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

I think the trials should be held as part of a public US marathon, limiting prize money only to US athletes. Start the trials corral 5 minutes early to prevent pacing. With that change in place it's pretty easy to have a "C" standard of say 2:22 for people who have fully paid their entry and travel costs and just want to bump up to the trials corral.

The idea that the mens US Olympic trials should have runners that would not get top 20 in the Kenyan womens trials is a bit off putting.

Just make it the top 100 fastest qualifiers from 2 years out to 1 month before the trials. No more times, no more complaining, just pure competition. A ranking system to have our best 100 marathoners toe the line. Of course, the bottom 50 athletes will be clawing at each other to get a safe qualifying time, but this seems to be the most diplomatic method. Times are completely arbitrary (and I do realize picking the top 100 is completely arbitrary too) but for those that want to participate in the trials can know they belong there amongst their peers that strived to be in that field of 100. I can see plenty of problems with that last 100th spot, but that will make a story.

Farfignugen wrote:

chubb wrote:

[quote]Mr. Obvious wrote:

[quote]Say wha wrote:

Jesus Christ

What was his best time?

Jesus never ran a marathon. He was too involved with NRA meetings, bass fishing, and supporting the local chapter of the KKK.

Farfignugen wrote:

chubb wrote:

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.

Ya but Farah has a bunch of gold medals. How many does JC have?

Huapango wrote:

Jesus Christ

What was his best time?[/quote]

Jesus never ran a marathon. He was too involved with NRA meetings, bass fishing, and supporting the local chapter of the KKK.[/quote]

Back then Union carpenters made big bucks and had loads of leisure time, that's why he could subcontract the ark building to that non-union guy Noah.

JC pocketed big bucks on that job.

Right around 2:18 & 2:19 actually, I think.

Yeah 2:20... For the WOMEN.

Maybe it would be a fair compromise on both sides to go by a number of entrants instead of a time. So for example, you can take the Top-180 by marathon time and then the Top-20 by half-marathon time.

That might bring a little more excitement during the qualifying period for the last couple of qualifiers, especially if a running scoreboard were kept.

jewbacca wrote:

Colonel Bleep wrote:

Ah, the old "I can't run the current standard, so let the standard be changed so what I can run is the qualifying time".

The standard was 2:22 for a long time, in case you didn't know that.

The standard was 2:22 from 1996 to 2007. It was the slowest standard of the last forty years.

In case you didn't know that.

It'd be cool if this website took up the fight on topics like this instead of the click-bait threads and headlines that they promote. You could start a petition to get the standard back to 2:22 or have a link of all the contact info for people interested in changing this.

BUT naw let's have more threads about how you think Caster Semenya is a dude. That's doing so much for the sport. The Brojos are so brave.

Right now there is little difference between being an American 2:21 male marathoner and a 2:41 male marathoner. Both guys can BQ easily and neither will get any substantial sponsorship money or qualify for OTs. The 2:21 guy can cherry pick a few small marathon victories/ podiums but the 2:41 guy is still top 100 and probably better in all but a handful of major races.

Golf, tennis, and triathlon have sizeable pro-am competitions or age-group "national championships", some of which are conducted in conjunction with professional events. In the same vein, I don't see any reason USATF couldn't add a OT Trials C standard somewhere around 2:35 for men and 3:05 for women. Charge a 100 dollars a head for C standard runners for extra hydration/traffic control. That would likely result in totally manageable fields somewhere around a 1000 runners. Even if it ended up being 2,000, wouldn't that actually be a good thing?

On race day, start the C runners 1 minute behind the A/B runners to prevent TV bandits and team cross-country score the C runners on a North, South, East, West basis for regional pride. Olympic spots are by gun time only.

As far as water-fuel goes, use a fraction of the $100 C entry fee and just put simple water, gatorade, and GU stops on opposite side of the street from the personalized A/B stops.

If it is a loop course, yank anybody who is within 400 yards of being lapped by their gender. (On a 5 lap course, any male under 2:35 pace would be safe) Limit C qualifying times to domestic marathon times achieved within 12 months before OT marathon.

