Still think the marathon trials standards should be this easy?

colorunner123 wrote:

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.

So are you suggesting that Saturday was not a serious race????? Times and depth say otherwise - esp on a course that was guaranteed to cause much of the field to crater.

Anyway, the atmosphere the poster was talking about was the crowds supporting the race - not the race itself, which was quite serious. Also that support was stated as a major benefit by those very same elite athletes. Those carnival runs (like oh the the NYC marathon or Boston) are quite different than these olympic trials. At least one coach called this the best trials ever (track or marathon).

That said, big field or little one really does not make much of a difference from a competitive standpoint so I don't understand the argument that having a larger field is somehow demeaning to the fastest participants or to anyone watching it. I fail to believe that moving the qualification line from the 99.95% percentile to the 99.98% is somehow that much better for the sport of running. The race will still select the most deserving team (that day) in either case.

Given that 200 or 700 people does the job equally well it really should be up to USATF and the race org committee how big a field they want. In Atlanta, they choose a big field which was very expensive for the ATC but great for the city and future bidders as the economic impact was likely pretty significant in a positive way - esp since the city had very little expense (unlike other big events) and was able to reap a lot of positive press. In another town, logistical or pragmatic matters may limit the size they can handle. And that would be okay. But by all accounts this was a wonderful event and if you are a running fan you should be extraordinarily pleased with how it turned out.

Unlike the field size but it should be a marathon on a track!!! That would keep the playing field more level for those who don’t run well on hills plus everyone would have to deal with the same crowd factor. Plus, you might see someone get lapped and come back and win!

*I like the field size

Thoughts the field sizes were fine. My social media was taken over by all of mid/back of the pack OTQ-ers. I read every story. I learned about people working full time jobs, overcoming serious obstacles, training with others, training alone, etc. It was fantastic. It didn't take away from the top end race. It enhanced things in the lead up to race day and afterwards.

It's clear that the men's/women's standards aren't even rn. I don't think that's a bad thing but I would try to touch it up a little. Maybe 2:20/2:43 for 2024. I like giving more people the chance to participate in events like this.

We've had people fall twice in the last 12 editions of the 10,000m in the olympics (both times the eventual champion btw). Is that an argument to abolish it?

DietBacon wrote:

We've had people fall twice in the last 12 editions of the 10,000m in the olympics (both times the eventual champion btw). Is that an argument to abolish it?

Nice idiotic strawman argument. People falling in a 10K would be a reason to analyze the situation and possibly make changes like having fewer people in the race.

So his 2:11 was a product of training to meet an inferior qualifying mark. OK.

One point of clarification: This is also the national marathon championships. So, the sole purpose of the race is not Olympic Team selection.

Road racing is such a weird sport. It's the only sport in which the world's best -- the elite of the elite -- are expected to compete amid an enormous field of amateurs.

Can you imagine if the NBA worked this way? Everybody's dad got their participation medal and their guaranteed 5-on-5 match and a big "fitness expo" before the real NBA players came out and got to play a real game of professional basketball? It would be laughable.

Running is the only sport where people have this idea that slow-pokes like me are "just as important" as the world's greatest athletes. I would love it if that attitude died right along with participation medals and couch-to-5K programs. The whole sport needs an attitude adjustment.

In short, yes, the trials standard should be tightened. There should be one race out of a bazillion in which the focus and the spotlight is placed on the elites. Either that, or their needs to be a whole separate professional running circuit that weekend warriors don't get access to unless they qualify somehow. One or the other would fix the issue.

most people have no chance at winning the olympic marathon, nor the US olympic marathon trials. some people are high school stars, some are college stars, and then there are those who are sub elite, all of whom will never win the olympic gold, so why not just let them have their fun at the olympic trials? maybe it'll cost tax payers a few more thousands of dollars to ensure the safety of these athletes, but come on, it's their dreams to make it to the olympic trials since it's the furthest that sub elite athletes can go. just have a bunch of tiers that are like 5 meters apart so that the slow guys won't get in the way of the faster ones.

No, it's not the only sport like that. Soccer's the biggest sport in the world, and in major soccer countries (and mid-majors, like the U.S.) there are domestic cup tournaments in which lower-division and even semi-pro teams get a chance to beat teams in the biggest professional leagues. They rarely win, but it occasionally happens.

?[/quote]

Yawn! And what the actually F is a pregnant woman doing racing the trails! An absolute joke![/quote]

You mean the 2:37 marathoner who showed up and did a great deal to challenge the fiction that pregnant women should be laying around all day? Both of the pregnant runners qualified for the race, are fantastic athletes, and had the right to be there. Not only that, they show others that it's possible to be a competitive athlete and mother.

This is a terrible analogy. The NBA has more athletes than competed in the trials last weekend, so NBA stars playing against even more inferior talent. Try again.

Are you trolling with with your whining?

The result of the Olympic Trials is selecting the team. The purpose, like every single race ever, is to entertain the spectators and create a fan base. And to a lesser but still important degree, fulfill the ambitions of the participants.

As far as I can tell, this year’s trials did both.

____________

So...running has an "enormous field of amateurs," not because they let sub-par people into the Olympic Trials, but because most of the competitors, except for the very best, are doing this without pay. A better analogy for the NBA would be taking away everybody's paycheck except for the All Stars. There's a huge difference between Lebron and the benchwarmers in the NBA, but the benchwarmers are light years beyond some guy off the street.

In other words, the marathon trials isn't letting hobby joggers into the race. It's just that running doesn't pay for people outside the top 15 or 20 in any given event.

To add clarity, more than 2 people fell within the first 800 meters alone. Plenty of spills throughout both of the races.

On Saturday, our local newspaper had an article about the guy who won our local marathon last fall and was running in the trials. I'd bet that upwards of 95% of the people who read the article would otherwise have had no idea that the trials were about to take place. Articles like that generate a bit of exposure for a sport that sorely needs it. The subject of the article had no chance of contending, but some people tuned in to watch an event they otherwise would have ignored. If every 2:21 marathoner (or 2:24 -- my number for a cutoff) generated that kind of awareness, then it would be worth it for the sport. A 2:24 guy or 2:42 woman has virtually no effect on the contenders but adds interest to the race.

That said, I am not advocating for the kind of "human interest" coverage the networks insist on when covering the actual race. Show me split screens of the leaders and get some more knowledgeable analysts.

Congrats on a completely brain dead analogy