44% of U.S Olympic marathon trials runners qualified with 1:04-1:05 half marathon

I'm in a time crunch, so I don't have long to read the other replies at the moment, but as someone said what about using other distances to qualify? I know most 50k races are trails, but maybe those, ths 25k in Grand Rapids is really competitive, and I'm sure there are other metric system races between 13.1 miles and a bit above, like maybe 40 miles can be the cut off? Or even allow 50 mile races to have qualifying times?

Now I'm not sure what those times or conversions would be at the moment, but just an idea. Great thread so far! Lots of good conversation.

HRE,

Thanks for correcting my memory on the year of the fast NYC.

Just a thought- Maybe the athlete isn't doing the 1/2 on fewer miles. We all agree that marathon day can be brutal and recovery tough. An athlete may decide to engage a marathon training cycle yet not race the distance but the 1/2 marathon distance to get the qualifier. Very similar approach to heats on the track where you run just hard enough to make the final.

Thanks HRE!

I agree. I actually said that a 1:04 was "equal" to more like a 2:16. But you're right...if the focus isn't on marathon training/racing (and if the runner is more of a 10km runner), they probably aren't going to run 2:16. I think there are a lot less sub 2:17 guys than sub 1:05 guys in the US.

Maybe in a country like Japan there are more though?

I'm all for getting more OTQs and the half marathon qualifiers are very talented runners who work hard. A lot have great potential in the marathon and totally deserve to be there.

I don't think very many guys will DNF at the trials either (usually not very many do). The ones that do usually are showing up injured. A lot of guys will tough out a 2:20-2:22 even if it means they are running a big positive split and really suffering from hitting the wall hard (i.e. going out in 1:07 for the half, coming back in 1:13). But it's the trials...you might as well risk it all for your fastest possible race (unless you are a true contender for the team)!

The mileage and training level is likely very high for most to run a sub 1:05 half (depends on talent level too...are we talking about a barely sub 30min 10km runner or a guy that ran a sub 29 in college?). 100mpw+ and demanding sessions like 2-mile repeats and 1km repeats. However, the difference is long specific marathon type of workouts (i.e. 3 x 5km, long Tempos) and 20+ mile Long Runs. That will separate the pure marathoners from the 10km/half marathon guys. The half is a lot more like the 10km and really does have a lot less in common with the full.

I guess for my own selfish reasons (i.e. not qualifying for the 2016 trials yet) I'd like the marathon standard to still be in the 2:20 range...it would open up the race to a lot of "sub elite" national class guys that might be more motivated to race and train more at 26.2. I think it would be good for future development. Remember in 2012, the 2:19:00 was the "A" standard. I think that was better.

sebcoe7 wrote:

We are selecting an OLYMPIC team and potentially we could have a team in Rio with three runners only running their 2nd marathon. Does anyone really believe those runners are truly prepared to compete in a marathon against the best in the world?

Actually, I think a team of Rupp, Derrick and Chelanga would be as strong as anything you could put together from the marathon qualifying group.

I was pulling for you to get the standard and I really don't get why they couldn't have left it at 2:19 or even raised it to a low to mid 2:20 thing and have it be a "pay your own way" sort of deal if you were outside 2:18 or so.

You're probably right about the drop out rate at the Trials. If I'd ever qualified I'd have finished even if I had to be out there all day. It would have been a lifetime experience and I wouldn't have wanted a DNF to end the whole thing.

You're also bang on the mark, I think, about the different types of 1:05 guy. In the way that an 800/1500 type track guy can run a respectable 5,000 but struggle at 10,000 so too can a 5,000/10,000 type guy run a respectable half but struggle at the marathon. My point, in reference to you, is that we know from past performances that unless the roof caved in for you or you throw all caution to the wind you'd have run at worst a hair or two outside of 2:20 and maybe a lot better while a lot of these 1:04-1:05 guys will end up a lot slower because they haven't worked out how to maximize their marathon performances.

Eddie Bauman, I agree completely that there are some guys training for the marathon but qualifying with a half in hopes of being fresher. If they're qualifying late that's probably smart but I think they'd be better getting some actual marathon experience under their belts if there is sufficient time for recovery but that's not a given. John Treacy managed to do pretty well in his first marathon.

