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

Al Rans wrote:

dirtbag runner wrote:

The standard should be lowered to 2:15

+1.

2:20s are not winning any medals ever.

Yep, beat 2:15 or better luck next time. Sub-elites can get their kicks out of making the National Championships. The Olympics are a whole other level.

jbsdb wrote:

Al Rans wrote:

+1.

2:20s are not winning any medals ever.

Yep, beat 2:15 or better luck next time. Sub-elites can get their kicks out of making the National Championships. The Olympics are a whole other level.

Following the logic above, the standard should be 2:05.

Never should be faster than the OG Q standard itself. Did any starter at Rio, wild card/one per nation exemptions not counting, have a in-window time over 2:19:20?

As someone who has been to the OT's in the marathon I completely disagree. The OT's should be a select group and 2:22 is not that. Lowering the standard will not grow the sport by letting your local regional runner in, it will diminish the significance of the event and what it means to qualify.

For the marathon I think the standard should be set so somewhere between 75-100 runners can qualify. That is probably 63:30 for the half and 2:18 or 19 for the full. It should be tougher for the half to encourage borderline guys to shoot for the full.

I know myself and a lot of guys who are talented could qualify at 2:22 without putting in the dedicated work that a 2:18 standard takes. A 2:10 talent can hit 2:18 half assing it but those guys are few in this country. The trials should be for those with a certain level of talent, work ethic, and dedication. I know how much work I put in and the focus it took for me to get to the level I was at when I was at the OT's and I doubt there are many 2:25 who put that level of effort towards the sport.

This thread is an interesting look at the different forces in play within the sport of track & field. There are some valid points made in favor of lowering and tightening the OT standards, but ultimately I have to say that those in favor of having a mass participation OT marathon simply don't get it.

The problem with 'professional' runners is that nobody wants to invest in (pay for) anything. Track access, coaching, massage, entry fees, you name it. Now we have entitled, developmental (not even sub-elite) athletes that want access to an Olympic Team selection event?

Stop it. You want to race in a national caliber event? Start with Bix, Gate River, the New Haven 20k or somewhere that a RD will fit you into the budget. Once you have gained entry and travel support, invite your family, significant other, your college teammates and anyone else from the 'community' out to cheer you on. If you are good enough, race the US Marathon Championships and create some of the buzz you seek around a national championship event.

The OT marathon is not designed to provide developmental opportunities and entertain people with the scope and size of the field. Developmental opportunities take place at the scores of events held every year for road warriors to prove their mettle. If fans wanted to watch 2:20 and 2:40 marathoners in the streets, the US championship event would have the course lined year after year, but that is not the case.

Do most fans remember where Serena Burla or Bobby Curtis ran their qualifying times for the recent WC marathon? Of course not, because we were not following closely enough and never will. We all remember Shalane collapsing into Amy's arms because they came top 3 and made the Olympic Team, in LA and in front of TV cameras. That is the purpose of the OT event: Team selection and TV ratings.

When major league teams allow local talent to take BP at the World Series with the pros, and when rec league all stars are allowed to shoot around before NBA playoff games, then we can also claim that the presence of 50 or 100 more runners at the meet hotel, in the technical meeting, on the start line and on the course aren't a distraction to the athletes with a true shot to make the Olympic Team.

In the meantime, the 2:25 marathoner looking to crack 2:20 can continue to provide the inspiration you cite, but that is not a professional endeavor and has no place at the Trials.

As someone who qualified for the Olympic Trials one thing that shocked me is the difference in the average person's reaction to me as a runner once I had made it to the trials. To the average person you can be an all conference, all American, All-whatever runner and it doesn't mean crap but to say you qualified for trials you suddenly become something special and they view you at a whole different level. When non runners I met found out I was running at the trials it immediately equated in their mind that I was an Olympian, sounds ridiculous but true.

Once I didn't make the team numerous people suggested I change nationalities in order to run at the olympics, which I thought was laughable. The Olympics and OT's have a huge significance to the average person and opening the flood gates to the trial would dilute that. Probably not significantly but the trials should be reserved for athletes of a certain caliber, and sorry to sound like an A-hole but 2:22 is not of the caliber. I have plenty of respect for 2:22 runners, that does take a lot of hard work but the trials should be about the Olympics not making your local guy feel good about himself. With that in mind I think the trials standard should be whatever the games standard is.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

As someone who qualified for the Olympic Trials one thing that shocked me is the difference in the average person's reaction to me as a runner once I had made it to the trials. To the average person you can be an all conference, all American, All-whatever runner and it doesn't mean crap but to say you qualified for trials you suddenly become something special and they view you at a whole different level. When non runners I met found out I was running at the trials it immediately equated in their mind that I was an Olympian, sounds ridiculous but true..

