Monumental Marathon/Half has 39 OTQs

JustRunBaby wrote:

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.

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?

Correlation is not causation. There are a ton more people training post collegiately now than 8 years ago. I’m on the older side of trying to OTQ and in my graduating class I was the only one to continue to train competitively. I’m fairly well connected with my alma mater and there are 5 guys still training hard from last years class with 3 running the standard. Just look at the NCAA depth at 5k and 10k. There are so many more guys running fast.

Honestly, the shoes may very well provide a boost to a lot of people. They’re comfortable, they fit well, and I feel like I’m ready to race when I lace them up, just like the first time I put my kubatos on back in the day. That being said, Most people still need to run 100mi weeks, 23mi long runs, and a healthy appetite of workouts. The dialogue that runners got there just cause of the shoes is what I have the problem with.

Not sure whether or not I’m a “responder” to the shoe really makes a difference in this discussion. Either way, I train and race in a wide variety of flats and I have good workouts and bad workouts in all of them, just like anyone else. All I’m saying is they certainly aren’t a hindrance just like I don’t notice a huge boost from them either. Admittedly, part of the problem is bad luck with weather (think 2018 Boston, placed well, time wasn’t there), and bad timing with sickness, or botched taper or whatever.

Regarding your aside, we’re on the same page. No reason the half should be a standard, completely different races.

Enough! wrote:

Correlation is not causation. There are a ton more people training post collegiately now than 8 years ago.

Source?

Hardloper wrote:

Enough! wrote:

Correlation is not causation. There are a ton more people training post collegiately now than 8 years ago.

Source?

Did you read the rest of my post or did you stop there? Clearly it’s anecdotal. Would you prefer I say, “Based on my experience, I suspect a ton more people are training for the marathon post-collegiately. “

Enough! wrote:

Honestly, the shoes may very well provide a boost to a lot of people. They’re comfortable, they fit well, and I feel like I’m ready to race when I lace them up, just like the first time I put my kubatos on back in the day. That being said, Most people still need to run 100mi weeks, 23mi long runs, and a healthy appetite of workouts. The dialogue that runners got there just cause of the shoes is what I have the problem with.

A few years ago someone might do 100mi weeks, hard workouts, and a 23mi long run yet only have the talent for 2:20. Now the same guy can do the same workouts and run 2:18.

Pretty sure that means he needed fancy shoes to make the trials.

As an aside, I’d also support banning downhill/p2p courses like Boston and CIM for qualification.

Let's also ban pancake flat courses like Chicago and Houston. In fact, the only races that should be permissible for the purpose of generating a 10-person Olympic Trial field(you know, the 10 men and women that actually have a shot) will be courses that are run barefoot up a mountain with a minimum 1000' elevation gain.

Would this suit everyone appropriately?

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.

The 2:19/2:45 was made by USATF in 2017 because the actual standards hadn't come out yet by IOC and the 2016 standards were 2:19/2:45 so they just rolled with it. The 2019 standards IAAF made were faster, I believe 2:16 for men, and now the 2020 official auto-standards (the only standards there are) are 2:11:30 and 2:27 or whatever for the women.

So now the US can pretty much make whatever standards they want moving forward since the IOC and IAAF are trying to get rid of the automatic standards and go by world ranking. Realistically for a guy across the world to have a high enough world ranking for marathon you need to be a 2:13 guy. So if you have citizenship for a tiny country, you need to be around a 2:13 marathon to meet a high enough world rank to go to the olympics. I haven't done my research for the women's side yet but I would guess it's somewhere around 2:30 would give you a high enough world rank if you were from a smaller country and didn't have the auto.

If I had to give my own standards, I'd say 2:16 for men, 64 for a half or at fastest 63:30. 73 for women is fine for the half, and then drop it down to 2:37 for the full. These numbers are more similar to each other and would make the field sizes be more like 100 athletes instead of near 300 for men and over 500 women that we'll see this February.

Juice Springsteen wrote:

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

I have no problem with a large field size. I think it's good for the sport. I do have a problem with not knowing who was a better runner on a given day because shoe technology makes it impossible to interpret results.

GD wrote:

Juice Springsteen wrote:

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

I have no problem with a large field size. I think it's good for the sport. I do have a problem with not knowing who was a better runner on a given day because shoe technology makes it impossible to interpret results.

Is it impossible to interpret the results because you can't tell by the results who was wearing 4%'s and who wasn't? Sounds like the shoes don't matter.

Look at Chicago and New York marathon results. Without looking up the runners, tell me which ones were wearing Nike 4% and which were wearing Adidas. I guarantee you'll get some wrong.

Enough! wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Source?

Did you read the rest of my post or did you stop there? Clearly it’s anecdotal. Would you prefer I say, “Based on my experience, I suspect a ton more people are training for the marathon post-collegiately. “

Well, it would be a fūck load more honest and accurate.

GD wrote:

Juice Springsteen wrote:

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

I have no problem with a large field size. I think it's good for the sport. I do have a problem with not knowing who was a better runner on a given day because shoe technology makes it impossible to interpret results.

