Let's get the Olympic Marathon Qualifying Standards back to 2:22 for men

There is no reason it has to be a multiple loop course.

2000 Olympic Trials, Pittsburgh, not a multiple loop course.

In 2007 and 2008 the men's and women's races were held on different days.

Only the A standard qualifiers could have their own personal bottles.

The other 4900 would get the Gatorade and water at their own aid stations.

bottom line: raise the standard to back to 2:22 or even 2:27.

Have a sweep bus that booted off the course anybody who was over 2:27 pace.

Go back to having the men's race and women's race in different cities.

I'm rather torn by this question.

One point of view says that the Trials marathon exists for the purpose of selecting the Olympic team. The qualifying standard should be only generous enough to admit anyone who really has top-3 potential but may never have run a really fast time due to bad luck in an event that one simply can't run very often. I suppose this criterion might lead to field sizes of 20 or 30.

The other point of view is that it doesn't harm the chances of the top runners to have several hundred slightly slower people in the race, and letting in a bunch of "sub-elites" is good for the sport and for the development of not-yet-elite runners who may later on become elite.

I qualified for the Olympic marathon trials (women) in 1992. I had the 58th fastest qualifying time, and while I hadn't been running seriously for very long and was still improving, I didn't have a snowball's chance in heck of making the Olympic team. But it was a wonderful experience for me, and very exciting for my local running community, which sent one man and three women to the trials that year. None of us had a realistic chance of making the team, but that we could be there seemed to be a good thing for many reasons.

steely3425 wrote:

you are saying, make the standard 2:10 to get rid of the riff-raff?

Japan's going to do a US-style Olympic Trials race for Tokyo 2020. For men the standards are sub-2:11 in a group of designated races or sub-2:08:30 in any other record-elliglble race. They figure they'll have 10-20 people in the Trials race. Man up, gents.

Last year USA had about 30 runners under 2:18 if you count Boston and the PTP aided races.

Last year about 20 women ran 2:22 or better world wide

This is the problem. People want to generate feel good moments and a story line to get people involved. If one cares about running, or is truly interested in the sport, they will follow it anyway.

You are basically saying that there should be a script, because the idea of "sub-elites should be let in" ( your words) is just what that is. It's basically an appearance, as opposed to pushing hard to make the standard, or really going for it.

The object of evolution is to move forward, not to move backward. Matter of fact, I was watching a youtube video of the 2006 Chicago Marathon. Berhane Adere was headed to victory, and as she was heading down Columbus Drive to break the tape, the announcers were praising the sub elite men who were finishing ahead of her and behind her. They stated that usually the top women are finishing by themselves, with most of the sub elite men finishing way behind them. And Berhane ran 2:20!

So no the standard does not need to be pushed back. Runners need to raise their ability, and people need to get involved with running for the brilliance and nature of running.

The nature of the marathon is such that it shouldn't be as restrictive to qualify for trials as it is to qualify for the track events. If you limited it to only 24 runners like you do on the track, you run the risk of excluding somebody who really could make the team by suddenly breaking through at trials.

I think they should target 50 runners qualifying. If one year more or fewer than 50 qualify, then next trials it should be lowered or raised by 30 seconds.

I thoroughly disagree that having large numbers in the OT marathon is important for the sport. I see the current number in the marathon as too high. Roughly double the number running the marathon as are running in the track events seems appropriate to me to ensure that any potential contender is allowed in while limiting the field to no more than needed to ensure that.

To qualify for the OT you should have to run a sub 2:20 in heat above 70 degrees F. If you can do that, you might place high in an August marathon. If you can break 2:14, you might even win!

Spring and fall marathons shouldn't count for shit. For all anyone knows you'll DNF when the heat is on. Apples and oranges.

OP

Why?

Why slow down the OT standard? Are we not already that much slower than our African and European competitors? And, what is the purpose of adding these 2:22 runners, really? 50 people who have no chance whatsoever of making the team. But, because of people like you, they can say they made it to the OT's. Stupid. Run faster!!!!

John Campbell said it best, the same year he ran a 2:11 at Boston at age 40, "Americans are too worried about what they eat and drink. Exercise, and then eat what you want. Your country is too lazy"

This from a man who went on 8 hour runs every Sunday in New Zealand.

That dude was awesome. He would laugh in your face!

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Say wha wrote:

Jesus Christ

What was his best time?

He won on a technicality. The day of his qualify marathon, there was heavy rain, and while all runners slogged through the ankle deep puddles, he ran right over them..

RG8 wrote:

OP

Why?

