Looks like a good day in the Midwest. 39 otqs , 22 in the women’s full.
https://monumentalmarathon.com/2019-results-overview/
Monumental Marathon/Half has 39 OTQs
Pro News/Info/Results
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
11 Men under the OTQ. Pretty good for a medium sized city race.
-
Only 2 women qualified through the 1:13 standard which is the toughest standard to qualify.
Heard that it is the only likely standard that will remain in 2024.
Likely 2024
1:13 or 2:42 for Women
1:03 or 2:18 for Men
With No Aided courses eligible -
Women’s Half wrote:
Only 2 women qualified through the 1:13 standard which is the toughest standard to qualify.
Heard that it is the only likely standard that will remain in 2024.
Likely 2024
1:13 or 2:42 for Women
1:03 or 2:18 for Men
With No Aided courses eligible
Good. With the numbers qualified now, the trials is going to seem like a citizen's race. How are they handling the bottles?! And they had to redo the course to accommodate the numbers. I'm hoping they restrict times to 2:17 and 2:41 for 2024. Three people qualify, they don't need 300+ competing for 3 spots. -
Women’s Half wrote:
Only 2 women qualified through the 1:13 standard which is the toughest standard to qualify.
Heard that it is the only likely standard that will remain in 2024.
Likely 2024
1:13 or 2:42 for Women
1:03 or 2:18 for Men
With No Aided courses eligible
By "No Aided" do you mean under the IAAF-rule? So, Boston, CIM, etc. are out but Grandma's is still in? -
The field has exploded because of the Vaporfly. The standard is effectively several minutes slower than it was in 2016. If you think I'm exaggerating, go into the race results for the Chicago Marathon and click on the pictures for all of the athletes who hit the standard. I clicked on about 20 pictures, and only 3 were NOT wearing the Vaporfly or Next %.
-
GD wrote:
The field has exploded because of the Vaporfly. The standard is effectively several minutes slower than it was in 2016. If you think I'm exaggerating, go into the race results for the Chicago Marathon and click on the pictures for all of the athletes who hit the standard. I clicked on about 20 pictures, and only 3 were NOT wearing the Vaporfly or Next %.
I can for sure say I would not have qualified if I was wearing different shoes than the vaporfly
But I also wouldn’t have qualified if I was wearing tissue boxes on my feet. Or Nike Frees. Or a pair of Pegasus.
But yes, tighten the standard. I think a field of 70ish is appropriate. -
GD wrote:
The field has exploded because of the Vaporfly. The standard is effectively several minutes slower than it was in 2016. If you think I'm exaggerating, go into the race results for the Chicago Marathon and click on the pictures for all of the athletes who hit the standard. I clicked on about 20 pictures, and only 3 were NOT wearing the Vaporfly or Next %.
This line is really [email protected]&$ing insulting and getting really [email protected]&$ing old. I ran 2:17 to qualify for the OT in 2016. I’ve been running in VF since they came out and still haven’t qualified yet 2020. According to your logic I should have run 2:14 already. I’ve raced 5 marathons shooting for the standard. One bad weather day, one day was sick, and the other 3 I just didn’t have it the last 10k after going through on pace at 20. I, just like many of the other people qualified/trying to qualify, run because we enjoy the process and aspire to attain goals. I have no problems with whatever the committees decide the standards should be, but don’t diminish our accomplishments inferring that the shoes are the only reason for our success. -
What is the big deal with having a few hundred runners in the trials marathon for each gender? It’s not like the back of the back can legitimately threaten the favorites.
-
22 in the women's full is proof positive that 2:45 is a joke.
-
Enough! wrote:
This line is really [email protected]&$ing insulting and getting really [email protected]&$ing old. I ran 2:17 to qualify for the OT in 2016. I’ve been running in VF since they came out and still haven’t qualified yet 2020. According to your logic I should have run 2:14 already. I’ve raced 5 marathons shooting for the standard. One bad weather day, one day was sick, and the other 3 I just didn’t have it the last 10k after going through on pace at 20. I, just like many of the other people qualified/trying to qualify, run because we enjoy the process and aspire to attain goals. I have no problems with whatever the committees decide the standards should be, but don’t diminish our accomplishments inferring that the shoes are the only reason for our success.
Cheaters always try to defend their actions. It makes them feel better about themselves. Anyone who still denies that the shoes give an advantage is a fool. Unless everyone just likes paying $250 for an ugly shoe that doesn't last very long. Nike has ruined our sport. -
Agreed. I've always thought that 2:19 is harder than 2:45. According to the McMillan calculator, a 2:45 marathon is equivalent to a 1:18:14 half marathon, a time which is 6.6893907% slower than the "B" half marathon standard of 1:13. Meanwhile, using the same calculator, a 2:19 marathon is equivalent to a 1:06:03 half marathon, which is 3.1770045% slower than the "B" half marathon standard of 1:04.
There are many possible explanations for this discrepancy. Either the half marathon "B" standard for women is too out of reach or the 2:45 marathon "B" standard is weak. Alternatively, the "B" half marathon standard men is weak, while the 2:19 standard is too out of reach.
I am more inclined to believe that the 2:45 standard is the weakest standard for the given fact that it is the standard that is the most frequently achieved out of all of the OTQ standards. -
I've thought the same things and also thought about time differences from winning times.
A decent guess for the men's winning time at the trials may be around 2:09. That's a 10-minute difference from qualifying standards. Women's winning time may be around 2:25. That's a 20-minute difference from qualifying time. Why such a huge gap?
