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

Avocado, you quoted my post (first response on this thread) and disagreed, but most of your long post didn't have anything to do with what I said or contain any support for why you disagreed....

Anyway, I'm not arguing whether there should be a half standard or not. I'm just saying that having a lot of half-marathon qualifiers doesn't mean the half standard is soft.

In 2004 Trent Briney qualified with a 2:21 and ran 2:12 to place 4th.

I'd say someone in your 44% can do that.

2 of my friends qualified with a 642x and a 644x. They've never ran the marathon but it's causing me to watch a race in February that I would normally just wait to read the results on LetsRun.

Y'all who boohoo about too many runners need to get out more. These 64 minute runners are training hard. One was a 282x guy in college in D2. The other was a 403 miler 850 steepler in D1. I've never been more excited for the US Marathon Trials.

Joe or Something Else wrote:

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.

I do like the idea of a descending order list. Just pick a number and let the fastest guys in. 200 fastest marathoners and 10 fastest half marathoners not on the marathon list for example.

Another option would be to let the 1:04 guys in if they have also run within a minute or two of the marathon standard. So you could get in with a 1:04 and a 2:20 but not 1:04 and 2:25.

Or just drop the half standard so you have to run an exceptional half that would make you a contender like Rupp.

Men:

2:15:00 "A" Standard

2:20:00 "B" Standard

1:02:30 Half Marathon "Wild Card" Entry

Women:

2:35:00 "A" Standard

2:40:00 "B" Standard

1:12:30 Half Marathon "Wild Card" Entry

HM standards are roughly equal to the "A" standards. Men's entry standard is loosened a bit, women's entry standard is tightened a bit. All standards are nice, round numbers.

As usual, I agree pretty much 100% with "Avocado's Number".

Couple of additional thoughts -

- Thanks to the 65:00 HM standard, I have run across a surprisingly large number of runners who don't particularly want to run a marathon but want to "be a Trials qualifier". They train to run a good HM to qualify, and that closes out their goal sheet. So we will have people who never actually tried to be good at running a marathon lining up to (supposedly) try to make the Olympic marathon team.

- Like "Avodaco's Number", I am very much in favor of having 10,000 and HM "backdoor" standards -- but very strict ones, for runners who have a shot at making the team in the marathon - like Derrick, Rupp, Estrada -- but would be discouraged from trying because it would mean running 2 marathons just to get to Rio, rather than one. Risky business for someone who could make the team in other events.

- My thought would be to have 28:00 and 1:02 "B" Standards, to capture the Sam Chelangas and Tim Ritchies out there, and a marathon "B" standard (like the previous 2:22), to give a shot to people who actually, um, "identify as marathoners" and who might do a Trent Briney 2:21-to 2:12 job.

- Derrick as a poster child for a 1:05 standard is specious ...does anyone really think his 63:41 was a full-taper, full-effort, maxed-out performance? We're talking about CHRIS Derrick, right? If the mark was 1:02, he would have done 1:01:30.

New standards, round numbers wrote:

Men:

2:15:00 "A" Standard

2:20:00 "B" Standard

1:02:30 Half Marathon "Wild Card" Entry

Women:

2:35:00 "A" Standard

2:40:00 "B" Standard

1:12:30 Half Marathon "Wild Card" Entry

HM standards are roughly equal to the "A" standards. Men's entry standard is loosened a bit, women's entry standard is tightened a bit. All standards are nice, round numbers.

I actually like these, but those half times are way better than the A standards. In fact, that's *why* I like them. Anyone who can run 1:02:30 has a legitimate shot at the team - they should be able to hang with the leaders through 30k if they're having any kind of decent day.

Xenostreams wrote:

Men's standards are too easy, period. Doesn't matter if half or full, both are weak.

Women's standards are much harder, as it obvious by looking at the number of qualifiers.

We still have a long way to go to gender equality. Too bad 95% of USATF are old, white men.

lol bro, YOURE RIGHT! 2:19/1:05 is SOOOOOO much easier than a 2:45 marathon for a woman...

