What’s the big deal about the “Olympic Trials” ....

Cuckoldistan wrote:

Think About It wrote:

Kind of the point again - Go ahead and do these fantastic things - brilliant personal achievement but do you need to make out you’re somehow better than everyone else?

But people who make the trials are better than everyone else. They are the 250 fastest marathoners out of 330 million people in their country

No they are not - they are the 250 men who qualified from a small pool of people who run marathons. 330 million people don’t run marathons.

GreaterThan wrote:

By definition of going to the trials you are better than anyone who didn't go to the trials.

I feel like a lot of people who go to the trials are very humble people and don't lord it over others. Those that are not and can't back this up with times usually have a few words dedicated to them on other threads.

I don’t think they really are. Might be faster runners but they’re not better than others.

But true comment re it being a minority I’m talking about - thanks for pointing that out.

hello epic department wrote:

Think About It wrote:

Kind of the point again - Go ahead and do these fantastic things - brilliant personal achievement but do you need to make out you’re somehow better than everyone else?

Ok, obvious troll masking as sincereposter at this point.

Nope sorry - just an honest opinion.

You must be a kid. It's a big deal for those who qualify and race, regardless of their chances of making the team. In major championships 95% of the competitors have no chance of medalling, but it's still a great accomplishment to qualify, race, advance, maybe even make the finals. Not just personal accomplishment either. National funding, shoe contracts, etc. all have bonus/contract sweeteners regarding performance even if the athlete does not medal. Look at the broad picture, not just the top 1%. If the sport was just about the medal contenders there'd be no sport. Imagine an NFL where only the teams with a strong chance of winning the championship could play. It would be a 3 or 4 team league.

Then post your PRs so we can laugh at them

Tell that to Trint Birney. Who was a 2:20 marathoner and just missed going to the Olympics in 2004. He was a gifted runner and to think otherwise is hypicritcal.

Think About It wrote:

Kind of the point again - Go ahead and do these fantastic things - brilliant personal achievement but do you need to make out you’re somehow better than everyone else?

And who exactly is doing that?

btw, those who make the Olympic trials are a whole lot better than I am at running.

Think About It wrote:

Cuckoldistan wrote:

But people who make the trials are better than everyone else. They are the 250 fastest marathoners out of 330 million people in their country

No they are not - they are the 250 men who qualified from a small pool of people who run marathons. 330 million people don’t run marathons.

You are a troll or the dumbest person alive. Most Americans are fat and cannot run a single mile. Of course there's a small pool of people who run marathons.

big HONKING birds wrote:

No they are not - they are the 250 men who qualified from a small pool of people who run marathons. 330 million people don’t run marathons.

You are a troll or the dumbest person alive.[/quote]

Clear troll. Got me. Sorry. I apologize for feeding the troll.

I thought the same thing. It seems a waste of time. But I guess it's great for all the runners who barely make it into the trails, like that 1:04 Half Marathon guy.

Other countries just pick the 3 fastest runners from a certain qualification period. That seems a lot easier and cheaper.

5th runner on the golf course wrote:

I thought the same thing. It seems a waste of time. But I guess it's great for all the runners who barely make it into the trails, like that 1:04 Half Marathon guy.

Other countries just pick the 3 fastest runners from a certain qualification period. That seems a lot easier and cheaper.

Exactly! And seems like a better way of getting the consistently best runners

Think About It wrote:

5th runner on the golf course wrote:

I thought the same thing. It seems a waste of time. But I guess it's great for all the runners who barely make it into the trails, like that 1:04 Half Marathon guy.

Other countries just pick the 3 fastest runners from a certain qualification period. That seems a lot easier and cheaper.

Exactly! And seems like a better way of getting the consistently best runners

America is the inventor of the finisher medal and participation trophy. And the hosting cities make a lot of money with hotel rooms and food for a few days.

I think the Trials are a good thing to have. It keeps the competitive spirit going. If it was just pick the fastest times only a handful of runners who can afford to go to Europe/Dubai have a chance to run fast. But I agree it can be annoying when the 249th runner talks like they made the Olympics when in reality it was only the Trials. But non-runners don't know the difference.

