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

jamin wrote:

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.

None of this matters. You have some weird unstated assumptions that make it nearly impossible to comprehend your writing.

You’d think there was an award for attending the marathon trials based on how your talking about this.

Exactly, it looks like an isolation mindset. Most of those guys were collegiate all-Americans, conference champions, all-conference, etc. Status befitting real awards. Qualifying for the OT when you have zero shot at making the team is far less appealing, in a general sense. It would earn you exactly what, a few years of free shoes, a little extra accolades among family and friends and a dozen or so other runners in your hometown? That won't keep you warm at night.

isn't it better to have more people qualify for the marathon so we don't end up having to shut down a city for a race with 4 guys in it?

Agree with this 100%. Also, I'm going to Atlanta February 29th to watch the Trials, please don't fly in from Seattle and ruin it Benjamin.

This is absolutely correct. There are a lot of likely benefits to a bigger Trials. I see only two POSSIBLE downsides to loosening the standards: (1) Some people with the talent to reach tougher standards may back off in training and run just fast enough to make the easier standard. (2) The number of qualifiers might get so large that the prestige of the race is damaged.

I don't think either concern is serious.

First, who cares if a guy with 2:19 talent slacks off and only runs 2:21? It's not as though those differences in performance have any impact on the quality of American distance running on the world stage.

Second, I don't think the prestige of the race could be harmed until it gets much, much bigger. It's always been understood that the race includes high level amateurs who are not realistic prospects to make the team. Whether the field is 100 or 800, I think most people will rightly view qualifiers as very accomplished athletes. Heck, the NFL and MLB each have over 1000 active players!

LoneStarXC wrote:

You can fit more people on a road than on a track.

The thread should have ended here

LoneStarXC wrote:

Film Rep wrote:

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.

You've never been to an OT marathon. Even an 8-mile loop takes just a small section of a city the size of Atlanta, LA, or Houston. And it's not silly at all whether the number of entrants is 50 or 500. It's still going to be a tiny fraction of a mass participation marathon in any of these cities. How much does ATL spend in tax breaks and subsidies for a stadium for 22 guys to play a game on 8 Sundays each year? Drop the crumb-snatching mindset.

red glare wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

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

You've never been to an OT marathon. Even an 8-mile loop takes just a small section of a city the size of Atlanta, LA, or Houston. And it's not silly at all whether the number of entrants is 50 or 500. It's still going to be a tiny fraction of a mass participation marathon in any of these cities. How much does ATL spend in tax breaks and subsidies for a stadium for 22 guys to play a game on 8 Sundays each year? Drop the crumb-snatching mindset.

I think LoneStar was speaking in hyperbole. Obviously marathons don't shut down entire cities. However, I'm sure there are transportation issues caused from the streets that get closed for a marathon. My wife's aunt lives in New York and said a lot of the city hates the marathon because of the extra congestion it causes. I'm sure the same would apply to pretty much anywhere you host one.

They ran an Olympic Trials marathon just in Central Park.

Even if hyperbole, it lacked basic perspective in its point.

This is what I meant. Not LITERALLY shut down an entire city of course, but, the point is, that whether you have 50 competitors or 500 competitors, big city streets are closed down and traffic is rerouted. If you’re going to go through that effort, why not let more people run? It’s not like you run into a space issue like on a track.

You really believe that street space is the chief and only significant cost in hosting this sort of race, don't you? Heck, if it's all participant numbers and dollars and cents, let everyone who can post 2:20-3:00 in the qualification window come run in the race, too, for the entry fee of $3000! ?

500 is no holier than 50, neither is right or wrong on the face of it. 400+ stragglers isn't a better fan experience than 40+ stragglers and arguably has no net impact on overall top end development in the sport. We can still apply better development strategies while letting 500 in, yet ultimately it's not a difference maker. Now if we came up with a way for the bottom 450 qualifiers to help fund opportunity for development of the top 50, we might be onto something beyond "just happy to be here" OT tourism.

Rupp's DNF in Chicago last weekend and breakout performances from other American men suggest there will be a very interesting race for the top 3 slots in Atlanta on February 29th. The course is apparently hilly, and slower than many of the World Major Marathon courses. Are there pacers at the trials? If not, does that mean the favorite (assumably Rupp if he's healthy - otherwise it would fall to Jared Ward) will take it out hard??

There is NO WAY anyone is taking the trials marathon “out hard.” It will be a conservative pace probably 2:11-2:12 to start.

Dumber than the guy who posted the original question?! Ok dude lol. I was just answering someone else. Not sure why you’re so angry.

They can run the trials anywhere and it won't make US marathoners any more relevant. You all do realize this entire premise is just to be relevant to a subculture within a subculture within a culture of running, right? Our very fastest runner isn't remotely relevant (if he can even finish) in international marathons and you guys are arguing about whether 50 or 500 people should have the opportunity to hobby jog a 2:16 at trials. We are so, so far off from any relevance it's painful to watch. Rupp works directly for Nike and has access to the same shoes as Kipchoge and he couldn't even finish Chicago. It isn't the shoes, it's the fact that no one cares about this particular spectrum of the sport because of how shi*ty we are at it, so no serious athlete bothers with it. 2:11 guys? Give me a break. Rupp's PR is the 212th fastest marathon ever and you want to talk about 2:11 guys? They are light years from even being able to PACE for Kipchoge. There is no hope in even the remotest foreseeable future. Having a bunch of slow guys running trials and slogging their way to a 2:13 (best case scenario for 90%) when the world knows a sub 2:05 is the new true international elite standard is an absolute joke. Hell, over half of the mem running our trials won't beat the women's WR. Now let that sink in for a minute.