Olympic marathon trials qualifier moved from 2:19:00 to 2:11:30

Big shift wrote:

Discuss? I love watching the trials and seeing the underdogs compete in a competitive-only field. It gives sub elites an almost attainable goal, constantly dangled just a few minutes from their PR's, - enough for motivation. It was a standard almost attainable by the working runner. It allowed young (or older) up and comers the chance to experience a large venue and makes for good spectating. The new standard just ensures an elite only competition and destroys the tradition of the Olympic marathon trials. What will Sage Canaday do? Etc.

Discuss.

People are seeing these standards but not looking at the actual qualification process.

They published these standards as 'auto' qualifying marks. They do not expect everyone to hit these marks. They will then go up the descending order of the world rankings to fill out the fields at the desired number of entries, they will eventually publish a position in the world rankings that an athlete must be better than to qualify, for example top 70 world ranking.

Here is a link to the world rankings in the 5k

Placing top 8 in the US Championships (Olympic Trials) gives you a bonus, which improves your performance points and world ranking. So anyone that finishes top 3 at the olympic trials (assuming it's not a completely tactical race) will likely be ranked high enough to qualify. It is still only three athletes per country, so saying the cutoff is a 70 world ranking does not mean there will be 70 people in the olympics for each track event because many of the top countries have people ranked in top 70 that are not top 3 in their country, and they won't be going.

I read the procedures. The issue I see it's goal-setting for the (well above) average runner. Many runners across America in no-man's land set their training with the goal of 2:19. Now it's 2:11:30 which is out of the question for these runners. As far as the top ranking and then later publishing a number based on it, that can change in the course of one big race close to the cut-off time. There was literally no down side to having a slightly larger field for the trials. It was part of the experience and 2:19 has been part of the cult of sub-elite performance goal setting. I'm all for the lower standards and indexing it to the world rankings to encourage more competition more often, but messing with 2:19 is a step backwards for the spectators and great-but-not-elite goal setters. Surely there is a middle ground.

Big Shift wrote:

I read the procedures. The issue I see it's goal-setting for the (well above) average runner. Many runners across America in no-man's land set their training with the goal of 2:19. Now it's 2:11:30 which is out of the question for these runners. As far as the top ranking and then later publishing a number based on it, that can change in the course of one big race close to the cut-off time. There was literally no down side to having a slightly larger field for the trials. It was part of the experience and 2:19 has been part of the cult of sub-elite performance goal setting. I'm all for the lower standards and indexing it to the world rankings to encourage more competition more often, but messing with 2:19 is a step backwards for the spectators and great-but-not-elite goal setters. Surely there is a middle ground.

It's not really 2:11:30 though. For marathon it'll probably be around top 400 ranking get to go as long as you're top 3 in your country. At the moment if you're a 2:13 type of runner you will be at that ranking.

People running 2:19 never had a shot anyway at the olympics. But the U.S. 'Olympic trials' standard will probably still be 2:18 or 2:19 so they will still be able to try to run that to go to the trials, but they'll have to run 2:13 or better if they actually want to go to the olympics, which is same as it is now because no one who can only run 2:18 is going to go to the olympics for the United States.

Who this hurts is the people from a country that is not strong in distance running like Brazil for example. In the past the jokable olympic standard of 2:19 allowed them to qualify for the olympics and get destroyed. Now they are going off of the world rankings, which is more competitive and good for the actual olympics. America having 150 athletes with the 2:19 old olympic marathon standard just proves that 2:19 was way too slow for the olympic standard. Olympic TRIALS standard, sure... Give them a shot to be in the trials race, but the real contenders need to be 2:13 or better, and 2:11:30 is the auto where you don't even have to worry about the rankings (even though if you can run under 2:11:30 your ranking will be good enough anyway).

