I gotta ask is this true; the USATF is going to push the standards to new qualifications of 2:12 for men and 2:32 for the women? Rumor or is this possibly true?
I gotta ask is this true; the USATF is going to push the standards to new qualifications of 2:12 for men and 2:32 for the women? Rumor or is this possibly true?
That is NOT even a proposal.
The most stringent recommendation that I’ve seen has been 2:18–63:00 and 2:42–73:00
Keep in mind that Men’s LDR comes up with the Men’s Standard and Women’s LDR decides the Women’s Standard
The silliest argument is wanting them to be equal and then blame women. The Men can make their standards whatever they want. If the Men’s standards are too difficult it is because that is what the MEN wanted.
why are you using my anonymous handle is the real question? blastphamy!
I sure as hell hope not I frucked it up this time around and blew up at 20 miles chasing the standard in my first ever marathon and now I figure I have 4 years to hang on those last 6 miles. But if they change the standard to 2:12 then theres no chance and I might as well go fruck around in ultra marathons because theres no competition there anyways
hardlyelite wrote:
I sure as hell hope not I frucked it up this time around and blew up at 20 miles chasing the standard in my first ever marathon and now I figure I have 4 years to hang on those last 6 miles. But if they change the standard to 2:12 then theres no chance and I might as well go fruck around in ultra marathons because theres no competition there anyways
If you couldn't hold 5:18 pace beyond 20 miles on (presumably) flat asphalt, then you would have plenty of competition in ultra marathons. Unless, of course, you chose weak races which you could also do on the roads.
Such a change would not have the disastrous consequences people believe, except to the egos of people who are not elite runners.
2:19 and 2:45 are both very soft standards, the women's mark especially so. (Before the hysterical retorts and whining start, no one is "blaming" women for this, and the difference excludes no athletes of consequence anyway.)
Think about it: If the current standards were not overly permissive by design, there would be no "B" standards at all.
The only people who would be discouraged from chasing 2:12 or 2:32 are people incapable of making an Olympic team or even coming close. People have gotten it in their heads over the years that those who merely make the Olympic Trials in the marathon deserve some kind of shout-out for being sorta elite without really being elite, and that the Trials should exist as a sizable entity for this reason alone.
The running world, however, doesn't need a showcase for what can only be considered high-achieving posers. Really, there is no shortage of small marathons people can win in the current B standards of 2:20 and 2:45. Ben Bruce does it all the time. Meanwhile, bored male and female millennials who will never break 2:40 or 3:00 will still move to Arizona or Colorado or California to "chase the dream," because even standards of 2:05 and 2:20 wouldn't discourage folks who are only looking to waste a few years in the mountains eating ten meals a week at Whole Foods before moving on to the next life-actualization quest. "The dream" for them is some combination of actually making the Trials or convincing themselves that want to so as to judtify dodging employment for a few more years. It's not up to USATF, however horrible an outfit it is, to cater to the plans that a smattering of high-achieving hobby-joggers have made for their twenties.
Also, "people will complain" is a terrible argument anyway. "They" always do.
Fields of about two dozen runners would be plenty. I'm guessing they will drop the B standards and go with 2:15 and 2:37 next time, or maybe 2:19 and 2:37 to make them more equal (which, again, isn't vitally important).
Yo, bored kid: probably won't be decided and announced before December, at the earliest, and more likely not before December 2022.
"current B standards of 2:20 and 2:45"
Make that 2:19 and 2:45. If women were running this massive, slowly congealing jizz-lake of a message board, someone surely would have implemented an edit function by now.
Far Worse than Ezra wrote:
Fields of about two dozen runners would be plenty. I'm guessing they will drop the B standards and go with 2:15 and 2:37 next time, or maybe 2:19 and 2:37 to make them more equal (which, again, isn't vitally important).
"Plenty" for what? You do realize that the OTs serve other purposes for the sport and for US T&F than just selecting the top 3, right?
ATEA4RE wrote:
Far Worse than Ezra wrote:
Fields of about two dozen runners would be plenty. I'm guessing they will drop the B standards and go with 2:15 and 2:37 next time, or maybe 2:19 and 2:37 to make them more equal (which, again, isn't vitally important).
"Plenty" for what? You do realize that the OTs serve other purposes for the sport and for US T&F than just selecting the top 3, right?
Clearly not. If you want to effectively kill the sport and development in this country, go ahead and implement standards intended to eliminate all but "two dozen" from qualifying. If you want more sub-2:10 marathoners then you've got to have more sub-2:15 marathoners and to get more of those you need to have more sub-2:20 marathoners. Take away the big carrot for sub-elites and the base of talent erodes and so do a bunch of training groups. You may not care that we have so many training groups with only token investment by shoe brands, but it's a guarantee the sport regresses to Y2K levels without them.
No.
A 2:15 / 2:38 standard should be implemented for 2024. Even those times are generous. Face facts - we live in a sub 2:06 / sub 2:22 world and this "participation trophy" for serious hobby joggers is not moving the performance needle in the United States.
