There are too many runners in the U.S. Olympic Trials marathon

idl wrote:

train how you fight

in the actual Olympics there will be 150 to 200 runners in the race, not a dozen

This is a very important point. If the race was being held at a normally hot location, don’t the runners try to train in hot conditions?

Weak standards and way too many sub-sub-elites.

I completely disagree that there are too many. To grow the sport we need to keep the sub-elites competing for a few years after college. The marathon is long enough that with proper race management there should not be congestion. You never know, the 2:18 guy might keep running for a few more years and turn into the next Bill Rodgers. Increased depth helps the sport. Out of quantity comes quality.

Everyone advocating to decrease field size please stop. You are not helping grow the sport. If you want more people to care about our sport give them a reason. story lines coming from the sub elites and so Many more people will be looking to follow the race this year. Be nice to see 400-500 men and women. Your elitist attitude is killing a sport that is already not that popular to watch on tv. Let get field sizes to 400-500 on both sides.

This happens every four years, with predictably regularity, since this board started. Doesn't really matter what size the field is, this same refrain was repeated in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016. A handful of jealous, self-loathing 2:20-2:40 lifetime PR guys tee off (usually indirectly) on guys who run slightly faster yet in their minds aren't worthy of being included in the OT because they ultimately weren't included. Even moreso, they tee off on women slightly slower than them who get to run in the OT, a potent mixture of envy, self-loathing, and misogyny. This is the culture being fomented here, rather than one of genuine excellence and admiration.

lmb wrote:

I completely disagree that there are too many. To grow the sport we need to keep the sub-elites competing for a few years after college. The marathon is long enough that with proper race management there should not be congestion. You never know, the 2:18 guy might keep running for a few more years and turn into the next Bill Rodgers. Increased depth helps the sport. Out of quantity comes quality.

Agreed. I initially thought there were way too many and that the field would need to be 100 per gender next time, but after talking to people and readings stories about qualifiers (generally on the women’s side), I have flipped to thinking they should actually relax the standard on the men’s side so that field is as large as the women’s. It’s not just about keeping sub-elites interested and training. It’s the ripple effect these people have on their training groups and local communities. The excitement is helping increase interest in US marathoning, even by non runners. I think that’s something we should all be rooting for.

Also, I recall my track coach in high school training to qualify for the 2000 trials by means of CIM and I think the standard was around 2:24 then. It kept him in the sport longer and he likely wouldn’t have coached if he wasn’t gunning for the standard. Just another example of the ripple effect. Also, I think that’s an indication that CIM has been a thing for a while.

With shoe tech, times are meaningless. Position matters more. Courses should follow world athletics standard... Start/finish. With in 1km of each other, that way elevation not do much a factor. Same should go for Boston/NYC qualify

Agree to an extent, however I'm not sure.... do the Olympic Trial runners get their own corral/seeding? If not then yeah I can definitely see that being a problem, but if they start 15-20 minutes before everyone else I don't see an issue.

And how many athletes are in the Olympic Marathon ? There sure as hell isn't 500 in the race.

Descending order lists are really the way to go instead of fixed time standard.

As an alternative, I could go for 8-10 designated domestic marathons where you can qualify for the Trials (i.e., Chicago, New York, Twin Cities, LA, Boston) where you can qualify for the trials if you place in the top 15 in addition to a descending order list. I'd also be willing to let a top 30 finisher at a World Athletics Gold or Silver label marathon in the trials.

I don’t understand these threads.

For 2016 the standards had to be loosened when the Olympic standards were released so that the OT standards weren’t faster.

They rolled with the same standards (adjusting the half standards down) for 2020 so as not to be in the same position again, as the Olympic standards hadn’t changed.

New qualifying process for the Olympics came out with a stricter time/ranking process, but the qualifying cycle had already started and wasn’t going to be made harder.

With those faster Olympic standards in place, USATF will adjust their standards for 2024 to fit what they want for a projected field size.

These threads complaining are pointless.

Agate Street wrote:

And how many athletes are in the Olympic Marathon ? There sure as hell isn't 500 in the race.

Descending order lists are really the way to go instead of fixed time standard.

As an alternative, I could go for 8-10 designated domestic marathons where you can qualify for the Trials (i.e., Chicago, New York, Twin Cities, LA, Boston) where you can qualify for the trials if you place in the top 15 in addition to a descending order list. I'd also be willing to let a top 30 finisher at a World Athletics Gold or Silver label marathon in the trials.

Descending order list would be idiotic. Whatever marathon is the last reasonably fast race within the qualifying window would love it, though.

Agreed, except I think 2:15:00 instead of 2:14.

walter j wrote:

I don’t understand these threads.

For 2016 the standards had to be loosened when the Olympic standards were released so that the OT standards weren’t faster.

They rolled with the same standards (adjusting the half standards down) for 2020 so as not to be in the same position again, as the Olympic standards hadn’t changed.

New qualifying process for the Olympics came out with a stricter time/ranking process, but the qualifying cycle had already started and wasn’t going to be made harder.

With those faster Olympic standards in place, USATF will adjust their standards for 2024 to fit what they want for a projected field size.

These threads complaining are pointless.

Can’t a country have stricter standard than the Olympic standard? Yes? No? Source?

In the late 60s anyone could run the US marathon Olympic Trials.

otter wrote:

They need to drop the female standard so it is consistent with the men. 500+ is crazy

Are you a woman?????

If not, then it's none of your business.

Boom for the economy for the hosting city.

Atlanta2020 wrote:

Everyone advocating to decrease field size please stop. You are not helping grow the sport. If you want more people to care about our sport give them a reason. story lines coming from the sub elites and so Many more people will be looking to follow the race this year. Be nice to see 400-500 men and women. Your elitist attitude is killing a sport that is already not that popular to watch on tv. Let get field sizes to 400-500 on both sides.

The trials marathon is to select the US team, not to grow the sport. To grow the sport we already have numerous USATF CERTIFIED races, once you get to the trials it should really mean you have developed and are competitive enough to have a realistic shot at making the team.

It's cool to have more runners to run with during the race for those who qualified but have little chance of making the team. Could run in larger pack and perhaps push to get a new PB. Maybe make some new pals and build connections in the running world. How is any of this a bad thing?

The purity you want isn't the trials, it's the olympics. The race that really matters.

Plus, it'll only be "too many runners" for a little while at the starting line. Then the runners with a chance will move to the front together and it'll be similar to the Japan race.

relax.

masacote wrote:

walter j wrote:

I don’t understand these threads.

For 2016 the standards had to be loosened when the Olympic standards were released so that the OT standards weren’t faster.

They rolled with the same standards (adjusting the half standards down) for 2020 so as not to be in the same position again, as the Olympic standards hadn’t changed.

New qualifying process for the Olympics came out with a stricter time/ranking process, but the qualifying cycle had already started and wasn’t going to be made harder.

With those faster Olympic standards in place, USATF will adjust their standards for 2024 to fit what they want for a projected field size.

These threads complaining are pointless.

Can’t a country have stricter standard than the Olympic standard? Yes? No? Source?

Sure, they can. That is not USATF’s precedent which is why for the 2016 trials they made the switch.