U.S. Olympic Trials Marathon Standard is equivalent to a 30:13 10k. The 10k standard is 28:00.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

bcvb wrote:

Did you want the trials marathon to have 12 runners? That would look a little weird I think.

A lot of us would order if the marathon trials was limited to 40 or 50 competitors. The past few Olympics, they couldn't drop the entry standard below a certain time, because that was the IOC rules. But now that those rules have changed, they could drop the time a little lower.

They should make it so all competitors under 2:11 are granted entry, plus the next fastest times to fill a field of 50.

That probably gets you back to the 2:14 mark or so in a given year.

200 people in a marathon all on the same start line runs the risk of a serious contender being tripped at the start.

Paragraph by paragraph. What the heck are you talking about.

Jzs wrote:

jamin wrote:

What?

So what is the 28:00/10km standard equivalent back out to the marathon ..something like 2:09:00..?! WTF ..let’s hear it.

With me as coach sub 2:08 !

I agree with this approach also - I think it would boost the sport.

In the UK the trials for the world cross country championships are part of the inter counties XC, which means the best 8 runners from every county (about 40 counties in the UK) all race together, with the GB & NI team being selected from the front finishers. It makes for a big spectacle rather than just an isolated trials race and generates a lot of interest. The same approach would be good for road racing - or similar. It obviously works way better simply using times/rankings within the country to select the entrants.

Reducing the standard would be horrible, imagine 20 people in a marathon... whereas having more could do a huge amount for generating interest.

I don't even understand why we have Olympic Trials marathon. We should go off the fastest times list. Every year we send at least one guy who peaked for the trials then ate potato chips between the Trials and the Olympics and they run 2:20 or slower or dropout. That person doesn't deserve to be representing the US. If you aren't fast enough to be invited to one of the marathon majors, you don't deserve to be at the Olympics.

Sure, if we had a slew of fast runners then the Trials is a great idea to sort them out in a head up scenario. But we don't. We have Rupp and a group of water backpack wearing hobby joggers at 2:11-2:12. The USATF should make a rule if we don't have more than 3 runners under 2:10, they will just use the descending order list. If everyone complains, here's an idea: train harder and race faster.

Here's a fun fact, when was the last time the US had 3 runners under 2:10 in the marathon? It was 2012.

Before that, it was 2002. So, in the last 17 years the US has had 2 years where 3 guys or more broke 2:10. We don't need an Olympic Trials marathon.

Did you miss this?

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=9512829&id=9512829#9512829

Lots of nostalgia for the late '90s here. Or amnesia.

The organizers want a certain size field and work backwards. They do the same thing in track meets to avoid empty lanes.

If i could run 2:19 for the marathon, I'd literally travel around the country and make a living at milf-sized marathons. What a life that'd be!

Gravvvy wrote:

If i could run 2:19 for the marathon, I'd literally travel around the country and make a living at milf-sized marathons. What a life that'd be!

???

Blathering wrote:

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

A lot of us would order if the marathon trials was limited to 40 or 50 competitors. The past few Olympics, they couldn't drop the entry standard below a certain time, because that was the IOC rules. But now that those rules have changed, they could drop the time a little lower.

They should make it so all competitors under 2:11 are granted entry, plus the next fastest times to fill a field of 50.

That probably gets you back to the 2:14 mark or so in a given year.

200 people in a marathon all on the same start line runs the risk of a serious contender being tripped at the start.

Paragraph by paragraph. What the heck are you talking about.

Other than the first sentence where my phone auto corrected "prefer" to "order," I'm not sure what you are confused about.

I'd prefer the field size to be around 50 men and women. 200+ runs too high of a risk of a potential top 3 runner being tripped at the start.

Road races solve this with a corral start. If they insist on having the OT standards so soft, that should set up a corral. Top 50 get put in the corral at the front line, the rest line up right behind them.

General public road races aren't the same as Olympic team qualifying races where top 3 make the team if they have standard. There's no gun time/chip time with these kind of races. Obviously, runners at the back are going to be at a disadvantage. They're all elite runners.

