By comparison there were 70 Japanese runners at 1:03 or better.

Women--41 Japanese women under the "A" standard 2:37 versus 25 American women. Half marathon 14 U.S. runners sub 1:13 (again that is as far as theat particular list went as the 1/2 marathon standard is 1:15). Again by comparison there were 56 Japanese women at 1:13 or better.

I guess my point is it appears the way to more easily qualify for the marathon trials is via the half marathon route especially if one was to train particularly for that distance.

Welcome discussion

i looked at tilastopaja for japan and USA

in 2012

japan has 194 men at 65:00 minutes or faster in half marathon.

japan has 43 men at 2:15.00 or faster

japan has 91 men at 2:18.00 or fater (note 1 more maraton to go on december 16th the hofu marathon.)

USA has 34 men at 65:00 or faster in half marathon

USA has 27 men at 2:15.00 or faster

USA has 48 men at 2:18.00 or faster

in 2011

japan had 107 at 65.00 or faster in half marathon.

japan had 42 at 2:15.00 or faster

japan had 71 at 2:18.00 or faster

USA had 65 at 65:00 or faster in half marathon

USA had 9 at 2:15.00 or faster

USA had 22 at 2:18.00 or faster

notice in 2012 the USA tripled its sub 2:15 marathoners and more than doubled its sub 2:18 marathoners.

on the other hand the amount of sub 65 minute half marathoners dropped from 65 in 2011 to 34 in 2012.

The A standard for women is 2:37? I know 4 women that can run 10 minutes faster than their "A" standard, whereas how many American men can run 10 minutes fast than the new "A" standard? Let alone 10 minutes faster than the "B" standard? In comparison with how many women can run faster than their “B” standard. It doesn’t seem equal, but I guess the purpose isn’t to be equal, its to allow more runners in the womens field.

Is anybody openly signing up for the TCM since it'll be the US Champs? That's a good race to run with some good runners, or will you guys/gals be hoping to run a faster course like Chicago or CIM? New York might only be getting the Top Dogs this year.

Also, I really liked the stats being posted on here, as well as the stats that were posted on Marathonguide.com about who and where runners qualified at.

*Enough with the Japan comparisons. Their college and post-collegiate focus is on the roads. We could have enormous sub 65 finishers if NCAA Cross or Professional Road Races were turned into nationally televised, lucrative half marathons.

Windy (between the ears),

Letme help you with the math. Adding 10 minutes is not how you figure these things out. If you want to check history that would make sense. What was 50th place in each of the past Olympic Trials? What was 75th in each of the last Olympic Trials? Numbers along those lines are useful.

The Men are not able to run in the womens trials, so why would any man care about what he would have to do if he was a woman. You are not, so don't worry about it.

Windy CIty wrote:

It doesn’t seem equal, but I guess the purpose isn’t to be equal, its to allow more runners in the womens field.

My understanding is that (at least in the past) the Trials qualification is set by an entirely different committee for the women than it is for the men. Any idea that they should be equal may appeal to people's sense of justice or fairness but are not part of the mandate of those committees. It is entirely irrelevant if the standards are "equal" for men and women, as that is not the purpose.

There are different committees, but the M-LDR encouraged the W-LDR to adopt the Olympic A/B standards. All of this information is available on the USATF website. For example:

http://usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2012/USATF-Annual-Meeting/Document-Library.aspx

The USATF says it wants to "raise the bar" by which I assume they mean that by making the standards tougher, they will raise performances and will increase the number of people running fast times.

My question is whether there is any reason to think that this works?

In other words, if the minimum standard is now 2:18/2:43 are there people who would otherwise might have only run 2:19/2:46 who will do something to raise their game to meet the new standards? Is it reasonable to think that this will work to increase the number of fast times by Americans?

Stew in the garage wrote:

I'm not sure if a B standard runner ever made the OG team but I doubt it.

Not sure if anyone posted this already but...

Trent Briney, who was a B qualifier (2:21:10) in 2004, came mighty damn close when he was 4th.

yeronerown wrote:

Seems like the primary goal of the trials should be to select the 3 runners with the best shot at doing well at the Olympics. It isn't the primary objective of the trials to help the next "tier" develop. Heck, there are a zillion quality marathons each year in the US, so there are plenty of chances to develop.

We don't let a hundred people try out for any other track and field event, so what makes the marathon any different?

How about we save all the expense of running a separate trials race? Just run the trials alongside a large US marathon that is already established.

Instead, use that money to support the 3 who are selected so they won't have to run another marathon in the interim.

Who are you guys?

Lets start with what is different:

1. The marathon is 26.2 miles. That is more than 4 times the distance of the longest run on the track.

2. The marathon is run on roads that can hold thousands.

3. The marathon is run on the roads and to draw a crowd you need a spectacle.

4. The marathon is run on the roads. To get the backing from the city who will support closing down city streets and all that cost to a city for 10-15 guys.

