In the article posted yesterday the standards were quoted as being 2:17/1:04 rather than the 2:15/2:18/1:05 that had been announced last year. Did the standards actually change or is that a mistake? Can somebody with connections please investigate this?
Personally, if the standards have changed I would be a bit crushed.
Standards have changed. They are as stated in the article. You can thank Ed Torres for picking up where Glenn Latimer left off and actually making things worse.
this is definitely worse. I think 2:20 B, 2:15 A and 1:05 half are what we need. Eventually it'll get so low that we might as well just pick the 3 runners with the best times in the last year. If this keeps up we'll enter another distance running dark age.
The standards have not changed. It was an admitted error in the article.
The men's standard is
A: sub 2:15:00
B: sub 2:18:00 or sub 1:05:00
What they really need to change is the women's standard. Based on participation levels I would argue that 2:40/2:55 (A/B) would be fair and bring us up to the men's level.
go for it wrote:
this is definitely worse. I think 2:20 B, 2:15 A and 1:05 half are what we need. Eventually it'll get so low that we might as well just pick the 3 runners with the best times in the last year. If this keeps up we'll enter another distance running dark age.
what it will really do is limit those runners who work full-time/have other commitments from getting to the trials. I feel like it takes a lot more talent and mileage(TIME) to get from 2:20 to 2:15. But at the same time it will push people harder and possibly improve American marathoning.
So where do we find out what they really are?
http://www.usatf.org/Sports/Road-Running/OlympicTeamTrials/2016QualifyingStandards.aspxits not hard(that'swhatshesaid wrote:
So where do we find out what they really are?
"It was an admitted error in the article."
Who admitted it was an error, and where? I see the standards on the USATF website, but I also see a direct quote from the head of the LDR committee that says something different.
I don't believe everything I read on the internet, and I especially don't believe everything I see on the USATF website, because they suck at updating their info, among other things they suck at.
On another note, is it okay with you that Ed Torres equates men running slower than 2:17 for the marathon with "fun-runners"? Is that the kind of leadership we want for US long distance running?
common wrote:
You can thank Ed Torres for picking up where Glenn Latimer left off and actually making things worse.
Agreed. His condescending quote about how "it's not a fun run" won't earn him any fans.
It's difficult to imagine how the USATF can miss such an ideal opportunity to really promote the sport within the U.S. Simply by easing the men's "B" standard by another 2 or 3 minutes, the additional expense for USATF would be minimal but the additional hype and buzz throughout the nation would increase exponentially! There would be many more local running heroes who would now be labeled as Olympic Trials Marathon participants. The benefits far outweigh the detriments.!
My point exactly, of course I have seen this page, but this article is from December. The most recent thing we hear is from el gordo and all we have to look at is that crappy site from who knows when.
common wrote:
On another note, is it okay with you that Ed Torres equates men running slower than 2:17 for the marathon with "fun-runners"? Is that the kind of leadership we want for US long distance running?
Ed ran 2:17:54. I think it just proves that a fun-runner is "anybody slower than I am."
Exactly. Another bitter, national-class has-been making irrational decisions out of spite. EXACTLY WHAT USATF NEEDED.
xenoscrems wrote:
What they really need to change is the women's standard. Based on participation levels I would argue that 2:40/2:55 (A/B) would be fair and bring us up to the men's level.
You're going the wrong way. They shouldn't get softer. No way in hell my wife should currently be capable of making the trials. Sure I'd love if she did but 2.55 shouldn't be what gets her there.
common wrote:
On another note, is it okay with you that Ed Torres equates men running slower than 2:17 for the marathon with "fun-runners"? Is that the kind of leadership we want for US long distance running?
Completely agree. The few quotes I've heard from him recently are telling toward his overall mindset. While I think they should be a challenge I also feel like his general approach isn't going to help in the long term.
stevenson wrote:
xenoscrems wrote:What they really need to change is the women's standard. Based on participation levels I would argue that 2:40/2:55 (A/B) would be fair and bring us up to the men's level.
You're going the wrong way. They shouldn't get softer. No way in hell my wife should currently be capable of making the trials. Sure I'd love if she did but 2.55 shouldn't be what gets her there.
Comparing the standards is pointless (in spite of the fact that it gets done all the time here). The standards are set by separate committees with their own individual ideas about "raising the standards" vs. "increasing participation" or "encouraging sub-elites to stick in the sport" or whatever else.
common wrote:
Exactly. Another bitter, national-class has-been making irrational decisions out of spite. EXACTLY WHAT USATF NEEDED.
No, Ed and Jorge have been involved in the sport since elementary school, and Ed's been involved with USATF forever. His experience and perspective is most definitely needed.
For the record, the standards were set in accordance with the IAAF A/B standards (2:15/2:18) and by the FORMER Chairs. If you look at who'd qualify from 2012, you get around 120 (including the half marathon). The field will likely be larger than this.
Lets try this view.
USOC is working on a plan that includes a number of LA tied events leading up to and during the LA OG '24 bid.
The USOC especially the bid group mounting the -LA is the best sports venue-bid and backstory expects the sports under the USOC umbrella to support the effort.
I'm sure no matter how removed from the day to day operations MaxS is, he knows growing the elite athlete base is important. The bigger good will be gained by falling in line early with the consolidated effort to support LA's bid.
As often the case the trickle down from painting with a broad brush (win the bid) only starts to appear in a negative way down near the bottom of the canvas. In this case elite athlete development takes a hit. Let's hope the bigger good winds up creating another way to showcase the emerging elite and our semi-elite athletes.
what does it matter everyone on lets run did a 2:04 at age 7 anyway
go for it wrote:
this is definitely worse. I think 2:20 B, 2:15 A and 1:05 half are what we need. Eventually it'll get so low that we might as well just pick the 3 runners with the best times in the last year. If this keeps up we'll enter another distance running dark age.
It's not that bad. It is also not as extreme as just picking the top 3. But seriously.... the 2:17 guy was never gonna beat the 2:08 guy anyway. or the 2:09 guy. or the 2:10 guy. In fact, the race was over at the gun. So by not lowering the A to 2:12... because that wouldn't change the outcome at all... USATF is encouraging athletes to still keep trying. Should they? Is a 2:17 marathoner a "hobby jogger" when compared to a sub2:10? I don't really care either way, because as I said, it will not change the outcome of who makes the team. We aren't talking about losing by 2 seconds in a 1500 or 5 seconds in a 5k.... the 217+ guy is losing by almost(or over) 2 miles.