I will give you that 75 seems to be tougher to hit for women than 65 for men

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 guy gets it. I remember when I was in XC in high school, if you were top 10 in the section you got a patch. The patches got stitched onto varsity jackets. If you won the sectional as a team you also got a patch. Team and individual champions on the track also got the same patch but with a different logo on the inside. I remember being so motivated by those patches. It was a physical representation of the result of hard work that you could wear around, and everyone knew what it meant. I'm not saying that a Trials jacket would be like that, or that a silly little jacket would motivate kids. But imagine you're a HS kid and you're at a track meet and there's somebody with one of those jackets hanging out in the stands. You wonder, you think, you pay attention. And that price of $150 would even be a little inflated. Typical markup on apparel is 100% (so wholesale is 50% of retail cost). And presumably the jackets would come from Nike, as they're the sponsor of USATF. So let's say wholesale is also roughly 100% markup from production cost. So a jacket like that would be less than 50 bucks after embroidery or whatever you do to them. That's peanuts.

I think it's remained suppressed because there are more incentives on the track than there are on the roads. How many US athletes are currently sponsored on the track (let's say 800-10k just to keep it fair) vs. how many are sponsored for marathons? Hell, how many in a single event, ie. the 1500 for example are sponsored vs. how many for the marathon. Consider also the structure of how you get paid. Appearance fees and prize money from races; way easier to cash in on the track on a regular basis on than on the roads. College kids also run track and XC but no roads, so why move up to an unsure thing if they think they have a shot at getting paid on the track? And who do they look up to on the track vs. the roads? If I'm thinking I want to compete against the best, and I see we currently have a world medalist at 800m, two at 1500, one at 5k (if you count Lagat, though I didn't count him at 1500) and one at 10k (and that's all just the men) and then I look at the marathon, who do we have to look up to? The US is not set up to foster marathon development right now, and I don't think having a HM standard to shoot for is much of a barrier. If anything, it could pull some of that talent from 5k/10k up to a half, then if they have a shot they give a full a try and shift their focus there.

See above; I think most college track stars don't see themselves as marathoners, but a HM feels within range, so they give it a shot.

I suspect there's a lot more covariance between HM and marathon performance than there is between 200 and 400 or 400 and 800.

A standard should be 2:14, all expenses paid.

B standard should be 2:22, with nothing but a bib.

HM A standard should be 62:30, all expenses paid

HM B standard should be 65:30, with nothing but a bib.

I think this helps more people qualify with the B standard, and a bit tougher A standard to reward the quicker runners. The easier B standard helps the sub elites. This will bring more people to qualify, hopefully more of them gain sponsorship. This will allow them to train at a higher level if they have access to better facilities, shoes, etc. So their training will get better. And the hometown publicity is great!

I believe all this will help grow the sport at no cost to anyone. This will also make people excited about road races.

What do you guys think?

Sesamoiditis wrote:

Joe or Something Else wrote:

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.

I do like the idea of a descending order list. Just pick a number and let the fastest guys in. 200 fastest marathoners and 10 fastest half marathoners not on the marathon list for example.

Another option would be to let the 1:04 guys in if they have also run within a minute or two of the marathon standard. So you could get in with a 1:04 and a 2:20 but not 1:04 and 2:25.

Or just drop the half standard so you have to run an exceptional half that would make you a contender like Rupp.

I like where you are going with this. I think I would leave the standard times where they are now and then allow/cap each field at 250 runners. If there are not 250 people with a qualifying time, then you look at the full marathon list only and enter people from fastest time to slowest to fill the field. I'd set the cut-off for times allowed at 3-months prior to the trials.

IChoseD2 wrote:

Y'all who boohoo about too many runners need to get out more. These 64 minute runners are training hard. One was a 282x guy in college in D2. The other was a 403 miler 850 steepler in D1. I've never been more excited for the US Marathon Trials.

You're right just because they're training hard they should be allowed in. It should be based on accomplishment and they should have to hit a certain time.