As far as I know, it has been decades since anyone slower than a 2:13 pr made the Olympic team so the entry standard is clearly not intended to limit racers to potential qualifiers. USATF has to shut down the streets for half a day whether 5 people or 5,000 run. Opening the course up to sub-sub elites might actually help USATF connect to competitive but not elite runners. Would also allow 2:28 runners to have a race every four years where they could count on running in a pack most of the way. Heck, it would provide a reason for 2:28 runners to even exist.

If people think a slower C standard cheapens OTQ status, fine, call it the citizen's division and flat out prohibit Olympic qualification from the C wave. Just let serious runners shoot for a race more or less free from charity plodders and the like.

A couple good ideas here. I really like the "north/south/east/west" idea.

Not to detail the thread, but could that become a thing in the US? Like ekiden (the Japanese thing I can't spell?)

I still haven't heard a good reason not to set the standard slower.

moose wrote:

I still haven't heard a good reason not to set the standard slower.

I haven't heard a good reason not to keep it as it is or make it faster.

I disagree.

The Olympic Trials are not for sub elite runners and it actually does a disservice by having all of these average runners claiming to be training for the Olympics.

2:22 is marginally faster than our top women run in the marathon. 2:18 is already sub elite.

2:22 would be the equivalent of lowering the men's 800 standard to like 1:56 and the 1500 to 4:00. I know you like to think otherwise, but those are similar performances.

Tested wrote:

I disagree.

The Olympic Trials are not for sub elite runners and it actually does a disservice by having all of these average runners claiming to be training for the Olympics.

2:22 is marginally faster than our top women run in the marathon. 2:18 is already sub elite.

2:22 would be the equivalent of lowering the men's 800 standard to like 1:56 and the 1500 to 4:00. I know you like to think otherwise, but those are similar performances.

This. The ot are for a race to send 3 people to the Olympics. Its not for stoking the egos of sub elites

Jimmy21 wrote:

Tested wrote:

I disagree.

The Olympic Trials are not for sub elite runners and it actually does a disservice by having all of these average runners claiming to be training for the Olympics.

2:22 is marginally faster than our top women run in the marathon. 2:18 is already sub elite.

2:22 would be the equivalent of lowering the men's 800 standard to like 1:56 and the 1500 to 4:00. I know you like to think otherwise, but those are similar performances.

This. The ot are for a race to send 3 people to the Olympics. Its not for stoking the egos of sub elites

I don't think anyone is arguing that 2:19 or slower runners would suddenly become Olympic contenders if the standards were relaxed. People are saying that it would be nice for serious but not super talented runners (2:20- 2:35ish) to have an opportunity to race each other in a race free from ridiculous entry fees, early registration, etc, etc. Is USATF obligated to do this? Absolutely not. Would it cost them anything or decrease the competiveness of elite US running? Absolutely not.

If you really believe that the OT standard is set to limit field to legit Olympic contenders, then the standard should be lowered to 2:15 flat as there is no way in heck anybody slower is making the squad. USATF keeps it at 2:19 due to IAAF standards and the fact that an 18 man field would look pathetic on TV. Right now the standard lets 2:18 guys believe they are in the same league with Galen Rupp and Meb Kefleghizi when they absolutely aren't.

Currently, nobody in their right mind would watch the OT marathon in person if they weren't related to a qualifier. Create a 1000 person citizens wave and you instantly get another couple thousand friends and family to line the course, book hotels, eat at restaraunts, etc.

To me the grassroots upsides of enlarging the field are significant and the impact on true elites non-existent or actually positive.

As far as slippery slope arguments go, there are male runners finishing in 2:40 or slower every OT marathon even with the current standard. Setting a mens citizens wave standard of 2:35 and using some sort of cleanup pace wagon would just broaden the field and have little effect on traffic control, etc.

Tested wrote:

2:22 would be the equivalent of lowering the men's 800 standard to like 1:56 and the 1500 to 4:00. I know you like to think otherwise, but those are similar performances.

Might be true according to Daniels' tables (I think 2:22 may be marginally better), but there are a heck of a lot of average D1 guys who can run 4:00 1500 off talent and moderate training. Very few of them go on to run 2:22 on talent alone.