44% of U.S Olympic marathon trials runners qualified with 1:04-1:05 half marathon

stateroftheoblivious wrote:

If you were looking only to find the 3 best marathoners for the Olympic team, then you would have only 12 runners in the trials.

Part of the trials should be, and is, to help build the sport.

Having 100 guys running it, even though they have no chance to be in the top 3, will make headlines in 100 towns. This will help inspire the next generation.

I hope all the entrants get swag (jackets, shirts) with the Olympic rings and the words "US Olympic Trials" in big letters.

Letting a 2:20 guy run the Olympic trials at his own cost - $150 (cost to the USATF)

Publicity - priceless.

And I think the "B" guys and gals should be required to give a presentation to their local high school or a community gathering as part of their entry requirement.

Publicity, publicity, publicity.

THIS. 10000000x this.

Avocado's Number wrote:

When the half-marathon alternative was proposed as an alternative means of qualifying for the 2012 men's marathon trials, I wasn't wild about the idea, ...

Perhaps the men's long-distance committee was simply trying to make sure that the number of qualifiers or participants in the trials would not be embarrassingly low when the marathon standard was tightened in 2012 and again in 2016. I don't know. I don't believe that I have ever heard any official rationale for the half-marathon standard, and I don't believe that I've ever heard a very compelling one.

You say it like it was a new concept in 2012, but in 2008 you could qualify with a 13:40 or 28:45 on the track. If you've demonstrated that you're a national level distance runner then why not.

That's twice as far........ wrote:

81 runners between 1:04 and 1:05.

Is the half standard too easy?

Only 85 runners have qualified with a marathon.

I don't think the half standard is any easier either and if you can ran a 1:04x half, you can probably run a 2:18x marathon. The half is an easier route for some because there are only 4-5 USATF cert and fast marathon courses in the U.S., while there are about a dozen USATF cert and fast half courses.

Here is the problem, a lot of those 1:04 half guys have never run a full thon and are looking to run a lot faster than 2:18. I think some of guys will find out the hard way that a 1:04 half perhaps only makes you a 2:18 marathoner.

The problem with the fast half standard for elites only is that a guy like Derrick would be sitting at home since he can't run sub-1:03.

Ground Control to Major Tom wrote:

Cleveland19 wrote:

not certain.

It will be interesting to see how many of these 81 achieve the standard time during the Olympic Trials Marathon.

I bet it is less than 10%.

Of course, if their only goal at the OT was to run sub-2:18, sure, most of them probably could. But most of them will have higher goals, which means many of them will crash and burn with ugly positive splits. That's not a reflection on their ability to run 2:18. Just means they went for their fastest possible time and couldn't hold on.

The 1:05 standard this cycle alone has allowed the likes of Galen Rupp, Diego Estrada, and Chris Derrick, among others, to throw their hat in the ring for the trials without forcing them to change their training. Those three could well be our team in the marathon if they really want it. And what can you dislike about the spectacle of all kinds of local athletes--awfully good ones, most of them probably all-Americans in college, plus some who improved a great deal with hard work after college--training, racing, and getting into the trials as the highlight of their careers? I've trained (well, run) with two of them and it is uplifting to everyone around them and really supports the quality of the local circuits as well. To me, there is nothing not to like about the process.

maybe this wrote:

Of course, if their only goal at the OT was to run sub-2:18, sure, most of them probably could. But most of them will have higher goals, which means many of them will crash and burn with ugly positive splits. That's not a reflection on their ability to run 2:18. Just means they went for their fastest possible time and couldn't hold on.

That's because their fastest time wasn't possible.

With 20/20 hindsight, they should have made 2:19 the A standard and 65 1/2 the B. It is a fair criticism that it takes a lot more to get through a sub 2:19 marathon than to get a sub 65 half. But the 65 standard for the half does help get more talented runners into the marathon. US runners are a bit too gun shy when it comes to the marathon. More need to move up sooner and not put all their eggs in the track basket. It might help them on the track too. Ritz ran sub 13 5k after a couple of marathons.

maybe this wrote:

Ground Control to Major Tom wrote:

I bet it is less than 10%.

Of course, if their only goal at the OT was to run sub-2:18, sure, most of them probably could. But most of them will have higher goals, which means many of them will crash and burn with ugly positive splits. That's not a reflection on their ability to run 2:18. Just means they went for their fastest possible time and couldn't hold on.

re: "many of them will crash and burn with ugly positive splits" - That's what always happen, because nobody is there to run 2:18, even those guys with only a 1:04 half PR. There are about 7-8 athletes with a legit shot to make the team and another dozen who think they have a shot and will compete as if they have a shot. The OTM has a lot of guys you are very game, but end finishing in the 2:20s...nearly everyone finishes.

ITT: A lot of people who aren't even remotely close to being good enough to run a 1:05 half

Ball Zack wrote:

ITT: A lot of people who aren't even remotely close to being good enough to run a 1:05 half

Correct, if your PB is too slow you should stick to posting about liberals, Millennials, color runs, tranny grannies, personal finance, jamin videos, and how the guy who beat me at the local Turkey Trot is a doper.

OnePieceToe wrote:

What about having the top 300 men/women marathon times allowed to race at the trials? Top 100 or top 50 are "A" standards and the rest enter if they'd like to. Fill out 300 people for both gender and there you go. From here on out, it would just be a matter of being the top 300 runners in the country at the trials. Simple. Track uses qualifying times, but ultimately the track trials are capped. Same could be done for the marathon. And 300 was just an arbitrary number, it could be higher or lower, but for marathon purposes 300 seems like a good amount to have in a field.