Coming from a country picking the 3 fastest times over a period of time,

- Yes it gives more time for the athletes to prepare (we know the selected runners since December approx)

- Yes you select the fastest runners on paper, but we all know that conditions and context are super important when comparing marathon times.

Ex: Runner X ran 2h10 in Berlin and Runner Y ran 2h11 in Paris... OK Berlin is faster but by how much ? Does it mean the 2h11 Paris (tricky course) is better ? And what about the weather conditions ? You see the point.

- So having the candidates running the same race solves that problem.

You could say they could pick one of the existing races and that's it. The top 3 makes the team.

- The real benefit of having separated trials is that it creates a great emulation for sub-elite runners.

I know some people here think it doesn't make sense to have 2h18 runners as they have no chance of making the team.

This is true, but it's not the point. The point is to build the sport.

=> By creating a more "accessible" event, challenging enough to have people dream about it and chase the dream for the next 4 years.

=> By building a full event marketable for sponsors, USATF, the organizing club, TV....

Again coming from a country without this system, you can't imagine the state of desolation of the sub-elite marathon pool.

And building a larger base of sub-elite is a great way to stimulate the sport as a whole, the depth of the field and to push the peak performances at the very top.

Think About It wrote:

5th runner on the golf course wrote:

I thought the same thing. It seems a waste of time. But I guess it's great for all the runners who barely make it into the trails, like that 1:04 Half Marathon guy.

Other countries just pick the 3 fastest runners from a certain qualification period. That seems a lot easier and cheaper.

Exactly! And seems like a better way of getting the consistently best runners

Yet at the Rio Olympics Rupp was on the podium and Ward was 6th with Hawkins 9th. Meanwhile Kipchoge was the only Kenyan to not DNF, with one Ethiopian DNF and Berhanu competing poorly. Tell me how that worked out overall? They left off Kipsang and Desisa despite them being some of the best racers. In the case of the US there are a slew of athletes that have a legit chance to make the team especially if one of the top guys drop out/have a bad day. It can come down to who is able to close very fast on tired legs which is exactly what we'll need to place as well as we can in the Olympics. There will be no medal this time around anyway I'm sure of it.

What’s the big deal????

It’s fvckin badass, that’s the big deal!!!!

All you qualifiers are heroes to this basement dwelling scrub never-was! You can’t just roll out of bed and qualify. Even the most genetically gifted still have to put in work to make it.

Congratulations and good luck to all qualifiers! May your dreams becomes reality!

Good point - appreciate a well thought out response. I’m not exactly sold on the “sub elite” “sub sub elite” terminology - I kind of think you’re elite or you’re not, but development is obviously important and I probably haven’t given that enough kudos.

5th runner on the golf course wrote:

But I guess it's great for all the runners who barely make it into the trails, like that 1:04 Half Marathon guy.

r.

Which one?

Think About It wrote:

This is an honest question - why do people talk about running “the Olympic trials” as though they actually have a chance of making the Olympics? Is the USA the only country that picks their team this way? It seems much ado about nothing .....

Consider the NCAA basketball tournament. The winners of the Big West, Ivy League, America East, etc. have no chance of making the Final Four. Getting there and then maybe doing a little better than expected is a dream for teams like that. It's something they accomplished that nearly 300 other teams did not. Same for the Trials. It's an accomplishment that only a small number of those who try manage to do. It's a big accomplishment even if you don't make the team.

And there have been a very small number of guys with "no" chance of making the team who

did anyway. Ron Daws was not on anyone's list of potential Olympians in 1968. When Jack Bacheler missed the team at 10,000 meters in '72 everyone thought he was done and had no realistic chance in the marathon. That same year in the UK Don McGregor was on no one's list of qualifiers yet was second in their trial. Mark Conover's best marathon coming into the 1988 trial was 2:18 but he ran 2:12 and won the trial. Unlikely? Absolutely. But almost never is not never.

There were TWO!!!!! wrote:

5th runner on the golf course wrote:

But I guess it's great for all the runners who barely make it into the trails, like that 1:04 Half Marathon guy.

r.

Which one?

Two?

I didn't know that. Jim W. is one of the two, I guess.