Why slow down the OT standard? Are we not already that much slower than our African and European competitors? And, what is the purpose of adding these 2:22 runners, really? 50 people who have no chance whatsoever of making the team. But, because of people like you, they can say they made it to the OT's. Stupid. Run faster!!!!

John Campbell said it best, the same year he ran a 2:11 at Boston at age 40, "Americans are too worried about what they eat and drink. Exercise, and then eat what you want. Your country is too lazy"

This from a man who went on 8 hour runs every Sunday in New Zealand.

That dude was awesome. He would laugh in your face!

Hope you weren't going for a logical argument there, buddy because whatever you wrote ain't it. You are using one man's sweeping generalization of 300mil people to prove OP's point wrong. Other than completely wasting everyone's time, what was your goal again?

I think there have been a lot of genuine and constructive posts. I'm not looking for a participation trophy- thanks for those comments. I really think that 2:22 would be better for our sport by encouraging local (sub) elites to stick with the sport and have something to chase. 2:21:XX is still no joke of a time and is what the standard used to be in 2008. We are not just lowering it, rather saying that the standard was right at that time and is right now. I think having local media and press run inspiring stories about 2:21 qualifiers is exactly what the sport needs. I can tell you I'm a lot more driven in the sport by watching a local dude run in 08 who entered the trials with a 2:21 and popped a 2:17. He might have never had that moment without being in the race.

If the argument is make the standard lower, don't come at me with the participation nonsense. I heard 2:15. Sure but why stop there? Galen isn't worried about a 2:15 guy. Let's eliminate everyone except the top-12 and put them on a track. The standard does not affect the top guys. Like someone said lining up at a major with thousands of runners makes no difference to them. And I'm not saying that I'm just advocating for a standard that could better help grow the sport. What are you doing to grow the sport? Coming on LRC and saying the standard should be 2:15 or faster. That's not what our sport is or who our audience is. Running is unique because it isn't just a pro that can line-up for our biggest events- Boston, Chicago, NY. The thousands who go to those races probably cared more about when Meb crossed the line at NYC holding hands with Michael Cassidy in 2014 than who won the race that year.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Say wha wrote:

Jesus Christ

What was his best time?

Started the minimalist footwear craze.

Why do you want to grow the sport? I'm ready for it to shrink a little, to tell you the truth.

I have no opinion worth reading on this topic but wonder: No matter where the standard is set, won't there always be additional people outside the standard wanting in?

Why 2:22? If set at 2:22, won't 2:25 think they should be in.......?

opinionated guy wrote:

I have no opinion worth reading on this topic but wonder: No matter where the standard is set, won't there always be additional people outside the standard wanting in?

Why 2:22? If set at 2:22, won't 2:25 think they should be in.......?

I think that's right but I honestly think 2:22 was the right number in 2008. Honestly I would be okay with 2:25 but you do have to stop somewhere. I think someone with a 2:25 would be happier to see a 2:22 standard versus the 2:18 they saw when 2016 standards first came out. I would hope it would encourage them to chase 2:21:XX.

I say put it at 2:20. It's a nice round(ish) number, and that's 5:20 per mile, also a nice number.

chubb wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

What was his best time?

Started the minimalist footwear craze.

Hard to get good traction on water, though. If he ran on land, he could have been one of the greats.

Back in 1980 & 1984, the time was set for the 100th best marathon time by a US runner for men. (women in 1984 I believe the time was 2:50 but I can't remember). This would be in the year prior to the 18 month trials qualifying window.

Bill Gavaghan of Indianapolis had the 100th best time in 1978- 2:21:54. That's still in my brain to this day. So that was the time used for the window which If I recall started January 1, 1979 and ended 2 weeks before the trials. Others may recall better

That's always been the cleanest fairest process in my mind. No half marathon guys, no committee set standard, and yes that did encourage the local guys and the local press. No travel budget for the athletes, but the Buffalo organizers in 1984 did have free lodging to all in college dorms. So money for the qualifiers wasn't the issue.

In Buffalo 159 men toed the line in 1984. In 1980, even with the boycott and the 2:21:54 standard, 225 qualified, 192 started, 125 finished, 56 broke 2:20.

Here are those results.

http://www.buffalorunners.com/results/1980/1980_OTM.htm

You'll note the guy in 39th, Heath from Idaho? 2:18 something? He was leading at 18. Was last in 76 trials. Ran it all out and blank the consequences. That's what the trials are supposed to be to me.

84 results here - Standard: 2:19:04, Qualifiers: 201, Starters: 172, Finishers: 108

http://buffalorunners.com/results/1984/1984_OTM.htm