The issue I have with this is the inability to plan. If I run a qualifying time standard at the start of the qualifying period, then I can plan accordingly for the next year plus. But I am not going to know if I was top 300 until the last day of qualifying. For me that means I may have skipped some opportunities along the way in my preparation.

You would need the qualifying period to end earlier in order for people to recover sufficiently and plan.

Stick with a time standard I say.

Taking it a little further...

91 men are qualified in the full (the actual race distance)

115 men are qualified in the half. (only HALF of the actual race distance)

IF the standard wasn't to 2:19:00, there would only be 73 men qualified in the full.

So it could've very well been 73 men in by the full, and 115 men in by the half. IDK the percentages of this...

Just Some Real Thoughts wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

When the half-marathon alternative was proposed as an alternative means of qualifying for the 2012 men's marathon trials, I wasn't wild about the idea, ...

Perhaps the men's long-distance committee was simply trying to make sure that the number of qualifiers or participants in the trials would not be embarrassingly low when the marathon standard was tightened in 2012 and again in 2016. I don't know. I don't believe that I have ever heard any official rationale for the half-marathon standard, and I don't believe that I've ever heard a very compelling one.

You say it like it was a new concept in 2012, but in 2008 you could qualify with a 13:40 or 28:45 on the track. If you've demonstrated that you're a national level distance runner then why not.

Considering that I specifically referred to the earlier use of alternative 5,000-meter and 10,000-meter qualifying times, I really don't think that it's reasonable to assert that I'm "say[ing] it like it was a new concept in 2012." I could have also added that an alternative half-marathon standard had been previously been used for the women's marathon trials, but I had no desire to get into a discussion about the women's qualifying standards. I also had no desire to get into the interminable discussion about what the marathon qualifying standard should be. (In that regard, I also wanted to avoid the discussion about whether the Ted Stevens Act required USATF to retroactively adjust its marathon qualifying standard to 2:19 or, in the absence of such a statutory requirement, whether it was a good decision for USATF to do so.)

With respect to the half-marathon standard, another poster suggested that the 1:05:00 standard might help Americans to get over a certain tendency (in recent times, I assume) to be "gun-shy" about marathons. I'm inclined to think that a better way would be make marathon running relatively more attractive than half-marathon running, at least for those who aspire to compete in the Olympic marathon trials.

Avocado's Number wrote:

With respect to the half-marathon standard, another poster suggested that the 1:05:00 standard might help Americans to get over a certain tendency (in recent times, I assume) to be "gun-shy" about marathons.

It would have the opposite effect. I bet Chris Derrick wouldn't be trying a marathon at all in that case.

Not that the USATF need to be subconsciously steering athletes towards a racing philosophy for their own good, rather than let them figure it out for themselves.

Adding to the convo wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

With respect to the half-marathon standard, another poster suggested that the 1:05:00 standard might help Americans to get over a certain tendency (in recent times, I assume) to be "gun-shy" about marathons.

It would have the opposite effect. I bet Chris Derrick wouldn't be trying a marathon at all in that case.

Not that the USATF need to be subconsciously steering athletes towards a racing philosophy for their own good, rather than let them figure it out for themselves.

I'm not sure if you were responding to my post. I wasn't taking a position about whether there should be an alternative half-marathon standard. (I think that the system generally worked well without one, but that's certainly not dispositive of the issue.) I was discussing the use of a 1:05:00 half-marathon standard where the marathon standard is 2:18 or 2:19.

My bad, I read your post completely backwards, thinking you wanted to remove the half marathon standard to force people to run more marathons.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

My biggest problem with the half standard is for runners who have run a marathon or two and failed to qualify that way. They can run a 1:04 half and qualify even though they have proven that they cant run a sub 2:19 marathon.

Lets have runner A and runner B and look at their resumes.

Runner A:

Boston Marathon 2014: 2:30

Chicago Marathon 2015: 2:25

Jacksonville Half 2015: 1:04:30

Runner B: Boston Marathon 2014: 2:21

Chicago Marathon 2015: 2:19:45

Jacksonville Half 2015: 1:05:30

It doesn't seem right that Runner A gets to compete while Runner B stays home when they are racing a marathon.

What you are saying makes some sense. But what approach would you take to the qualifying process to make sure the right folks get in? And remember, it can't involve calculus.

stateroftheoblivious wrote:

If you were looking only to find the 3 best marathoners for the Olympic team, then you would have only 12 runners in the trials.

Part of the trials should be, and is, to help build the sport.

Having 100 guys running it, even though they have no chance to be in the top 3, will make headlines in 100 towns. This will help inspire the next generation.

I hope all the entrants get swag (jackets, shirts) with the Olympic rings and the words "US Olympic Trials" in big letters.

Letting a 2:20 guy run the Olympic trials at his own cost - $150 (cost to the USATF)

Publicity - priceless.

And I think the "B" guys and gals should be required to give a presentation to their local high school or a community gathering as part of their entry requirement.

Publicity, publicity, publicity.

You are right.

I wish USATF believed this though. I have spoken with USATF long distance chairs, and they only care about selecting the team and would prefer 12 guys.

They have no vision for the sport.