On one hand, I don't see why the race needs more than 50 starters on each side. But on the other, stories are what sell the race. So why not have a big field. Yes, the trials should be elite as possible but maybe the standards need to be set in stone for years to come. 2:20 for men and 2:45 for women. Those are still stout times to hit and whether the field is 281 or 367 in one gender only makes the race more exciting to watch and to try and qualify for. -
Enough! wrote:
GD wrote:
The field has exploded because of the Vaporfly. The standard is effectively several minutes slower than it was in 2016. If you think I'm exaggerating, go into the race results for the Chicago Marathon and click on the pictures for all of the athletes who hit the standard. I clicked on about 20 pictures, and only 3 were NOT wearing the Vaporfly or Next %.
This line is really [email protected]&$ing insulting and getting really [email protected]&$ing old. I ran 2:17 to qualify for the OT in 2016. I’ve been running in VF since they came out and still haven’t qualified yet 2020. According to your logic I should have run 2:14 already. I’ve raced 5 marathons shooting for the standard. One bad weather day, one day was sick, and the other 3 I just didn’t have it the last 10k after going through on pace at 20. I, just like many of the other people qualified/trying to qualify, run because we enjoy the process and aspire to attain goals. I have no problems with whatever the committees decide the standards should be, but don’t diminish our accomplishments inferring that the shoes are the only reason for our success.
Profanity doesn’t make you right, but it does make you sound like a fool. -
anybody know what the qualifying standards are for 2024/2028 olympic trials? i have potential to qualify in the future and what better way to end my running career than to do it at the olympic trials? i predict i have decent chance at hitting 2:19 but something like 2:13 or 2:15 may be too much. also, the half marathon B standard needs to be slower by a 1 to 2 minutes.
-
MohammedAA wrote:
Enough! wrote:
GD wrote:
The field has exploded because of the Vaporfly. The standard is effectively several minutes slower than it was in 2016. If you think I'm exaggerating, go into the race results for the Chicago Marathon and click on the pictures for all of the athletes who hit the standard. I clicked on about 20 pictures, and only 3 were NOT wearing the Vaporfly or Next %.
This line is really [email protected]&$ing insulting and getting really [email protected]&$ing old. I ran 2:17 to qualify for the OT in 2016. I’ve been running in VF since they came out and still haven’t qualified yet 2020. According to your logic I should have run 2:14 already. I’ve raced 5 marathons shooting for the standard. One bad weather day, one day was sick, and the other 3 I just didn’t have it the last 10k after going through on pace at 20. I, just like many of the other people qualified/trying to qualify, run because we enjoy the process and aspire to attain goals. I have no problems with whatever the committees decide the standards should be, but don’t diminish our accomplishments inferring that the shoes are the only reason for our success.
Profanity doesn’t make you right, but it does make you sound like a fool.
That’s fine, pretend to be holier than thou. One can’t go a single thread on this forum without someone getting righteous about a shoe. -
Enough! wrote:
This line is really [email protected]&$ing insulting and getting really [email protected]&$ing old. I ran 2:17 to qualify for the OT in 2016. I’ve been running in VF since they came out and still haven’t qualified yet 2020. According to your logic I should have run 2:14 already. I’ve raced 5 marathons shooting for the standard. One bad weather day, one day was sick, and the other 3 I just didn’t have it the last 10k after going through on pace at 20. I, just like many of the other people qualified/trying to qualify, run because we enjoy the process and aspire to attain goals. I have no problems with whatever the committees decide the standards should be, but don’t diminish our accomplishments inferring that the shoes are the only reason for our success.
______________________________-
Believe it or not, some people who ran 2:18 to qualify for 2016 HAVE run 2:14. Have you looked at the sizes of the women's field? The standard is the same, and there are twice as many qualifiers. This makes sense, given that the VF give you more of a time advantage the longer you are on your feet. Look at the number of people who break 2:45 and 2:19 at major races before and after 2017. VF were released to the public in the summer of 2017. By fall of 2018, the number of people running those times explodes, and a huge proportion of the people running those times are in the VFs.
Here's the other thing: I'm well aware of how much effort it takes to qualify for the trials. I also qualified in 2016, before the standard was changed in December. I knew that I would always doubt myself if I qualified in 2020 wearing the Vaporflys. I'm not hating on the people who wear them, I'm simply pointing out the obvious, which is that they make people significantly faster, and some people get more of and advantage than others. What bothers me about them is that they make it impossible to tell who is the best athlete in a race. -
GD wrote:
The field has exploded because of the Vaporfly. The standard is effectively several minutes slower than it was in 2016. If you think I'm exaggerating, go into the race results for the Chicago Marathon and click on the pictures for all of the athletes who hit the standard. I clicked on about 20 pictures, and only 3 were NOT wearing the Vaporfly or Next %.
You think the fact that all unsponsored people are wearing a hyped up shoe is evidence that the shoe improves their performance by several minutes? Nike has always dominated racing footwear. This isn’t new.
The evidence seems to point at the shoes making 1 minute of a difference, but American distance running has also clearly made a big comeback relative to the fields of many of these races.
The standard should be 2:16. No half. Why do we have a half standard? Yes, running a marathon is taxing but the Olympic trials should not be someone’s debut for the event. If they are a 61 minute guy fine, let them try the distance out first the year before. -
Here is a pic of the leaders... lots of green and pink.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B4pqjNYg5wL/?igshid=16dscjiupuvqd -
People seem to be missing that the standards HAVE to be the IAAF standards, which are 2:19 and 2:45.
I think the stringent half standards are fine, as you may recall the men's bronze medalist in 2016 got into the trials with a half qualifier.
I also think Vaporflys and any shoe that attempts to give mechanical assistance should be banned.