This would always be a problem. I don't know why people get so worked up about the vaporfly, do you not realize that shoe companies have been working at making shoes more efficient since forever? You think the shoes in 2012 weren't better than what they were wearing in 1990? You think all shoes were equal in 2012 but now they're not so it's not "fair". Guess what, certain shoes were better than others back then too. The only thing that's apparently fair to people like you would be to make everyone wear the same shoe or not wear any shoes at all. Maybe you should just stop being a baby and get over it.

Your reasoning is flawed. Obviously shoe companies have been improving shoes, but that doesn't mean that there should not be limitations. Can I wear wheels on the bottoms of my shoes? No. Can I wear shoes with springs? No. I could easily argue that wheels and springs are just part of the slow arc of shoe technology improvements, but most people would say that that's silly. There's general agreement that rolling is not running. Fairness questions surrounding the VF have to do with two things: allowable mechanisms/materials for improving performance and the magnitude of improvement.

Also, you are wrong that there were shoes that were clearly better in the past. In fact, that was one of the observations made in the Boulder study: VF improved running economy is all study subjects, while in past studies on running shoes, there was no one shoe that was best for everybody. People had to find the right racing flat, and even then, performance benefits were about 1-1.5%.

People are "worked up" about the Vaporflys because they are clearly impacting road racing times, and no companies besides Nike have a comparable shoe. What we're seeing is unprecedented and to pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. Right now race outcomes are inordinately impacted by shoe technology rather than human performance, and we can't really tell what results mean because there is insufficient data on magnitude and mechanisms of improvement.

I might be sold on these tech improvements if they have other benefits--for example, a lower injury rate. But we'd still need to differentiate between pre and post-technology times.

Juice Springsteen wrote:

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

Doesn't matter if you've asked before if you haven't laid out tangible benefits for the "large-ish" fields because they definitely do come with costs, like for travel and lodging for the hosts plus potential interference for true contenders. There exists a line, based on intended outcomes, and either the selected criteria achieves those successfully or it doesn't. This isn't some "well what's the harm" situations if it doesn't clearly help. Having more sub-2:50 women hasn't given rise to more sub-2:20 women. Or has it? Same for number of sub-2:10 men in relation to the amount of sub-2:24 men.

Enough! wrote:

Correlation is not causation. There are a ton more people training post collegiately now than 8 years ago. I’m on the older side of trying to OTQ and in my graduating class I was the only one to continue to train competitively. I’m fairly well connected with my alma mater and there are 5 guys still training hard from last years class with 3 running the standard. Just look at the NCAA depth at 5k and 10k. There are so many more guys running fast.

This is right. I think Strava and the internet in general have a lot to do with it. Post-collegiate running feels much more connected now, and there's this big online community of people who pay attention to who is qualifying. It makes it seem like training hard and running fast still kind of matter. Back in 2006, there was a sense of lonely futility to running seriously after college.

gubyenletsrun wrote:

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.

Couldn't disagree more. If true, I don't like that at all. I was a fan of the 2:22 standard. Bring it back there and keep the women at 2:45. You really need to be sub-2:13ish and sub-2:30 to have any shot at making the team. We don't want to do what Japan did or have a marathon on the track some day. More competitors does not hurt anyone at the front of the race. It adds more eyes to the race when feel good stories start coming out and local media outlets highlight people who might have barely gotten in. I say give people a reason to stay in the sport. A slightly softer standard would be a good thing. Why not try to do the top 1,000 men & women -- 500 on each side? Or do 2:22-2:25 and 2:45 to try to get equal qualifiers. Marathons are different from the track. You can still market the race up front with more regional class runners in the race. Look at World Marathon Majors.

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.

Well that's actually any shoe as they all protect the feet via cushion which is mechanical assistance.

This thread is easy.

1. I have Vaporflys Next%. Very good shoes. No advantage other then being light and extremely cushioned at the same time. The whole "spring" talk is plainly stupid, there is no such effect when you run in it. The plate is there to add rigidity to an otherwise sof foam. It defitntely helps but way less than Nike would advertise. I ran 2:54:33 in May in Zoom Fly on a slightly hilly course in a slightly warm weather. I ran in VF 2:48:27 in October on a flat course in perfect conditions and on better training. I can defitely say that not drinking beer month out from a race was more welcome the the shoe change :)

2. 2:45 for women is 19% slower than WR, 2:19 is 12% slower than WR. Female standard is softer than men's.

3. 2:37 for women and 2:16 for men seems like a better, more competative standard, that still would be attainable for many.

Women’s Half wrote:

Only 2 women qualified through the 1:13 standard which is the toughest standard to qualify.

In what world is a 1h 13 1/2 mary "tougher" than a 1hr 5 min 1/2 mary? ....

with the course being multiple laps, there are concerns about the pavement getting worn out or ruined by too many participants.

also, the amount of Gatorade and other ancillary items needed for up to a dozen additional athletes is cost prohibitive