Still think the marathon trials standards should be this easy?

Desi’s first marathon was like 2:44. Sell’s was 2:20+. Would they have kept running with 2:15/2:35 standards?

you fat tool wrote:

what the actually F is a pregnant woman doing racing the trails! An absolute joke!

Smooth dirt trails are usually softer than hard roads, so they're a much better choice to run and race on.

Backwards reasoning wrote:

Jamin'sHSClassmate wrote:

when you have women running 2:20 to qualify, a woman who qualified with a 2:44 is 4 miles slower. 4 miles! A cutoff around the 2:35 range makes a lot more sense to me. Narrows the field quite a bit while still leaving lots of room for somebody to have a breakout race.

In your scenario, had this been a qualifying race, 2:20 marathoner Jordan Hasay who ran 2:37 would NOT have qualified.

Also, it's crazy that so many men keep trying to find fault with the women's marathon standards, the same that they didn't want women to vote, and didn't want women to run farther than 800 meters. This is the whole crux of this issue.

She ran 1:12 last year so why would that not have qualified her? If it didn't, then she would have been free to race again and get under the standard. If not, who cares? It's not like she made the team or even came close to.

We know why this happened: the gaff of WA all of the sudden lowering the standard to 2:11:30 and the outcry of many who were not prepared and got cut with their pants down. Comes 2020 the new world standard will be the measuring stick and adios to these mediocre C-class standards.

masacote wrote:

We know why this happened: the gaff of WA all of the sudden lowering the standard to 2:11:30 and the outcry of many who were not prepared and got cut with their pants down, including USATF. Comes 2020 the new world standard will be the measuring stick and adios to these mediocre C-class standards.

Fixed it.

masacote wrote:

masacote wrote:

We know why this happened: the gaff of WA all of the sudden lowering the standard to 2:11:30 and the outcry of many who were not prepared and got cut with their pants down, including USATF. Comes 2024 the new world standard will be the measuring stick and adios to these mediocre C-class standards.

Fixed it.

Fixed again.

Let's Talk wrote:

Its not just about the speed of the athletes, its about the health of the sport.

Nobody predicted the results of the trails. If the results could be predicted by PR's there wouldn't be a trials at all. They would just put the people with the fastest recent PR's on the team.

The more rigorous the standard, the fewer the opportunities for captivating stories where a runner rises to the occasion and does something incredible.

The more runners in the field, the more democratic and American then process.

How many runners would simply end their careers if they didn't even get a chance?

Are we this gentle and inclusive with 400m athletes? FYI, a 2:14 male Marathon is roughly equal to a 47.5 400m for men.

The men's race also had issues, with far fewer people. So the numbers aren't the problem.

HRE wrote:

A couple people falling as an argument for a smaller field is a very weak argument. I've seen people fall at the start of track races with fewer than 20 entrants. And races like Chicago, New York, Berlin, etc. manage to start fields of well above 10,000 safely.

I am sure people fall there as well.

But there are no 2-300 2:40ish women running in any of these races. It spreads out a lot faster in these big marathons for these runners sub 2:45.

In the trails a lot of them where going at similar abilities.

the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

It was like a carnival atmosphere in Atlanta with all the people there. a wonderful experience for runners and spectators and a great showcase for the sport...sadly it will probably never happen again.

so a few people tripped and only a select handful had a realistic chance of qualifying. i don't care. this is the type of event that running needs.

masacote wrote:

masacote wrote:

Fixed it.

Fixed again.

Work on fixing some of your basic grammar/spelling next time too.

I think in 2024 you will see:

Men 2:18

Women 2:42

I agree there were a few folks making a mockery of it - high fiving everyone just to drop out a 6 miles, or shooting Powerade bottles at trash cans like they’re a basketball goal - but this was by far the BEST running event I’ve been to and that’s thanks to the vast majority of athletes who left everything the course in front of a great crowd. Atlanta TC, well done

easy day wrote:

the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

It was like a carnival atmosphere in Atlanta with all the people there. a wonderful experience for runners and spectators and a great showcase for the sport...sadly it will probably never happen again.

so a few people tripped and only a select handful had a realistic chance of qualifying. i don't care. this is the type of event that running needs.

Once every 4 years it would be nice to let elite marathoners have a serious race in which they compete for the opportunity to represent our country at the Olympics. The other 3 years plus 365 days are fine for carnival fun runs and hobby jogger festivals.

Backwards reasoning wrote:

Jamin'sHSClassmate wrote:

when you have women running 2:20 to qualify, a woman who qualified with a 2:44 is 4 miles slower. 4 miles! A cutoff around the 2:35 range makes a lot more sense to me. Narrows the field quite a bit while still leaving lots of room for somebody to have a breakout race.

In your scenario, had this been a qualifying race, 2:20 marathoner Jordan Hasay who ran 2:37 would NOT have qualified.

Also, it's crazy that so many men keep trying to find fault with the women's marathon standards, the same that they didn't want women to vote, and didn't want women to run farther than 800 meters. This is the whole crux of this issue.

No, I think the men's times should be tightened as well. Go cry about social inequality elsewhere. Both races were too large, the womens field even more so. It resulted in injuries in both fields. This isnt about "men trying to find fault with women's marathon standards." That is such an absurd red herring. This is about people wanting the best americans to have the best shot at making the team. You have to find a balance. This year the balance wasnt struck, because USATF couldn't make standards faster than the Olympic standard, and they had already published the entry standards before the olympic standards changed.

2:17:30 & 2:32:15..done. Maybe 62:30 & 1:11:00 off the top of my head.

People fall. They fall in large race fields. They fall in small race fields.

HRE wrote:

People fall. They fall in large race fields. They fall in small race fields.

How wide are those roads? Walmsley runs on little tiny trails and never falls. Road runners must just be real clumsy.

Yes.