OT Qualifier 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
I understand what you are saying about the differences between the half and full, but why are you against a half standard? Given the fact you qualified with the full, I would think you would feel you have an advantage over the rest of the 64:xx half qualifiers as they are inexperienced at the distance. Are you arguing that the integrity of the marathon trails is being ruined by half qualifiers?
I don't see why there is a problem with these "time trials" that are organized to get guys qualified and as someone training to hit a trials time, you had just as much opportunity to make it in the half, but you choose the full route. Why chastise other qualifiers for choosing the half route that was openly available to them, and everyone else who wants to take a shot.