Monumental Marathon/Half has 39 OTQs

Dose of reality wrote:

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.

Those are the minimum standard for further qualifying. The trials race itself doesn't have to be that stringent. They could make Boston the trails race if they wanted to and just award the top 3 Americans a spot. That's what Canada does with the Toronto Marathon. I think it would be kind of cool to have maybe Houston Marathon in early January be the trials race, but obviously it lessens the hype not having a separate trials race.

Dose of reality wrote:

People seem to be missing that the standards HAVE to be the IAAF standards, which are 2:19 and 2:45.

Not anymore.

Just because you're offended and insulted by it, doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean you are correct. I have no problem with people having opinions, I have problems with people repeatedly parroting the same biased talking points with such limited open mindedness that they won’t consider that *maybe* other factors are at play, I.e. people worked their asses off to improve. Completely diminishing people’s effort by saying their improvements are only due to changing out shoes is what’s insulting.

GManOWar wrote:

Here is a pic of the leaders... lots of green and pink.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B4pqjNYg5wL/?igshid=16dscjiupuvqd

Do the black shoes along the left dashed line belong to Brooks athletes? Are they the Brooks version of the cheatums?

Enough! wrote:

JustRunBaby wrote:

Just because you're offended and insulted by it, doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean you are correct. I have no problem with people having opinions, I have problems with people repeatedly parroting the same biased talking points with such limited open mindedness that they won’t consider that *maybe* other factors are at play, I.e. people worked their asses off to improve. Completely diminishing people’s effort by saying their improvements are only due to changing out shoes is what’s insulting.

Nothing biased about it. I hate Nike, but there's been a huge uptick in OTQs this cycle and nearly all of them are run in Vaporflys. It's hard to deny the connection. Which part of this do you disagree with?

Hardloper wrote:

Dose of reality wrote:

People seem to be missing that the standards HAVE to be the IAAF standards, which are 2:19 and 2:45.

Not anymore.

Yep. The women's standard is going to be significantly faster. The men's will to but probably back to what it was originally in 2016.

They are not going to make the men's half standard any slower probably faster. They dont want half of the field qualifying with the half like last time.

I think the vaporflys have helped improve times some. But making the half standard faster also pushed more guys to try for the standard in the marathon. Last time around about 50 guys in the field ran their debut full at the trials. This time around the majority have gone for the standard in the full.

hlkjhjkjhkjh wrote:

2:45 is a pathetic standard. it would be like the men's being 2:28

I thought this was a ridiculous statement. but the women's WR is 81% of the time of 2:45. On the men's side the WR is 87% of 2:19. If the men's standard were 2:28 the WR would be 81% of the total time.

The women's standard is clearly way weaker due the rule about the US trials standard not being faster than the Olympic standard that is no longer relevant with the new rules.

__________________________

I don't think the fact that unsponsored athletes wearing a shoe is the only evidence that it improves performance. I also considered the following:

-Bekele nearly broke the world record in Next%, and he's at least 37 years old

-Kosgei broke a 16-year-old WR just a few weeks later in Next %

-Kamworor HM WR in the Next %

-Kipchoge wore what amounts to platform shoes in the sub-2 effort. Why on earth would sombody wear a shoe like that if it didn't work, to get an ankle sprain? Because the 70s are back in fashion?

-The huge increase in relatively fast performances is another piece of evidence--along with the fact that most of these people are wearing versions of VFs.

-The handful of scientific studies showing an unusual performance benefit are evidence

-The Mizuno-sponsored Atlanta Track Club athletes getting special permission to run in VF for the Chicago Marathon is evidence

But, you're the actual scientist. I just do research for a living.

Getting people out there training has been a win for the sport. It's not like this sport is killing it with spectators and participants. And it's not like there isn't enough room for 500 or even 1000 runners to start in a marathon and be within 10 yards of the front of the start.

Who gives a f*** (and who really cares about swearing on this toxic site) about harder standards?

Enough, did you stop to think that maybe Vaporfly doesn't work for everyone. That your mechanics just don't translate to the VF. Share results of races where you had an outstanding race in the VF's. I'm thinking a more traditional shoe might be best for you.

Enough, I can't help you if you won't respond to this post. I have said before, VF's are not for everyone.

Looking forward to your response.

As an aside, I think it is ludicrous to be able to qualify for a marathon with a half. Ridiculous so many were running their first marathon at 2016 Trials. It defeats the purity of qualifying. A half has no relation to a full 'thon.

Enough! wrote:

Just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean you are correct. I have no problem with people having opinions, I have problems with people repeatedly parroting the same biased talking points with such limited open mindedness that they won’t consider that *maybe* other factors are at play, I.e. people worked their asses off to improve. Completely diminishing people’s effort by saying their improvements are only due to changing out shoes is what’s insulting.

Believe what you want if it helps you sleep at night. But personally, I know that my results are 100% my hard work and not one bit because I bought a shoe to try and get an advantage. So when I run a fast time or have a good performance I can be completely satisfied with it and don't have an ounce of self doubt. Everyone else is just fooling themselves with hollow victories...and deep down they know it...and that's why you're so offended.

Seth Demoor broke 107 in the half in 4 percents.. what more evidence do you people need?!???!

Did you complete your races barefoot and naked? If not, clearly you benefitted from wearing shoes and would have been slower otherwise. Enjoy your hallow victory, weekend warrior.

Sincerely,

Abebe Bikila (the only legitimate marathon champion)

Further proof: OTQ is too soft, get rid of the damned half standard and tighten the full standard.

Gonna have to repeat myself here- what is the problem(s) with having these large-ish fields in the trials marathon?

Remember back in 2007 and earlier the standard was 2:22:00 for a long time (granted there was less depth back then and the field size wasn't much larger). I think the womens was way up at 2:47-2:49 even. Didn't seem to be much of a problem and the 2007 trials the day before the NYC Marathon in Central Park were a real treat (women's was in Boston in 2008).

In the 2012 Trials (actually held the day before the Houston Marathon) there were also 22 or 23 guys under 2:15:00 that day (which for a non-aided course was really freaking good back then!). Heck Ritz ran 2:09 and didn't make the team!

Also remember back before 2012 there wasn't a half standard at all (there might have been like a 28-min 10km one though!)...then in 2012-2016 they brought it in a 1:05 and 1:15. Tons of guys qualified in the half...and many debuted at the trials in the full and struggled to crack 2:20. Obviously 1:04 is a much harder standard to hit. Same for the women. 1:13 is way harder than 2:45 or even 2:43.

Of course I'm all for slower standards (although I think 2:19-2:18 for guys is quite fair). If the standard had stayed around 2:20:00 I would've qualified for 4 trials by now...so of course I'm biased though!

I think its good for the sport...to have several hundred runners in the trials race. People just need to be respectful when they line up and realize who the "real contenders are". Heck, if they can only provide special fluid bottle support for the top 40-50 ranked runners then that is fair too.

A few years back the USATF tried to lower one of the sprinting standards, maybe 100m, to faster than the Olympic qualifying standard. They got sued and the US court ordered that they cannot set a trials standard tougher than the Olympic standard. (If I recall correctly).

The Olympic committee toughened the standard earlier this year to cut the marathon field sizes in half.

2:11:30 and 2:29:30. (also the 5k got tightened)

Plus some obtuse world ranking system that would allow top guns without the standard in.

Which means being in the top 3 at the trials might not get you to the Olympics.

Athletes are now incentivized to run the downhill expressways.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2391874/olympics-2020-new-standards-running

What does that have to do with anything?