Very true. I have the same experience.

Make it 2:12

Get rid of the slackers

moose wrote:

jbsdb wrote:

Yep, beat 2:15 or better luck next time. Sub-elites can get their kicks out of making the National Championships. The Olympics are a whole other level.

Following the logic above, the standard should be 2:05.

The Olympics has never been won in 2:05.

#makeamericaslowagain

+1

Al Rans wrote:

dirtbag runner wrote:

The standard should be lowered to 2:15

+1.

2:20s are not winning any medals ever.

Is there really that big of a difference between 2:19 and 2:22?

I'm sort of surprised by the amount of push back on here. I feel like my informal poll of runners was good enough to start this thread when everyone said 2:22. I think LRC probably draws some pretty serious runners replying to this thread but remember we're not the norm. All of the hobby joggers would love to see the guy at their gym in the trials with a 2:21. They don't care if he ran 2:19 or 2:21.

I agree we're not trying to turn this into the hobby jogger olympics but then someone tell me why we don't just make the standard sub-2:15, sub-2:10. The reality is Galen pays attention to half a dozen guys in the race. 2:18 and 2:21 guys have no impact on the race.

My idea and ones like creating a C standard are all ways to grow the sport. Instead of giving one off lines about this isn't for hobby joggers tell me how LA was good for the sport? Tell me that the people in charge haven't lost touch when they put it in LA in the heat. 2008 in NYC with 2:21 guys getting press was great- that's how I got into running. A 2:21 guy popped a 2:17.

What are your ideas? Rather than criticize, help build the sport. How does tightening the standard make Rupp run 2:02-2:05. Btw he got a bronze. The 2:18 guys at the trials didn't seem to affect him. Also with the heat you had a lot of people in the 2:20s, which didn't seem to affect him.

Born American 2:30:00. If imported American 2:05:00

You guys are looking at this all wrong.

If you're a mid 2:20s guy who realistically can't hit 2:19, don't wait for a handout from USATF, an organization ultimately comprised of a bunch of guys who probably don't even run anymore (or at all). USATF aren't the running gods, and they certainly aren't the only organization capable of staging a race.

Instead, take matters into your own hands and organization your own big race. I'm 100% serious about this. You have over two years to make it happen, and if having a big stage to showcase your talent is important enough to you, you'll be able to pull it off.

-Call it the "Great American Running Cup" or something similar

-Make the qualifying standards 2:30 or under

-Put up big prize money for the top finishers (the type of money that would truly lure in some big American names)

-Put the race on the week before the trials

I can guarantee that doing something like this would generate significant coverage and you could obtain sponsorships with that kind of platform. We all acknowledge that only 10 or so guys have a shot at Tokyo anyway, so this type of race would effectively accomplish what everyone wants of the Trials, which likely are going to stay the same. Plus, with enough prize money, there may even be a few top 10 guys who elect to do your race, rather than the trials, which would add to the media frenzy.

goosed wrote:

moose wrote:

Following the logic above, the standard should be 2:05.

The Olympics has never been won in 2:05.

Ah but you have to be a 2:05 guy to be a medal contender. Everybody else is just getting participation awards, I guess. Why even send Jared Ward? The guy had no chance.

It's almost as if we should have an pre-OT qualifier - top 3 go to the OT's regardless of their time in addition to everyone else who can drop the required time.

It's the Olympic trials, make it more like the Olympic games. A standard, 2:20. B standard 2:30, but only one B standard qualifier from each state without A standard qualifiers.

Querfeldein wrote:

It's the Olympic trials, make it more like the Olympic games. A standard, 2:20. B standard 2:30, but only one B standard qualifier from each state without A standard qualifiers.

Interesting idea. I'd keep the standards the same, just add a C standard.

A standard (2:15 and funding)

B standard (2:19 or 1:04 no funding)

C standard (2:22 or 1:05 for geographic diversity, pay for entry)

That way you don't get a bunch of guys running 2:20 from a city/state with a top end sub elites already. I'd probably pick USATF regions instead of state.