As someone who has run the standard in the marathon I will say the half standard is waaaaay easier than the full, especially with all these time trials setup in Jacksonville, Houston, Philly, etc. Any guy who can go sub 2:18 can easily go sub 65. The only reason some of them haven't is because they never focus on the half, its always done as a tune up and is essentially trained through. The marathon is a completely different ballgame than the half and many 64min guys can't even break 2:20.

I think there should be a half standard because in the marathon shit happens and you can only run a couple a year so its nice to have a safety net. But the marathon should be the primary means to qualify for the marathon trials. The half standard should be a lot tougher, I would like to see 63:30 do that all the guys who get the half standard are almost certainly capable of an equivalent time in the marathon, and the studs who like Rupp and Chelanga can get in without having run the full yet.

2004... wrote:

In 2004 Trent Briney qualified with a 2:21 and ran 2:12 to place 4th.

I'd say someone in your 44% can do that.

Your example shows that more marathoners should be included, not people who can only run a half.

I agree with letting the people with the top 300 marathon times into the trials, and no one from any other event. If someone can't finish a reasonably paced marathon in a year, then they don't deserve to be in the trials.

OT Qualifier wrote:

The marathon is a completely different ballgame than the half and many 64min guys can't even break 2:20.

How many? I'd be curious to know exactly how many sub 64:00 guys have run a marathon and have a PR slower than 2:20. I don't think it's actually that many, but I'm willing to be corrected/surprised.

As one of the recent college grad/new qualifiers from one of the "time trials" you mention, I can attest that it defintely was easier to hit sub 65 at this type of event. I only took one shot before on a solo half and it didn't go nearly as well. But isn't going to these events and running against/with big groups of guys the way that we are going to encourage development in the HM & marathon? You almost spin it as a bad thing that lots of olympic trials hopefuls come together to chase fast times. I think it is good for the sport to have these sort of events where runners are all pursuing something they have never achieved before, no matter what the level.

Also, while i did just get under the HM standard, I now only have 5 weeks until my debut marathon... I'll just be gunning for 2:18-2:19, and using it as experience for 2020 & 2024. I'm guessing many of the recent, younger qualifiers are looking at it the same way.

My issue is the primary means for qualifying for the marathon event should be the marathon itself not the half. When there are significantly more half qualifiers than full qualifiers that is a problem. And those numbers wouldn't even be close if the standard didn't get pushed back to 2:19.

The half and the full are very different races. You have to deal with energy depletion in the marathon that you don't get into in the half. Most every decent track 10K runner can pretty easily transition to the the half for a race but many can't go up to the marathon. To properly prepare for a marathon it requires a training regiment that is very different than what is required to run a fast half marathon.

Half as least wrote:

As an old friend of mine used to say, "twice as far is half as least."

The easy part of a marathon is the first 20 miles. Most of those who qualified with half times are going to be in a world of hurt at least by the last few miles of the marathon. There is no good reason to use half times for a marathon, especially not for a marathon trials race.

I don't get the thinking behind lowering the standard for the full marathon but letting in people who have never run a marathon. If they think the size of the field will be too small if the standard is 2:18 then don't lower it.

Grapefruit are not oranges wrote:

A standard should be 2:14, all expenses paid.

B standard should be 2:22, with nothing but a bib.

HM A standard should be 62:30, all expenses paid

HM B standard should be 65:30, with nothing but a bib.

I think this helps more people qualify with the B standard, and a bit tougher A standard to reward the quicker runners. The easier B standard helps the sub elites. This will bring more people to qualify, hopefully more of them gain sponsorship. This will allow them to train at a higher level if they have access to better facilities, shoes, etc. So their training will get better. And the hometown publicity is great!

I believe all this will help grow the sport at no cost to anyone. This will also make people excited about road races.

What do you guys think?

I didn't see that there were two more pages until after I posted. I like this but I wouldn't have a B standard for the half. Maybe the half standard should be 63:00 but 62:30 would be fine as well. And I'd at least give a t-shirt as well as a bib to anyone who qualified.