Where this gets weird is at Atlanta it is hilly, so it's possible that a runner could get 3rd and only run 2:17 if it's also a warm day which is also possible. Even with the bonus points for being top 3 at the Olympic trials (high finish at US championships give bonus to the performance) it won't be enough to improve the world ranking to top 400. If the trials were at a fast course and 3rd was 2:13, with the bonus points of being 3rd a the US championship it would be enough to bump them into the high enough world ranking and they don't need that 'auto' 2:11:30.

I am pretty sure it was 2:17. I think you may be confusing the trials standard for the olympic standard. Nonetheless, the your point(s) remain.

I really don't think the new qualifying system will change things that much for the roads. If anything it may force people to find a way to improve at the 26.2 distance. I am not super in-tune with how everything is going to work, but a 2:17 guy really shouldn't be at the olympics....this won't affect the US.

It appears that it may affect the smaller countries that send a single athlete, but we were never sending 2:17 guys to the olympics. There were nearly 30 people who ran faster than that at just CIM this past winter.

Americans will just have to do more faster flatter races in Japan and Europe. As opposed to the slow hilly courses they tend to do(Boston and NYC). I look forward to this, as we need more Americans competing with the best in the world, not just the best in America. If this makes more athletes have to do some press ups and reindeer milk, so be it.

It's 'not' 2:11:30 wrote:

[quote]Big Shift wrote:

Where this gets weird is at Atlanta it is hilly, so it's possible that a runner could get 3rd and only run 2:17 if it's also a warm day which is also possible. Even with the bonus points for being top 3 at the Olympic trials (high finish at US championships give bonus to the performance) it won't be enough to improve the world ranking to top 400. If the trials were at a fast course and 3rd was 2:13, with the bonus points of being 3rd a the US championship it would be enough to bump them into the high enough world ranking and they don't need that 'auto' 2:11:30.

Spot on here. And this is also a problem for other nations where their national championships are not held on fast courses or in favorable climes.

Let's say a runner is injured, but get's fit enough for trials and finishes in the top 3 in say 2:16 on a hilly course. That time would definitely not be enough, and that runner would need to run a half marathon, and possibly another marathon before the Olympics - not going to happen.

Those are good points, but after reading everything I was left with the impression the "B" standard was also shifting from 2:19. Maybe that's wrong?

Big Shift wrote:

I read the procedures. The issue I see it's goal-setting for the (well above) average runner. Many runners across America in no-man's land set their training with the goal of 2:19. Now it's 2:11:30 which is out of the question for these runners. As far as the top ranking and then later publishing a number based on it, that can change in the course of one big race close to the cut-off time. There was literally no down side to having a slightly larger field for the trials. It was part of the experience and 2:19 has been part of the cult of sub-elite performance goal setting. I'm all for the lower standards and indexing it to the world rankings to encourage more competition more often, but messing with 2:19 is a step backwards for the spectators and great-but-not-elite goal setters. Surely there is a middle ground.

Oh no. All those men with PR's that are 2 seconds per 400m slower than the women's world record might get their feelings hurt.

They should get rid of the qualification time requirement for the marathon. It’s not like track where # of entries is constrained by number of lanes and size of track. A country should be free to select 3 of its own to go. 203 countries participated in the last Olympics. That would mean maximum 609 runners, which can be easily accommodated.

It just wouldn't be the same without all the OT tourists that we'd enjoy seeing for the first 5K only, at best.

Big shift wrote:

Those are good points, but after reading everything I was left with the impression the "B" standard was also shifting from 2:19. Maybe that's wrong?

In 2016 it was originally 2:18 but they raised it to 2:19 because that's what the olympic standard was. So USATF already wanted a faster olympic trials standard.

Women's standard will likely drop by a lot more since 2:19 does not equal 2:45 for women. They probably won't change it for 2020, but in 2020 I souldn't be shocked with standards of 2:17 or 2:18 for men for U.S. Olympic Trials and 2:40 for women.

Meant 2024, not 2020.... In 2024 I think the U.S. standards for olympic trials will be 2:17/2:18 and 2:40 for women. It is too late to change them for 2020 U.S. olympic trials, even though there is a new method for olympic qualifying.