I thought about starting another thread for this but figured I'd put it here since it's very relevant to the OP's point.

Here's Diego Estrada's training in his own words from this time last year:

http://espn.go.com/blog/endurance/post/_/id/2537/track-standout-diego-estrada-eyeing-longer-distances-u-s-team-berth

He says "I run about 50 miles per week. Even for this half-marathon, the highest I got up to was about 70 miles." He goes on to get specific about the very high quality of each workout and the density of the training. He is coached by Vigil, who over 10 years ago put this out regarding Deena's training leading up to her bronze in Athens:

http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_1/the-anatomy-of-a-medal.shtml

This shows what you would expect from a world-class marathoner, and is not different than what Canova has released on his elite Italian women and Africans: a peak of 140 mpw with an 8 week stretch averaging over 100.

Does anyone have any idea what Estrada has been doing to bridge the gap between 50-70 mile weeks at extremely high quality to true marathoner work? Vigil being Vigil I assume he has it all figured out but that is a huge jump to make in 12 months, unless Estrada was just lying in that article.

Homunculus wrote:

Actually, I think a team of Rupp, Derrick and Chelanga would be as strong as anything you could put together from the marathon qualifying group.

Had they all qualified with marathons, which they didn't, then run awesomely well at the trials ~ then maybe, but that is unlikely to happen. What is likely to happen is that the first three at the trials will be the strongest, of those who compete. I think Chelanga will have the best chance of those three.

"We are selecting an OLYMPIC team and potentially we could have a team in Rio with three runners only running their 2nd marathon. Does anyone really believe those runners are truly prepared to compete in a marathon against the best in the world?"

with this logic, do you really think a 2:17-2:18 marathoner with more marathoner experience is also truly prepared to compete in a marathon against the best in the world?

The bases of the marathon trails obviously isn't to only have those runners in the race who are competing to be the best in the world, if that was the case the standard would be what, 2:13 give or take and the field size would be 20-30 tops

do you honestly believe your marathoner will finish in the top 3 and move on? If so, why not keep the half standards and let others chase the dream underdog dream as well.

Ironically we only had 1 of 3 US team members even finish the Olympic marathon in 2012. Same thing for the women in 2008.

Go back to 1992 and check Spence, Eyestone and Kempainen when they went 12th, 13th and 17th in Barcelona. None had rock star PR's.

Running well in championship races is for the people are consistent. Guys like Meb.

We don't need the three "fastest" people on the Olympic team, we need three good competitors under championship conditions.

The question wasn't whether they would be strong, but rather prepared to compete against a Olympic field. Each one is a strong, talented runner as likely whoever qualifies is.

But how much better prepared to compete against a Olympic class field would they be if they had run a marathon last year to gain experience, whether they had run good or poor.

Marathoning in this country will not get stronger or deeper if 10K/half marathoners use the 1/2 marathon qualifier to hedge their bets or actually see this as an easier route to the Trials or opportunity for a better payday than at the track trials.

I'd be perfectly fine with getting rid of the half standard with a two-tier marathon qualifying standard that was relatively softer than it is today, but I don't necessarily have a problem with a half standard, either.

Look, most of the 64min guys are going to go out in 66-67min and blow up. I don't think that's so much an effect of marathon inexperience, but of the nature of the Olympic Trials. It's a day to "swing for the fences" as it were. Go out there, run with the group, take your shot-- you'll probably fail, but failure can be useful. In our modern "if you're not first, you're last!" point of view, saying "it's ok to fail if you learn something useful" is almost blasphemy. I disagree. Ron Clarke once observed something similar in Australia--that youngsters are encouraged not to try if they can't win, and that's much worse than failing.

An acquaintance of mine who was a low 28min 10k runner for the US back in the early 2000s once told me he saw little point in going to the Trials and running a modest PR for 10th. True to his word, in his last Trials, he ran in the lead group until he couldn't anymore. It probably cost him a 2:12, which would have been a PR, but PRs aren't really the point of the Trials. He was older, this was his last realistic shot--unlike, say, a much younger guy, who might be looking at this race as experience for the next go-around.

