Looks tough, but I think We (USA) will get 3 in each event.
https://twitter.com/yrdbki/status/1104887817908367360
Editor's note. Here is our article on the new system.
We also changed the title of the thread. It was initially entitled, "Olympic Standards Posted."
800m 1:45.20/1:59.50
1500m 3:35.00/4:04.20
5000m 13:13.50/15:10.00
10000m 27:28.00/31:25.00
3000mSC 8:22.00/9:30.00
Marathon 2:11:30/2:29:30
Assuming these are the A standard? For reference, last year each of these times would've placed you overall last year.
Men:
1:45.2 was the 34th time overall in 2018.
3:35 was the 24th time last year.
13:13.5 was the 25th time last year.
27:28 was the 8th fastest time last year. Side note, they should include a half marathon standard for the 10000m. Since that is contested more often at a elite level now and days. And the half marathon and 10000m is very closely correlated. More correlated than the half is to the full.
8:22 Steeplechase was the 30th fastest time last year
2:11:30 marathon would've put you at the 241st fastest time last year.
Women's:
19th
31st
31st
5th
26th
160th
The 10000 was BARELY run last year, 27:28 seems tough, I still think we get 3 in Kipchircher, Korir, If Chelimo runs a 10000, Ben True ran a good 5000 in 2018 that indicates je can hit that standard and a few more will emerge.
I am assuming the standards are high on purpose... to create a descending order list based off of the new ranking system being beta-tested. Tough standards will see 1/3 or so of the qualifiers, and the rest will be selected to fill the fields to the desired field size.
The 2016 standards were too low, in many's opinion.
douglas burke wrote:
The 10000 was BARELY run last year, 27:28 seems tough, I still think we get 3 in Kipchircher, Korir, If Chelimo runs a 10000, Ben True ran a good 5000 in 2018 that indicates je can hit that standard and a few more will emerge.
For reference according to vdot(I know how some of you hate vdot, I'm just using it as a measuring tool, so calm down) a 27:28 10000m is equal to a 60:21 half marathon. Which 60 Men did last year and 2 American men did last year. A 60 minute half should qualify one for a olympic 10000m.
Offhand, I'd say that there's a good chance that at least one of the top three finishers in the men's Olympic marathon trials -- including, quite possibly, the winner of the race -- will not meet the Olympic standard either before or at the trials. I don't have a big problem with that, but I'm sure that some people will have a very different view. (I think there's a good chance of the same thing in the men's 10,000, and perhaps even the 5,000, but that kind of situation has arisen more frequently in track and field events.)
The final for a championship should pit the top 8 to 12 against each other from the year's form chart through July. No heats or semis, straight to the final, and with a pacemaker. If your country has 8 of them, you send 8. If it has none of them, it sends nobody. It's time to stop pretending that track is a competition between nations and respect the quality of fast performances.
This would make track great again. Every race, all year long, would be a potential finals qualifier.
Athletes can also qualify from the rankings system. Which will be much easier if you can string together some decent races over the next year.
Not too tough wrote:
800m 1:45.20/1:59.50
1500m 3:35.00/4:04.20
5000m 13:13.50/15:10.00
10000m 27:28.00/31:25.00
3000mSC 8:22.00/9:30.00
Marathon 2:11:30/2:29:30
Assuming these are the A standard? For reference, last year each of these times would've placed you overall last year.
Men:
1:45.2 was the 34th time overall in 2018.
3:35 was the 24th time last year.
13:13.5 was the 25th time last year.
27:28 was the 8th fastest time last year. Side note, they should include a half marathon standard for the 10000m. Since that is contested more often at a elite level now and days. And the half marathon and 10000m is very closely correlated. More correlated than the half is to the full.
8:22 Steeplechase was the 30th fastest time last year
2:11:30 marathon would've put you at the 241st fastest time last year.
Women's:
19th
31st
31st
5th
26th
160th
There is no way this is correct. At the last olympics 56 ran in the men's 800m, 43 in the 1500m. McSweyn would be the only white guy in the 5k if True failed to qualify.
We've written an article about the new standards which you can find here:
We have a lot of unanswered questions.
We really believe any country with 3 people ranked high enough to go should be allowed to send any three that they want. That will protect the integrity of the US Olympic Trials - the greatest meet in North America - and also up and comers or those coming back from injury.
I also did some quick research to see how it would play out in the marathon.
American Chris Derrick is ranked 319 in the marathon right now. BUt if you take out all of the people from Kenya/Ethiopia after 3, he moves all the way up to the top 60 and they take 80 for the marathon.
This just sounds really stupid.
2:11:30 was 6th place at the Rio Olympics and would get you into the top ten every other year. I don't care how many hundred people ran faster than that if they're all from Kenya (and I love Kenya but they can only send three(?) people).
The whole IAAF ranking scheme is dumb and tying it to the Olympics is unfair to upcoming athletes, as we've already discussed on these boards (and as Paul Chelimo points out in his tweet).
I get that the goal is to get athletes to compete more so they can have a high ranking, but if you're exempted by a qualifying time, these rankings are only going to apply to the slower athletes. The guys with the qualifying times are at the top of the sport, they're the ones I want to see racing more!
Maybe it would make sense for one spot to go to a top-ranked athlete in each event. That way the rankings matter for the athletes we really care about and we're guaranteed to see some known faces, but it would still let nations pick athletes without following this stupid system.
Guys how many on the mararthon? please dont mention Rupp
It appears that many do not understand the qualification process just announced for the 2020 Olympics.
Read. Absorb. Understand.
Then return to the board.
We present to you the death of American distance runners, on this date, 3/10/2019.
Important to note that the marathon standard likely won’t matter considering the caveat that a top 10 at Boston, New York, etc. or a top 5 at a gold label will be considered standard. Since so many Americans have ended up top 10, I would think our will come from those who have “standard”.
Only exception to this would be someone making their debut at the Trials-unsure how that would play out.
This is going to completely kill post collegate running in the US. It is also going to kill the trials for the casual fan. If you make qualifying hard to understand to the casual fan they will be confused and aren't going to care at all. Why do we have do many idiots running this sport?
Guess Alexi Pappas should be glad she took the backdoor to the Olympics in 2016, she doesn't make the new standards for 2020.
GreekYogurt wrote:
Alexi Pappas should be glad she took the backdoor
Nice.
FFF wrote:
We present to you the death of American distance runners, on this date, 3/10/2019.
I disagree, I think we can get 3 people in ALL the Distance Events, based on Time Alone, The 10000 looks the toughest, we have been underachieving in the Marathon, but I still think we can get 3 in the Marathon. Remember for the Olympic Year everyone ups their game, I don't see how this negatively effects the Trials, as I expect a half dozen or so to have the Standard BEFORE (Maybe only 3 in the 10000, maybe 8-9 in the 800) and the people that don't have the time, got to just go for it, which assures a fast race, The Olympic Trials are to choose are team, the times in the Olympics will likely be faster than the standards, I Mean 1:45, 3:35, 13:13, 27:36 and 8:22 is in fact tactical/ pedestrian pace for the top runners who run 1:42-1:43, 3:28-3:30, under 13:00 Under 27 and under 8:05.
Putting the marathon trials on a hilly course instead of a flat, fast course is turning out to be a terrible idea. How would you like to finish top 3 at trials in 2:12, and still have to run sub-2:11:30 somewhere to be able to go to the Olympics? An American elite focusing on Boston and New York will be at a disadvantage compared to international elites focusing on London and Berlin. Watch Chicago turn into "America's Marathon" in Olympic years. Hope you haven't cashed your NYC appearance fee yet. Hope you can recover between Chicago and Atlanta.