False. The OT qualifier has not moved, shifted, slides, jumped, or any other momentous verb.

How will this affect Rupp? He will only be racing one marathon between now and the Olympics, the US OT marathon. I guess this means he MUST run the 2:11:30 auto-qualifier at trials or he won't be going to the Olympics even if he wins the trials because he won't get in based on world ranking. So, he will have to keep an eye on the clock and can't just sit back and wait until the last mile before kicking it in for victory. Combined with the hills that are certain, this could get dicey for him if it is an unseasonably warm day for trials.

Will someone clear this up? My impression was that the trials qualifier will now be tied to either 2:11:30 (automatic) or the world's bests (dynamic). Am I way off?

The Qualification Period for the Marathon looks like it starts on May 1st 2019 and ends in May 2020, So lets say Chris Derrick and Mollly Huddle run faster than the Standards In London which is in late April IT WONT COUNT, so they have to run a Fall Marathon, hit the Standard and be top 3 at the Trials, or be top 3 at the Trials and try to hit the Standard afterward Is this correct, it seems like the way it is written, the Marathon has 2 less months of a Window than the Track events. https://www.flotrack.org/articles/6394026-2020-olympic-qualifying-standards-released

Big Shift wrote:

Will someone clear this up? My impression was that the trials qualifier will now be tied to either 2:11:30 (automatic) or the world's bests (dynamic). Am I way off?

The olympic trials qualifier already published a year and a half ago is still the olympic trials qualifier. But you have to have more than the olympic trials qualifier to actually go to the olympics. This is just like the past where the olympic trials qualifier for 10k was 28:15, but the olympic standard was 28:00. Olympic trials qualifier and olympic qualifier are two different things.

The new olympic standard (not olympic TRIALS) is '2:11:30'. This guarantees you to be considered fast enough to go to the olympics. This is NOT the only way you are considered fast enough. The second option is being ranked high enough in the world rankings. A person has to be one or both of those things AND selected top 3 in their country to go to the olympics.

If Rupp only runs the olympic trials between now and the olympics, he will need to make sure that his olympic TRIALS marathon is roughly 2:14 or faster. How the rankings work is it takes your top two performances for events ranging from half marathon to full marathon from the previous 18 months and takes the average. One of the performances must be a marathon. He can show up at Houston Half Marathon, run anything under 62 minutes (62 minute half marathon is worth about same amount of points as 2:13, and 2:13 marathon seems to be what ranks a person in top 400 or 500 which will likely be the cutoff for world rankings cutoff), and run 2:14 at olympic trials, and that should give him enough points to be ranked high enough assuming he placed top 3 at the trials marathon.

For anyone confused with these points, go to the IAAF world rankings, click on some of the people's entry and popup will show you how they got their ranking, it will show two races and at least one will be a full marathon.

Big Shift wrote:

Big shift wrote:

Those are good points, but after reading everything I was left with the impression the "B" standard was also shifting from 2:19. Maybe that's wrong?

Will someone clear this up? My impression was that the trials qualifier will now be tied to either 2:11:30 (automatic) or the world's bests (dynamic). Am I way off?

Yes, you are way off. The Olympic Trials qualifier did not change based off the IAAF standards that were posted today.

douglas burke wrote:

The Qualification Period for the Marathon looks like it starts on May 1st 2019 and ends in May 2020, So lets say Chris Derrick and Mollly Huddle run faster than the Standards In London which is in late April IT WONT COUNT, so they have to run a Fall Marathon, hit the Standard and be top 3 at the Trials, or be top 3 at the Trials and try to hit the Standard afterward Is this correct, it seems like the way it is written, the Marathon has 2 less months of a Window than the Track events.

https://www.flotrack.org/articles/6394026-2020-olympic-qualifying-standards-released

The marathon and 10k window opened the first of this year.