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

Lowering the standards even more doesn't help the sport any more than adding a few preseason games for the guys who can't make it would help the NFL.

There are very few real contenders, and it was pathetic to watch the also-rans in the last OT marathon. I really felt bad for those guys, and that's not a good thing. After a few laps they are nothing but in the way.

interesting thought

so should USA OT be a national qualifier or international?

because while 2:22 is incredible domestically, on the international stage it is not

how do you feel about the 2:45 b-standard for women?

maybe they should make a "C standard" to be more inclusive - you get name recognized on a list but not actually invited to OT

men

A 2:15

B 2:19

C 2:23

women

A 2:37

B 2:45

C 2:53

how are A/B determined in the first place, is there actual a calculation done looking at national results or it is just arbitrary by committee?

I'm very much on the side of the OP here.

Historically, the vast majority of qualifying times, for all kinds of races, have been instituted because of external constraints. Boston has a qualifying time because it was the first marathon that struggled with the logistics of having too many runners. They didn't put up a qualifying time to send a message about being elite; they did it because they couldn't manage the field size. The same is the case with track races, where the field size limitations are even more severe. Club Nats is another example, where a very inclusive race naturally evolved into something absurdly competitive, with qualifying standards finally instituted just to control field size. The OT marathon is unusual in that the size of the field is well under what would cause any serious logistical issues. The OT qualifying time is just a bureaucrat's arbitrary definition of "good," and that has always been a bit distasteful to me. (I was particularly bothered by dropping the standard from 2:22 because, while I recognize that every standard is arbitrary, I could discern no reason for that particular change other than to send the message that USATF doesn't respect 2:22 guys. The claim that the change was "raising the bar for US distance running" was particularly idiotic, as the standard has zero effect on anyone competing for a spot.)

While recognizing that every possible qualifying mark will be somewhat arbitrary, I still think we can identify some concrete objectives and measure potential qualifying times against the likelihood that they would serve those objectives. I see the relevant considerations as:

- Logistics. Probably not a concern unless we were to have a standard over 2:30. A decent organizing committee could handle a much, much bigger field than we have now.

- Fostering competitive amateur racing after college. Here there's at least a potential trade off, where guys who could run 2:18 might "slack off" and run just enough to qualify. On the other hand, there would probably be a larger number of competitive runners who would stick with it after college because a softer standard is attainable.

- Generating local interest. Again there's a tradeoff. When local guys are running in the Trials, people are more likely to watch. They get in the paper or on local news. On the other hand, if the standard gets too soft, then the perception of qualifying as an accomplishment will be diminished. I think we're a very, very long ways from that happening. To a non-runner, and even to most recreational runners, there is zero difference between 2:30 and 2:18.

I'll also add that the U.S. really needs to add something to the competitive landscape for amateur marathoners. Japan has Lake Biwa and Fukuoka. And it used to be that Boston was the de facto national championships here. Now there are so many races dividing up the good runners that everyone seems to be on their own chasing PRs in solo time trials.

There were 211 men qualifiers for 2016. That is plenty to support development and achieve the goal of selecting the best athletes for Team USA.

but why wrote:

how are A/B determined in the first place, is there actual a calculation done looking at national results or it is just arbitrary by committee?

USATF takes the Olympic standards. The Olympic A is 2:15, and B is 2:19. For London the B was 2:18 and that was used.

You guys are wondering why America is not as deep and dominant as their middle east and African counterparts? Do you hear yourself?

Slow down the standard?

Really?

I argued this when it was first changed and wrote many letters to USATF about this. I did the same when they killed cross country by splitting nationals into club/world trials. The response was the same, "the moves will help develop American distance runners in competitive world beaters."

I was an OT qualifier, and this is the same experience I have had. Once I qualified for the OT, people thought I was at a much higher level than I had been previously which wasn't true. I was the same runner, just with an OT qualifying time now.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

but the trials should be about the Olympics not making your local guy feel good about himself. .

Then the standard should be lowered to somewhere between 2:10-2:13.

Yeah, people who run 2:22 have no shot at qualifying, but the padres have no chance of winning the World Series and .200 hitters have no chance of making the hall of fame. It's still good for the sport if we put them in there.

It also opens the gates to people who would otherwise remain amateurs, and would have a chance at competing if they could go to OTs and became more dedicated as a result

Chris Carter wrote:

Yeah, people who run 2:22 have no shot at qualifying, but the padres have no chance of winning the World Series and .200 hitters have no chance of making the hall of fame. It's still good for the sport if we put them in there.

It also opens the gates to people who would otherwise remain amateurs, and would have a chance at competing if they could go to OTs and became more dedicated as a result

2:22 guys aren't comparable to the Padres at all, they're more like the Padres' AA-level minor leaguers.

This thread has been pretty disappointing.

Do so many of the change-the-standard camp not see the contradiction between pointing out the serious runners in the 2:20's, and softening a standard? If you want the sport to take the 2:20 guys seriously, asking for a softer standard is not the right approach.

Further, I think it is pretty disrespectful to the 2:17-2:18 types for so many to think that it's the 2:20 runners to really deserve an opportunity. Those 2:17-2:18 guys were 2:20 guys who got stronger and faster.

Right now, 2:19 is the international standard, and so is the least arbitrary standard for the USATF as well. According to some posters, it also seems to align with the top 100-ish US marathon for the cycle, though I haven't check for myself.

What's great about the sport is how simple it is. You run and you're either faster than other guys or not. 2:19 is the standard, and you're either faster than that or not. So train and get faster or choose different goals. There's not shame in saying "xx:xx is beyond me, so I'll try for yy:yy" instead.

is there a list somewhere of standards in other countries?

very curious to see that

How about a rank list system?

Top X i(75, 100?) n the 1.5 years before the trials/2 years before the Olympics get an entry. You could do away with the 10k entry and maybe offer a smaller number of spots based on the HM.

mustache ride wrote:

I'm not sure the OT is truly the place for participation awards. Is not a sub-elite comp'd local 5K good enough for you?

Exactly. There are more than enough fun runs aroun d the country that these guys can enter.

And likely enough good runners that they can be hammered by far better runners.

No need to travel across to the trials for that.

It should be around 2.12 and countries should be allowed 10 athletes each. Sick of seeing 2.05 runners from East Africa left at home and 2.16 guys falling over the line.

Yep... surprised that it took 5 pages before this level of logic entered the forum. Understanding OP's reasoning from a business perspective (which I actually think makes sense). I immediately thought of the last OTC cycle. If you were a 2015 2:18/ 2:43 runner, how did it feel when usatf said you could have ran a minute or so slower? These are the men and women I would most like to hear opine on a super relaxed OTC standard...

McHenry Regular wrote:

If you were a 2015 2:18/ 2:43 runner, how did it feel when usatf said you could have ran a minute or so slower? These are the men and women I would most like to hear opine on a super relaxed OTC standard...

Why would it upset me? I ran a 2:17. Gobble gobble.