Have you ever tried to make the Olympic Marathon Trials?

It is harder for talented guys to miss out on doing the sport in HS. The lack of depth in womans sport lets them play soccer or field hockey instead of being XC runners. Or just avoid sports all togehter.

2:20 is the type of time that is with in reach of 14:45 5k/31 min 10k with more training if they are distance guys (i.e. they run 4:20 miles not 4:10s). But you need to be in a situation where you want to run and can handle the training bump. A lot of people after 8 years make the choice that dropping a 2:18 marathon isn't worth it. It isn't life changing and the sacrifice isn't worth it. They go from being 29:30 10k guys in college (hopeing for the break through to get them to nationals) to recreational runners dropping 32 min 10ks at the local turkey trots.

latebloomer wrote:

I'd be curious to know for anyone out there that made the standard but didn't run in college, do you think getting college-type 5k/10k speed is a pre-req or that it's doable to train specifically for the marathon at this level without that speed base?

I think this is a good question and have often thought about it myself. It seems as though a fair amount of you say that being a collegiate distance runner is close to being mandatory as those few exceptions being pointed out are considered remarkable. I have had a few years to think about what it would have taken to get there myself....

I started in Junior High and ran through HIgh School. As a sophomore (just turned 15-1/2) went just under 2:59 then exactly a year later did 2:54-mid. I hadn't been running all that long so I figured those times would go down quite a bit. 10k was really my main event and my times were much better (on anyone's equivalency chart). Often 34 and change but PR probably 33:30 or 33:25. (They were run pre-internet so unfortunately lost to time....). I really thought that wasn't bad for a Junior not yet 17 so I had hope.

I wasn't qualified to run NCAA (nor HS track for that matter) so the "how do you get there" topic is interesting to me. I don't even have a meaningful 5000 PR from my youth, having only run one that was both hot and at high altitude. (An interesting story in the sense that I normally raced on asphalt so I custom-built a pair of shoes for the track.)

I wish I had a better story from this point but I got involved (obsessed perhaps) with another sport and couldn't have done both. I made an impact in another arena so I'm not unhappy about that and I never got out of shape. I picked up running again so have only competed as a Junior or Master but never in Open Division. I am training smarter and possibly harder than before but although BQ times are not a big deal at this point OTQ is, well, it should stand for Out of The Question.

What I wonder is: if I had stayed on the path I was on, could I have been there? In RWTB Wetmore says he could get a high 2 miler to 10k at the same pace in just the few years he has the kid. Not all of them, but it can and does happen even if he's not the top recruit in the country. My mid-teen 10k X 4 would get me in the ballpark of National Class and OTQ. Could I have been at that level at 29?

I guess I just want to say "Go For It" for all of you, especially those without the HS mid-D and college 5/10 credentials. Good Luck!

Thanks for the insight into a bit of what it looked like for you making the trials time while having children. If I read that right you ran a 2:47 when your first was under 1! I'm not sure if you were nursing or not but if so did you have to fuel differently/more during the marathon/longer training runs?

Thanks also to the other posters regarding training when raising young ones.

Yep, I made it there in 84' and 92' Columbus. Good times for sure.

"S. Canaday" wrote: "I can't think of a single guy that ran sub 2:19:00 that wasn't a 5km/10km (or any distance) runner in college (and usually a pretty good one!)."

Tom Redding was a college swimmer, and competed in the 1996 and 2000 Olympic Trials...in the 1996 USOTM he ran 2:19:54 for 23rd under less-than-pleasant conditions (bone-cold, windy day).

Not sure what his PR is, but I'd argue that that the conditions added more than 54 seconds vs a "weather-neutral" day.

And your argument would hold water. It surely added more than 54 seconds, a lot more;).

Joseph McVeigh wrote:

"S. Canaday" wrote: "I can't think of a single guy that ran sub 2:19:00 that wasn't a 5km/10km (or any distance) runner in college (and usually a pretty good one!)."

Tom Redding was a college swimmer, and competed in the 1996 and 2000 Olympic Trials...in the 1996 USOTM he ran 2:19:54 for 23rd under less-than-pleasant conditions (bone-cold, windy day).

