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

masacote wrote:

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 fair to believe that the trials belong up on a pedestal. I get it. But, from a pragmatism standpoint, which scenario is more likely to make there be better competitors in the 2032 or 2036 trials? Might we have a bunch of 2:06-2:07 guys right now in 2020 if the 2004 or 2008 trials had been big and full of hometown heroes that inspired the best jr. high athletes to give running a try?

How about this for a compromise? Tighten the A standard, and loosen the B standard. Only give bottles and travel to the A standard folks. This achieves the double purpose of honoring the present while also building for the future.

I don’t have a problem with it.

It looks like we either need to make the men’s standard a little easier or the women’s standard a little harder. (Personally think the latter, maybe the 2 women on this forum disagree)

It’s a good goal to pursue, motivates runners, and is good for the sport. I doubt like a young 2:12 guy is gonna be motivated by a 2:10 standard, it’s probably not attainable for him at that point in his life. A 2:19 standard keeps him going tho, and he’ll be able to fight harder at the trials next time. The alternative could be a talented guy quitting because the standard is too hard.

The big fields hurt no one. Why change it?

The whole qualifying times are an example of reverse discrimination for men or actually telling women they are less capable of running to the same standard as men. Funny how women fight for equal considerations except when it comes to performance expectations. The men's standard is about 18 minutes slower than the world record whereas the women's is over 30 minutes. Who is this unfair to? Men, who have to actually run harder to qualify, or women who have to run slower to qualify. Women should be telling USATF that they are being held to a LOWER standard and ask that their qualifying times are equal to men's, not lower. There was time 20 years ago that women may not have had the same opportunities for competition that men did and a lower standard afforded more women the chance to participate, but that time has long passed. Women please stand up for your rights and demand the same standards as men. Don't let USATF tell you that you are less capable of meeting the same standards as men in the marathon.

I’m torn on this. I barely missed the track trials many years ago and if the 400m standards were as loose (based on # of qualifiers) as the marathon I’d have qualified by a country mile. Obviously you can’t have 10 rounds of the 400 while it’s no issue lining up 500 marathoners. Still, it does bug me how relatively easy it is to OTQ for the marathon vs the track

When the field blooms to 200, 300, 500, does that mean they start taking 5, 6, or 10 runners to the Olympics? Oh wait, I already know the answer: no, still just the top 3.

Who cares how many people start the race? The process is still producing the three fastest marathoners on race day. People on here can whine all they want about where the line between "elite" and "sub-elite" is, but 2:19 is pretty f-ing fast in the grand scheme of things. Everyone in that race is going to be a fully committed runner who has dedicated thousands of hours to this project. I, for one, am excited that so many people are running that fast. Good for them and good for the sport.

IndoorSznn wrote:

It looks like we either need to make the men’s standard a little easier or the women’s standard a little harder. (Personally think the latter, maybe the 2 women on this forum disagree)

Are you a woman?

If not, then you have no say about what the women choose to do.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

I think a good idea is have very strict qualifying standards. Say, top 50 men and top 50 women. Then let anyone who wants to race pay a high entry fee. Say $500 to enter. I'd bet 1,000 runners would pay that to be at the Olympic Trials. Then they can turn around and use that to have much larger rewards. Say, $100k for first, $50k for 2nd, $25k for third, $10k for 4th-10th, $5k for 11th-25th, and $2,500 for 26th-50th.

This would get US running off the ground because there's a lot more motivation for being the best in the country.

Well that’s a pay cut for 2nd - 4th compared to reality.

Precious Roy wrote:

USATF generally treats distance running like crap. The trials is the one time USATF shows some generosity and a commitment to athlete development and expanding the popularity of the marathon with sub elite runners. Elite marathoning in the US is very much a product of a tiny handful of sponsored training groups. Having a wider net for the trials means that more runners will dedicate themselves to training on an elite level. That means more runners to support the top 10% of the field that has a chance to get a spot on the team. So, if you turn the trials into what Japan does, you will end up with maybe two or three elite marathon training groups. And if you cannot get into one of those groups, there is no reason to try to be an elite marathoner.

I agree with this, a 200 person field is fine by me. I think the 2:19 standard the men's race set is good. For the women though, 500 qualifiers is really pushing it. Making a slightly tighter standard of 2:38 - 2:40, still gives sub-elites a good chance to qualify, but would keep the field more manageable.