Another point I've noticed is that Americans seem to put a lot of emphasis on finishing, then getting faster. That is, for Americans, the "ideal" 2:08 marathoner might debut at 2:11, then run 2:10, 2:09, and so on. I recall reading an interview where a Kenyan athlete (this was years ago on the now-defunct MensRacing.com site) thought this curious. He observed it was more common in Kenya for an athlete who wished to run 2:08 to make it maybe to 25k at that pace in his first attempt, then 30k, 35k, and so on. In America, an athlete with 3 DNFs then a 2:08 would probably be looked on with suspicion and derision. You can imagine the Letsrun comments now- "oh so Bill Shorter couldn't even finish a marathon last year, now he's a 2:08 guy? Blah blah blah doping."

Regarding specific marathon standards, I admit that it makes little sense to me for the Trials A standard to also be the Olympic A standard. The idea that the Trials is ONLY to select 3 athletes to represent the US at the Games is also strange to me, since I think the history of the event backs up the idea that the Trials is much more than that. As stated earlier in the thread, the head honchos at USATF seem to disagree, and would prefer a road race with maybe 20 athletes with a realistic shot. It seems to me a tremendous waste of resources to go through the trouble of staging a marathon for 20 people, as well as in opposition to the idea that the more milk one has, the more cream will rise to the top.

All this being said, I think the more-or-less sensible thing to do would be to have a reasonably tough A standard where qualifiers' expenses got covered, then a relatively "easy" B standard aimed at promoting depth and encouraging runners to run more marathons.

A standard, expenses paid: 2:15 (tougher than is ideal for expenses covered, I think, but let's throw a bone to the Mens' LDR committee)

B standard, $75 entry fee to defray costs: 2:24

I know people will disagree with an entry fee for the slower guys, but $75 is not a bad deal compared to the cost of many marathons, and, let's face it, if you're running sub-2:24, you're likely getting some entry fees already covered by your local marathons anyway and $75 isn't going to put you on the streets.

This two-tiered system represents, I think, a fair compromise between the two camps of "TRIALS ARE ONLY TO SELECT THREE!!!11" and "historically and practically, the Trials have always been about promotion and development, too."

Nice post. One point you missed is that there will be some people who will get in with marginal A standards or B standards this time around who will be much faster the next time and will have benefitted from having run in the previous trials. And a $75 entry fee would not be a big obstacle for many qualifiers especially as they'd also need to deal with paying for the trip and lodging.

grizz wrote:

B standard, $75 entry fee to defray costs: 2:24

I know people will disagree with an entry fee for the slower guys, but $75 is not a bad deal compared to the cost of many marathons, and, let's face it, if you're running sub-2:24, you're likely getting some entry fees already covered by your local marathons anyway and $75 isn't going to put you on the streets.

"

The idea of an entry fee to defray costs is ridiculous. In fact that USATF charges entrants to the Marathon trials is absurd to me. The cost that go in a big city marathon are huge. You have to shut down city streets get medical personal on hand, water and aid stations. Plus a bunch of other expenses. I know this is a loop course which will help but shutting down downtown LA for 4 or 5 hours midday ain't free. It is impossible to make any significant dent in that cost when you only have a few hundred runners total like at trials unless you charge runners an absurd amount. This isn't a mass participation marathon where there's thousands of runners forking over a couple hundred a piece to finance the event.

Good ideas. Plus those of us that hit the "A standard" in 2012 had to pay an entry fee to enter the race anyway!

HRE wrote:

Nice post. One point you missed is that there will be some people who will get in with marginal A standards or B standards this time around who will be much faster the next time and will have benefitted from having run in the previous trials. And a $75 entry fee would not be a big obstacle for many qualifiers especially as they'd also need to deal with paying for the trip and lodging.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

Do they still allow top 10 from the USA marathon championship enter?

I think the qualifying should be more about winning or placing highly in important races than simply times (not that I consider the USA marathon championship to be important).

As it is, both the full and half standards are easy enough that anyone remotely worthy can get into the race. It is also a marathon, so lanes being full doesn't get to be a problem until you get close to 1000 entrants (even then, it isn't a huge problem).

Picking the right A standard is important, but beyond that, I don't see a huge issue with letting 105 half 'thoners in.

You are clearly one who has nothing but reading knowledge of the marathon at the elite level (or unlikely, you are a known stud) Thousands have run qualifying PACE at shorter distances. FEW have arrived at 26.2 and received an award or a wreath. Do it yourself before you pontificate.