Not sure what his PR is, but I'd argue that that the conditions added more than 54 seconds vs a "weather-neutral" day.

No. Never was very close with a 35:00 10K and 2:53 marathon PR (as a dude).

-The other events are harder to qualify for because there is literally not enough room on the track, and slower guys can interfere with faster guys' chances. The marathon is so long and wide open that you can afford a bigger field.

-The Olympic Trials is a bigger event because it only happens once every four years and gets significant coverage. USA Championship does not compare.

-Lowering the standard would not be so much about finding new potential runners for the Olympic team as it would giving American runners an incentive to reach their full potential. How many guys with talent have slipped through the cracks because they know there's no real reason to improve upon their 2:30 marathon? Whether or not you agree with the hype behind the Trials, it's a lifelong achievement to get there for so many runners. The more Americans treating running as a lifestyle, the better our country will be on the world stage in every distance event.

-You can be a local hero winning a 5k in 20:00. The Olympic Trials is a much, much bigger accomplishment that goes far beyond having your Facebook friends like a few photos.

Joseph McVeigh wrote:

"S. Canaday" wrote: "I can't think of a single guy that ran sub 2:19:00 that wasn't a 5km/10km (or any distance) runner in college (and usually a pretty good one!)."

Tom Redding was a college swimmer, and competed in the 1996 and 2000 Olympic Trials...in the 1996 USOTM he ran 2:19:54 for 23rd under less-than-pleasant conditions (bone-cold, windy day).

Not sure what his PR is, but I'd argue that that the conditions added more than 54 seconds vs a "weather-neutral" day.

I believe that Michael Wardian has a best of 2:17 or so and played lacrosse in college rather than running. Many moons back there was a 2:11 guy called Don Norman who did not run in college if I recall correctly. I'm not even sure if he went. Also if my fairly long term memory is working there was a guy in Colorado, Rick Musgrave I think, who was a miler in college but eventually moved up and got into the high 2 teens. I'd bet there have been a few other mid distance guys who later became fairly successful marathoners. On Jonas Hampton's website it looks like he never got under 15:00/31:00 in college and there was a guy called Steve Molnar who eventually got to 2:16 in the 70s. I don't think he was faster than that in college.

Excuse the multi-quoting

Another heat of the 1500 adds 5 minutes to the meet. Letting in people who squeaked into the standard right at the end and will more than likely run 2:30+ on the day adds how much time? Regardless, the point isn't that adding more runners is impractical, otherwise why not ask for the Olympic Marathon to be open to everyone who hits that A standard? The actual point is that when an competition is set up to determine who will represent the country at the Olympics, only those with an actual chance to represent the country at the Olympics should be competing.

And yet the rest of USA Championships for running gets near equal participation on non-Olympic years, with much more stringent standards, despite reduced coverage and the Olympic games not being at stake. You or someone else already mentioned how big of a 'celebration' club nationals is, yet that is a yearly event, much like the completely maligned Marathon Championships.

What exactly is the motivation to improve as a 2:22 marathoner when the standard is 2:19? Since a 2:22'er is unlikely to ever become 'elite', it seems to me the motivation is to either get better to see how good you can be, or its to hit that specific time standard so you can attach your name to the Olympics without achieving a level of performance everyone in every other event has to. If we want to encourage running as a lifestyle, we need to get off the model of the Olympics, since that event, and its trials makes running a first-rate sport for 1 month every 4 years. Put a 'soft' standard like 2:30 on the Marathon Championships and make that into an event that gets coverage on a yearly basis if you want to make running a lifestyle for more people in the country.

the 20:00 5k'er is a complete straw man. I said a winner or runner up at a major regional marathon like LA, Marine Corp, Houston, Philly, etc. Who gets more attention for the sport, those people (when they're 'local' and not foreign competitors), or the person who hits the standard in some random marathon? I have a friend who hit the standard in 2016 via a half-marathon time and went on to compete at the trials. He got a blurb in one of our regional running publications, and merely mentioned as part of a list of regional people competing there in our other regional publication. The 2 'mid-major' marathons in our region both get multi-page spreads of coverage with in depth interviews by the top-2 finishers (or the whole podium if its a close year).