100% agree. I hope it's not a sh**show but those numbers are risking it. If any club can pull it off, ATC can.

If you don't have a chance of winnng, why are you getting in everybody's way?!? It's a perpetual issue of hobby joggers nudging their way into events just to waste time and resources...

Listening to Sara Hall on Ryan's Run Free Podcast, holy crap she is unlistenable "like, um, like like because like it was like because like I thought God like had like it in love like" ... she graduated from Stanford?

Hey - 800 ?

Nothing. Way less than in the major marathons around the world. The faster ones will get out in front, and the slow ones will be finished within 15 minutes of the winner.

All good.

They'll fill the hotel rooms, bring their family and have fun. It'll be an experience.

I can't believe all you hobby joggers are so up in arms.

2-15 ? 2-20 ? 3 minutes. All the same.

Come back when you have 20 guys running sub 2-08

Until then, party on

Kenya had 90 guys run sub 2:10 last year

Ethiopia had 68

Japan had 8

USA had 1

Olympic marathon is not really competitive compared to any major

I can see the enlighten view and the rigid view. One prefers quality (the rigid view) while the enlighten view prefers quantity. I can see a lot of sub-elite runners and butt hurt because their only real chance at having anything remotely attached to the word "Olympic" is the OT marathon.

Let's get serious here. Does it sound convincing to any of you that the male minimum Marathon standard for this race is slower than the times of the top woman in the world? Do you see now how ridiculous that 2:19 standard is? If you can't see that, then I am terribly sorry for ya'll, go ahead keep glorifying mediocrity.

I can’t believe we are arguing this. A couple hundred people in a road marathon is NOT crowded. Most sound like they only want three guys and three girls in the race. “Only those with a shot at making the team” mentality. Cmon. Let them race. Who cares if there’s 50 or 500 people in the race. 500 makes it more interesting and guess what? The top three will be the same no matter what. Do you really think the 500th qualifier is going to mess up Hassey’s chance at qualifying???? Give me a break. I wouldn’t care if there are 5,000 entrants. The results will not be changed. Let them run and quit complaining about how many qualifiers there are.

Question to those who say limit it down to ten men.... would you feel the same had you qualified this year? That’s what I thought.

There should not be a trials at all. They should be selected by fastest time on any record-legal course during a set qualifying period of about 1 year.

That ensures that your best will make it without risking losing them to a bad day or freak injury, and it avoids ruining them by putting an unnecessary race into their legs.

If the Ethiopians were smart picking a team, would they make Bekele run a trials? Would the Kenyans make Kipchoge? It's dumb.

this post is garbage.

sure you have to be capable to 210 to be legit.

but you have like 750 happy people to dream about that long shot day where they might get in the top 10, or better. they can tell the long fish story where they were good enough to go to the trials.

anyone against this, is anti-human, and needs to be shipped to a lizard zoo.

in other words f*** off.

Bad Wigins wrote:

There should not be a trials at all. They should be selected by fastest time on any record-legal course during a set qualifying period of about 1 year.

That ensures that your best will make it without risking losing them to a bad day or freak injury, and it avoids ruining them by putting an unnecessary race into their legs.

If the Ethiopians were smart picking a team, would they make Bekele run a trials? Would the Kenyans make Kipchoge? It's dumb.

i just posted for trials, but you make lots of sense. but what really is sensible in the track and field world?

i vote for the fun element. i vote for hard working runners to have a taste of glory.

basement dwellers say what they will.

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.

I also disagree with too many. Let me give you an example: I am currently coaching a female OTQ. She finished grad school last spring, previously ran in a small D3 school in Minnesota, decent times but nothing amazing. She ran though grad school mostly to keep sane, and not really thinking about any lofty goals. After graduating she decided she wanted to give marathons a try because she hadn't found a job in her career field yet. On 45 miles a week, first marathon, she ran 2:43:xx, got her qualifier, and decided to give marathons a shot. I expect her to run 2:34-36 on her first real marathon cycle, and can definitely see her under 2:30 in the near future. These are the people we should be helping develop, because with a few years of solid training, she could be another US 2:25-:28 runner.