Seereeeeusly wrote:

Who wants to see 200-500 sub elites running 2:15 + smh. No thanks. Cut the race down to the top 25-50 guys by time. And the women’s time of 2:45 is seriously outdated. Should be at least 2:35, maybe lower.

I agree.

Limit to top 50 or so.

What’s the point in showing up if you are going to be 15-20 minutes behind the leaders and finish like 100th.

?‍♂️

I agree.

Limit to top 50 or so.

What’s the point in showing up if you are going to be 15-20 minutes behind the leaders and finish like 100th.

?‍♂️[/quote]

A further problem is how do you determine the 50th best time so you can set a OT qualifying time? For instance, the 50th best US time in 2018 is 2:15:45. So you set the OT qualifying time at 2:15:45 and must be run between Jan. 1, 2019 and trials date, say March 15, 2020 just for illustration.

Seeing 2:15:45 you get guys that don't marathon every year take a run at a marathon and you get 75 guys run under the 2:15:45 time. So now do you go to the last 25 guys, some who may have run a high 2:14 and say sorry, only taking 50 people to the starting line. Kind of harsh I say.

And on top of that 15 guys out of top 50 will either be injured or have made OT track qualifying time and choose not to show for marathon OT and instead opting to try for track spot. Do you then got back to fastest 15 of 25 previously booted out qualifiers and say 2 weeks before trials date, hey you got a spot after all at the starting line if you want it?

I never was close enough to think I had a honest chance of making the team, but my 2:16 and 2:17 allowed me to start the marathon OT in both 1980 and 1988. I knew there were much faster guys, went top rear of the smallish pack, 150 runners and never came close to tripping any of the true contenders.

But just qualifying and going (had to pay my own way there, nothing free) to the trials was my reward for keeping up training after college even though I never came that close to qualifying for any team.

Let us good but not great guys feel good once every 4 years. No harm with that.

chgray wrote:

Let us good but not great guys feel good once every 4 years.

That's not development, it's charity. We already saw the results of that in the team we sent to Sydney.

More appealing is something closer to what Japan has done, invite those who meet a tight marathon-only standard or a tight descending order list plus any who finish top 5 or top 10 at a series of domestic races (NYC, BOS, CHI, TCM, CIM, Grandma's, Houston, LA, etc.) to reward competitors as well as time trialers who simply follow pacers.

Film Rep wrote:

Seereeeeusly wrote:

Who wants to see 200-500 sub elites running 2:15 + smh. No thanks. Cut the race down to the top 25-50 guys by time. And the women’s time of 2:45 is seriously outdated. Should be at least 2:35, maybe lower.

I agree.

Limit to top 50 or so.

What’s the point in showing up if you are going to be 15-20 minutes behind the leaders and finish like 100th.

?‍♂️

Because it would be silly to shut down an entire city for just 50 people to run. The current standards are fine.

Too many on this thread are champions of weakness. Some poster stated: women 2:50 another stated men, 2:22.

Some buffoonery of growing the sport. There already are too many out there racing Marathon in 4hr. to 5hr. range. U.S. needs to focus on events in which U.S. athletes may earn medals. U.S. is a 100m to 800m, hurdles, jumps and throws nation.

The size of the race field should be self explanatory enough, unless you think the race should only be the size of the typical 10k field at the trials.

I'm not complaining or saying it's easy. Obviously it's very hard and I would never be able to do it.

But if someone is a 5k/10k guy in the 28:30-30:00 range, which probably is 1,000 guys in U.S., and trying to get the most success possible out of running, why even bother with trying to get to sub-28:00? Of course it's very hard to take 30+ seconds off your 10k time if you're on the lower end of that range. In the case that you have equivalent 1500m speed, which is anywhere in the 3:43-3:58ish range, also no point in trying for sub-3:37 or whatever the standard is. Therefore 1,000s of guys are in a No Man's Land for OTQing unless they do the marathon, which many of them could do without altering their training very much.

OK- I always thought it would be cool to have another, slower standard for the Trials.

Have one for auto entry (like we do) then a slower one with a regional series of races where runners advance.

The "finals" for this will be the Trials themselves.

The guy who can't get under 29:00 will be eliminated at and maybe some 29:00 guy will run a few PR's and get to race with the top runners.