If you add to the standard, and we go from ~150(?) people qualifying to say 300, that further diminishes the value of everyone hitting the standard. particularly since many of the new qualifiers won't even be on the podium at these sub-elite events. This goes doubly given that those who understand the sport already know how much 'easier' the Marathon qualifier is than the rest of the Olympic trials.

When an competition is set with the purpose of determining who will represent the country at the Olympics, only those with an actual chance to represent the country at the Olympics should be competing.

Thinking about trying but pr is 2:27 and have never run close to 30:00.

I can jog 1:12 half and think on a flat good day running 2:25 very doable... the last 6 minutes look impossible... 2:19 is so damn fast.

I can barely run that pace for 5k.

Tons of respect for the sub 2:20 guys...

2:27 is jogging compared to 2:19.

You got a lot of quotes and responses going on there...I'm going to pick at some of them.As someone who has run in the 2:22 to 2:17 range (mostly averaged around 2:19-2:20 though!) a lot of times in the past decade I can tell you this:There is actually a some decent incentive to improve from say 2:23 to sub 2:20. First off 2:20 is a nice "goal time" and that time goal can be motivating. It might mean a little sponsorship deal or a win at a fairly competitive local marathon. It might mean being able to train with a "post-collegiate development program."The main thing is this though: even at a major marathon like NYC, Boston, Chicago when you start getting in the sub 2:20 realm you start being able to crack top 20 in those races. I earned $2500 at Chicago (from the race) one year with a 2:19:18 (bonus for being a top 8 American and bonus for a sub 2:20). Run 2:20 or slower and you get $0. At a USATF Champs race you can also be in the money with that kind of time. I know it's only a few grand, but there is a little bit of satisfaction in that. Also, if you want to toe the very front of the starting line (well probably 2nd row) in these marathon major races and be in the "elite corral" you usually can get in if you have a sub 2:20 to your name....2:22+ and you probably won't get in as easily.So there are some little perks right there to make that jump. Of course making the OT is a nice goal and traditionally has been around that 2:22-2:19 time standard for decades. The field size is usually around 90-150 runners (or so) and it's a pretty neat race to be in. For probably 80-90% of the guys in the race this is their "Olympics." For the field size I think there would be a really big spike in numbers if the standard went slower to, say 2:25.Anyone that's run in the 2:20 or below time range knows there is a big difference between a 2:19 vs. a 2:26......just like there is a huge difference between a 2:18-2:19 guy and a 2:13 guy.

To add on about the field size:

If the standard was faster (say 2:15:00) there would only be like 20-25 guys in the race! How would that look on TV?

I think the field size is good around 100-140.

If it went up to 2:25 for the standard I think the field size would be much too large as again (back the marathon majors standards) you usually aren't in the "elite" wave with a 2:25...but with a sub 2:20 you usually are. How many Americans run a 2:25 every year? Probably hundreds more.

I was lucky enough to qualify a couple of times. I ended up using what I called the "Foster Method". As mentioned earlier a no pressure approach. I had tried a few times by going to fast courses in an effort to make the standard, but was denied. I had given up and just kept training. Entered Boston just to be with my soon to be wife. I went there with no goal or intended time. Ran enjoyed the atmosphere without pressure, dropped my Boston best from 2:26 to 2:19. This is after three (3) tries and results in the 2:22- 2:23 range. Went into trials semi injuried, but there.

Any idea what the standard will be for 2020?

2:18,19,20?

Any chance they will make it 2:22 again?

Does anyone have any solid suggestions on what the mile, 5k, 10k and half should be before attempting the 2:19 marathon standard?

I have run 1:10:26 for the half but working on some shorter distances before attempting the marathon.

Daniels' VDOT tables give a good rule of thumb. I use this site to calculate them:

http://www.runbayou.com/jackd

I made two trials. Started at 2:44 at 25, just ran no real idea of what I was doing. Got it down to 2:19 in my mid 30's. It was pretty much just grinding away every day...more miles and being consistent.

Getting to run the trials was a great experience, I'm am glad I got to do it...even though in the end nobody really cares.

Knowing I ran the trials people still ask if I ever qualified for Boston or NY....crazy.

From 2:44 to 2:19?

I assume the 2:44 wasn't in shape?

What was the progression?