Get rid of the separate Trials race concept as it is wasteful and gives sponsors very little return on investment. Partner with a big U.S. marathon and send the Trials qualifiers off 15 minutes ahead of the main field.
old shoe wrote:
I gotta ask is this true; the USATF is going to push the standards to new qualifications of 2:12 for men and 2:32 for the women? Rumor or is this possibly true?
There hasn't been any proposition yet, so if you heard these numbers it's just a rumor. However, they will likely be lower than they currently are. The old standards were just because that's what the old olympic standards were, now the standards have become 2:11:30 and 2:29:30. It will likely be faster than 2:19/2:45. Probably something more like 2:17 and 2:39. In 2016 they were originally 2:18:00 but they added a minute to it because the olympic standard was 2:19:00 so they had to match it
I'd like to see them do one of the following:
1). Have a decently difficult standard, say 2:14 or 2:15, but also limit the field size like they do for the Track & Field trials. Top 100 times as of a month before the trails gets in. Get rid of the half qualifier. Yeah I know Rupp got in with a half last time but he would have done a fall marathon in 2015 if he absolutely had to.
2). Get rid of the trials altogether and partner with either Chicago, New York, or Boston. This was kind of done in New York in 2007, except they could just incorporate it into the actual race. Get the top 50-100 fastest US marathoners invited to New York, top 3 Americans make the team. New York would be most ideal as Boston is too close to the Olympics and Chicago is probably too far out. Most Americans blow off a fall/spring marathon during an Olympic year so this way we at least have some representation at a major.
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
A 2:15 / 2:38 standard should be implemented for 2024. Even those times are generous. Face facts - we live in a sub 2:06 / sub 2:22 world and this "participation trophy" for serious hobby joggers is not moving the performance needle in the United States.
Get rid of the separate Trials race concept as it is wasteful and gives sponsors very little return on investment. Partner with a big U.S. marathon and send the Trials qualifiers off 15 minutes ahead of the main field.
I like this idea, and agree.
The fact is, if you are struggling to make 2:19 and are not Olympic quality in another distance event, then you really don't belong in the conversation of "Olympics."
I throw in the "in another distance" just for the folks that are moving up but obviously ready, such as when Rupp ran the 2016 trials with no prior marathon experience. We all knew a guy how had two prior Olympic appearances as least had a shot in the marathon trials.
Imagine if you would the standards staying the same in gymnastics from 1984 or even if you want the 1984 marathon men’s standards of 2:19:04. Doesn’t compute that we would have the same standards as 40 years ago leading up to the marathon trials in 2024; meanwhile the world is taking aim at 2:03 -2:00? This game has changed; you’re delusional if you think 2:19 or 2:14 is enough of a goal to provoke the type of performances that will keep pace with the real world.
I don't understand why the women's qualifying time is always so soft. Women are about 30 seconds a mile slower, so the gap between the qualifying times should be 15 minutes at the most.
No, it's not true.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:
If you want to effectively kill the sport and development in this country, go ahead and implement standards intended to eliminate all but "two dozen" from qualifying. If you want more sub-2:10 marathoners then you've got to have more sub-2:15 marathoners and to get more of those you need to have more sub-2:20 marathoners. Take away the big carrot for sub-elites and the base of talent erodes and so do a bunch of training groups. You may not care that we have so many training groups with only token investment by shoe brands, but it's a guarantee the sport regresses to Y2K levels without them.
You see, to know little to nothing about how both human psychology and elite running work, and you definitely sound like one of those 2:20 or 2:50 poser types who doesn't want a chance at "glory" stolen by a toughening of the standards.
People who have a shot at 2:10 (or any fast time) don't need to first aim for 2:15 or 2:18 to figure this out. Someone who has run low 28's in college knows he has a shot. Maybe a handful of undertrained 29:30 guys, too. But if you don't at least think you can run 2:10, there is no reason for you to be thinking of an Olympic Trials race anyway.
Try using the same logic with other events and see how it goes. If they moved the OT standard in the 10000 to 28-flat, would a significant number of people who were actually capable of achieving that time just quit, or would the quitters almost all be guys running 30:00 who know they're never going to be Olympic caliber anyway?
How many people can you name who gave up on a running dream because a standard was made harder, and how did they or the running world materially suffer as a result? Remember: Individual egos are not "the sport."
You argument here is based on two things: Bullshit and tradition (the "tradition" being idea the OT Marathon should kinda be like other marathons).
Think how fun it would be instead to watch an OT marathon in which everyone in the field at least had some reasonable shot at making the team. You just don't see this kind of a performance gap in the track events when it comes to the OT, and the fact that roads can accommodate more bodies is by itself no excuse for filling it with no-hopers.
Also, those training groups haven't done a damn thing for elite marathon running in the U.S., at least in terms of keeping America competitive with the rest of the world (I think it;s safe to exclude the NOP at this point). Anyone who believes differently is welcome to submit evidence for their position.
Comparable non-African countries that don’t have a Trials (Canada, GB) continue to have increases in depth and development and more depth at the top. Having a Trials is costly. Setting soft standards for “development” and creating local “feel good stories” has no bearing on selecting the Olympic Team.