sixty women just OTQ at CIM 2018 ?

I noticed that folks came from all over the US, and it is technically the US championships, so that's part of the large numbers. Word's out that CIM is "the place to be" to PR.

Really, they got lucky with the weather for the second year in a row, so everything was near perfect (except NorCal training conditions in Nov.). Yesterday was nasty rain which would've been slower.

99 and 100 had chip times of 2:45:00 but gun times exceeding the standard by 1 and 7 seconds respectively. Will they squeak in per the closing part? "Gun" time is the only acceptable method of timing. Chip/net times cannot be used for qualifying. Consideration may be given to "chip/tag" times for competitors with "gun" times extremely close to the above qualifying standards."

mwh wrote:

I noticed that folks came from all over the US, and it is technically the US championships, so that's part of the large numbers. Word's out that CIM is "the place to be" to PR.

Really, they got lucky with the weather for the second year in a row, so everything was near perfect (except NorCal training conditions in Nov.). Yesterday was nasty rain which would've been slower.

Also worth noting that a) CIM offers a 2:45 pacer for women chasing the OTQ, as well as a bit of money to anyone, male or female, who hits the A or B standard and b) I believe that quite a few of the women who OTQed yesterday have OTQ'd previously on different courses.

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

zee carbon-spring shoes, zee do nothing right? lol

shoes of 2019, VF2 + hoka carbon-rocket?

What a bunch of idiotic posts.

EVEN IF the shoe improves times by 1-2 minutes for the same fitness/effort/execution, that doesn't magically put 60 women under the QT.

What does get women under the QT is a soft standard such that they can see their peers making it, so that they in turn set goals and train according to the belief that they can.

The same way a swarm of men get the HM OTQ at Houston every four years. Set the bar and they will come jump over it.

Think there's some obvious inflation the last two years (out of the 4 year sample) with the US Champs being here, getting perfect weather both years, and everyone knowing this is where you go for your OTQ attempt. 2:45 has a pace group, they have fluid stations on course. It sets up well for running fast.

IMO the women's standard is fine. Men's could be 2:20 or back to 2:22.

The women's B standard is too slow. The A's for men and women are similarly difficult (2:15 might be more like 2:36 and not 2:37)... But having the men's B standard 4 minutes slower than the A and for women their difference is 8 minutes?? That's way too much, and that's why you have 100 people qualifying from one race.

no it's called running faster wrote:

EVEN IF the shoe improves times by 1-2 minutes for the same fitness/effort/execution, that doesn't magically put 60 women under the QT.

WTF because women are so uninspired, unaggressive and lazy based on the last TEN Olympic Trials?

so naive, and a very very typical conclusion from people who don't truly watch the women's scene

women OTQ count every four years (remember the qualifying time gets harder every 4)

2020 - 198 (before CIM, it will be around 270 by end of year, then 2019 even more)

2016 - 257 (first year with zoomfly+vaporfly)

2012 - 226

2008 - 182

2004 - 151

2000 - 210

1996 - 187

1992 - 118

1988 - 246

1984 - 267

there are lots of vdot 56-58 women out there, many of them come from D1 and D2 background

many don't bother with marathon distance, the high mileage training is too injury prone

and to OTQ you need vdot 60 which is far more rare

but vaporflys (and now hoka rocket) magically reduce the effort required by the perfect 2 vdot

the carbon-spring also radically reduces the recovery time from high mpw and the race itself (Stephanie Bruce just also proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt)

there isn't a resurgence in marathoning, it's always been there for women with talent

there's one little factor that's changed everything

it's carbon-spring shoes

go look at CIM again, it's a SEA of red vaporfly (and the hoka pros using carbon rockets)

even the 2018 zoomfly now has a carbon spring (the 2017 was nylon spring) it's just heavier than the vaporfly

how long is everyone just going to say "oh people are just suddenly running faster based on better training" when every CR, AR and WR is going down left and right

there's no magic training that good that hasn't been done for decades already

NewtotheSouthSide wrote:

Think there's some obvious inflation the last two years (out of the 4 year sample) with the US Champs being here, getting perfect weather both years, and everyone knowing this is where you go for your OTQ attempt. 2:45 has a pace group, they have fluid stations on course. It sets up well for running fast.

IMO the women's standard is fine. Men's could be 2:20 or back to 2:22.

Men's standard should be 2:20, that's a nice round number.

Still think the women's standard is too easy because it seems like women with very little competitive running background are able to get the standard. Whereas the men's standard seems only achieveable by guys that were at least decent in college. On the other hand, making the standard more achieveable for the post-collegiate hobby jogger could be a way to drum up more interest in the sport.

I guess the question to answer is the target number of qualifiers for the Olympic Trials. At this point, it looks like twice as many women will get the standard as compared to men. Before this weekend, 198 women qualified and 100 men qualified. Those ratios basically held true at CIM.

I like the tightening of the half standard, though. It seemed like a lot of guys would get the half standard and run their first marathon at the Trials and come nowhere close to sub-2:20. The half standard should exist for shorter distance studs to take a stab at and then make the the Trials more competitive. I'm thinking guys like Rupp and such.

The Ted Stevens Act prevents us from setting standards that exceed those set by the IAAF. The 2:19/2:45 was based on the standards set in 2016. The IAAF hasn’t released their 2020 Olympic standards yet. We won’t tighten ours, but should the IAAF loosen the standards again (as they did in 2015 before our Trials), we’d be required to loosen our standards.

jaguar1 wrote:

The Ted Stevens Act prevents us from setting standards that exceed those set by the IAAF. The 2:19/2:45 was based on the standards set in 2016. The IAAF hasn’t released their 2020 Olympic standards yet. We won’t tighten ours, but should the IAAF loosen the standards again (as they did in 2015 before our Trials), we’d be required to loosen our standards.

Good point, thanks.

It very well could be the shoes, because a 4% boost in the 2:40s is a big difference than a 4% boost in the sub-2:20 range.

vivalarepublica wrote:

It very well could be the shoes, because a 4% boost in the 2:40s is a big difference than a 4% boost in the sub-2:20 range.

note that some runners based on their form get 6%

Allie Kieffer and Kinsey Middleton are examples of this

also since the carbon-spring does not "bottom out" like other lightweight racing shoes, runner weight is no longer a factor, women no longer need critically low BMI (the above are also examples of this)

There's a legal reason the marathon standard has to be no faster than the Olympic standard hence 2:45 for women

61 men broke 2:20, an American record, the previous was the 1975 Boston.

Brogan Austin?

all I know is Atlanta is going to be a heck of a party, and a rather large yet exclusive race at the end of February 2020 since even the B folks get their way paid this time so they should very well go

ATC seems to be working hard to put on a great race with a challenging course, kind of an anti-PR which seems proper considering how brutal Tokyo is going to be, they just aren't simulating the broiling heat (but they could if they did a marathon around Peachtree lol)

NewtotheSouthSide wrote:

IMO the women's standard is fine. Men's could be 2:20 or back to 2:22.

Yes, the women's standard is fine. The men's should be 2:23.

The best year the US ever had in the marathon, the standard for men was 2:23.

vivalarepublica wrote:

It very well could be the shoes, because a 4% boost in the 2:40s is a big difference than a 4% boost in the sub-2:20 range.

That's the kind of retarded reasoning that historically has tried to hold back the women.

There's a reason the OTQ is set at the current standard. Google it.