5. The marathon is 26.2 miles run on the roads.

Are you getting it yet? The marathon is not like any other event. This could be used as an opportunity to grow the sport's publicity.

Lastly, lets put it in things most people understand. Money. It is an opportunity to make lots and lots of money if done right but USATF has no clue and the sport is as dead as ever.

Soprano,

I would argue that the US should have 150-200 people who can run 2:18 or faster. The problem isn't the standard, which is incredibly soft given the evolution of men's marathoning at the world stage. Its the marathoners.

You're not solving the problem (US runners aren't fast enough) by having soft standards.

I'm of the opinion that if the men's standard is slower than the woman's WR, then its too slow.

I've coached an Olympic Trials qualifier. He was talented and worked hard, but was a 14:00/29:00 guy. There are many others who are more talented and who train a lot more then he did (he was running about 100-110 mpw and was a few years out of college) that should be able to run 2:18. In fact, I think he is more than talented enough to run 2:16'ish if he could stay healthy and motivated. The guy who finished 9th at Phili tried for years to break 15:00 for 5000 on the track (ran 15:15 in college in 2009) and just ran 2:21:30. His PRs now are 14:48 (2011), 69:55 (2012). 2:21:30 (2012). How is it possible that guys who have a minute on him in the 5000 and 5 minutes on him in a half marathon can't have 6:00+ on him in a marathon?

Just because people aren't training right doesn't mean we should have soft standards. Instead, we should try and educate coaches and athletes so they know how to train to maximize their marathon potential. For a large population of the 2:19-2:25 guys, this will equate to 2:12-2:18 marathons.

Fix the problem.

Raising the bar? wrote:

The USATF says it wants to "raise the bar" by which I assume they mean that by making the standards tougher, they will raise performances and will increase the number of people running fast times.

My question is whether there is any reason to think that this works?

In other words, if the minimum standard is now 2:18/2:43 are there people who would otherwise might have only run 2:19/2:46 who will do something to raise their game to meet the new standards? Is it reasonable to think that this will work to increase the number of fast times by Americans?

Well, very quickly I looked up the last 3 trials. In 2004, with the softest standard, there were only 70 finishers. They tightened the standards and in 2008 there were 104 finishers. In 2012, with tightened standards there were 84 finishers. I did not look up total number of qualifiers for any of those years. So results were ambiguous, it is a good question, though. You wouldn't expect a trend to be unambiguous based on such a small sample size.

Conto wrote:

Just because people aren't training right doesn't mean we should have soft standards. Instead, we should try and educate coaches and athletes so they know how to train to maximize their marathon potential. For a large population of the 2:19-2:25 guys, this will equate to 2:12-2:18 marathons.

Fix the problem.

then educate me. please. im in your 2:19-2:25 range and would certainly love to run 2:12-2:18. go find me a coach who will take me from group 1 to group 2. oh and it'll have to be free because with times like those there isnt a chance i could be making a living in america just by running

it seems like 100 people here "dont get it" and youre the only one who does. it sounds like you could revolutionize american marathoning. explain. im all ears

Conto,

What would you say the training should be like?

I think:

high mileage (120-140)

tempo runs

speed workouts

easy runs

long run marathon workouts

These seem like the bread and butter of most programs. There shouldn't be any secret to it. And the trend of fast 10k runners not running well in the marathon seems to be pretty prevalent, as those guys can’t slow down in “marathon workouts” or practice their actual marathon pace. I’ve followed Jack Daniels Ph.D. and have had decent success with it when done correctly, and when I’ve taken the my easy days pretty easy to recover (I’m older now). So maybe the youth of our American runners should try something different when given the opportunity to train for a marathon. Try more marathon specific workouts instead of their usual 2 track workouts a week. Practicing pace (marathon pace/tempo pace) can help dramatically.

Good luck everyone! I really do hope we have over 200 qualifiers, and more than 85 finishers at the next trials!

It;s all the same S**t!!! Loads of miles, fast and hard! Get 'er done son!

Conto wrote:

Just because people aren't training right doesn't mean we should have soft standards. Instead, we should try and educate coaches and athletes so they know how to train to maximize their marathon potential. For a large population of the 2:19-2:25 guys, this will equate to 2:12-2:18 marathons.

Fix the problem.

then educate me. please. im in your 2:19-2:25 range and would certainly love to run 2:12-2:18. go find me a coach who will take me from group 1 to group 2. oh and it'll have to be free because with times like those there isnt a chance i could be making a living in america just by running

it seems like 100 people here "dont get it" and youre the only one who does. it sounds like you could revolutionize american marathoning. explain. im all ears