They are still finalizing a couple things.
Early Report
2:40 women
2:18 men
All courses must be record eligible
Hoping for 150-200 for each gender
1. Super shoes changed things
2. Non record courses are a joke
Possibly allowing Boston
They are still finalizing a couple things.
Early Report
2:40 women
2:18 men
All courses must be record eligible
Hoping for 150-200 for each gender
1. Super shoes changed things
2. Non record courses are a joke
Possibly allowing Boston
I don't have any issues with what you have listed. A bunch of borderline 2:20 guys / 2:42 girls won't be able to run downhill races in super shoes to squeeze under the standard and that's not a bad thing at all.
Kudos to the committee for the course idea. I personally felt that 2:16/2:38 should have been the standard if you were going to allow downhill courses in the age of carbon plated shoes.
CIM goes home devastated!
Record Eligibility:
"The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance."
"The decrease in elevation between the start and finish shall not exceed an average of one in a thousand, i.e. 1m per km."
seems about right
How do they allow Boston but not CIM/Grandma’s?!
Any word if the window will be open this fall?
jusanotha217guy wrote:
How do they allow Boston but not CIM/Grandma’s?!
Any word if the window will be open this fall?
My guess is that it is not record eligible but rather World Athletics qualifying eligible. Grandmas is, but CIM and Boston aren't. My guess is they will allow Boston and say it is because it has some significant uphills.
https://www.worldathletics.org/records/certified-roadeventshttps://media.aws.iaaf.org/competitioninfo/59f1eb12-f9bb-4f35-8adb-1d518a42ded1.pdfAckley wrote:
jusanotha217guy wrote:
How do they allow Boston but not CIM/Grandma’s?!
Any word if the window will be open this fall?
My guess is that it is not record eligible but rather World Athletics qualifying eligible. Grandmas is, but CIM and Boston aren't. My guess is they will allow Boston and say it is because it has some significant uphills.
Ackley wrote:
jusanotha217guy wrote:
How do they allow Boston but not CIM/Grandma’s?!
Any word if the window will be open this fall?
My guess is that it is not record eligible but rather World Athletics qualifying eligible. Grandmas is, but CIM and Boston aren't. My guess is they will allow Boston and say it is because it has some significant uphills.
None of those are record eiligble.
Ackley wrote:
jusanotha217guy wrote:
How do they allow Boston but not CIM/Grandma’s?!
Any word if the window will be open this fall?
My guess is that it is not record eligible but rather World Athletics qualifying eligible. Grandmas is, but CIM and Boston aren't. My guess is they will allow Boston and say it is because it has some significant uphills.
For all the crap CIM gets, Boston has MORE net downhill and Less overall elevation gain. CIM typically has good weather, but rarely, if ever, a significant tailwind.
Boston is a major. That's be all the excuse they'd need to exempt it - it's a major bro. That would really hurt west coast runners and anyone outside new england really.
Still going to be half standards?
Olympic qualifying- top 10 at a World Marathon Major (Boston) qualifies.
https://media.aws.iaaf.org/competitioninfo/59716a97-c681-4221-a5fd-6e5a782e3a78.pdf
CIM should host a loop course downtown (or on the last 6 miles of the course out and back) for anyone wanting to run the standard the next two years. Flat as hell.
Why doesn’t the committee just make it easy on themselves & make the standard whatever World Athletics decides, with qualifying races on WA approved courses, plus the top 150/200/250 (let the host city decide how many) off the descending order list to fill the field?
I’d also consider making the 1/2 marathon standard based off the 20th/25th fastest time with restrictions on what courses can be used to get qualifiers. Also make the end of the qualifying period 60 days before the trials.
That way, the Trials host city knows for sure how many athletes they have competing. Sure would hate for whoever hosts to get stuck losing money like Atlanta did.
OP- How do you know these will be the standards? Were you at the committee meeting? And if so, when are they going to finalize these standards?
There's a reason 11 of the top 20 fastest American marathon runners have their fastest time at Boston. It's significantly downhill, and quite often has a bit of a tail wind with a point to point race. World athletics result calcualtor takes off a solid minute or more depending on how fast you are. An elite man running under 2:10 it's about a minute and gets closer to two minutes for the elite women, and would be multiple minutes for a much slower person.
Not Grandma's wrote:
Ackley wrote:
My guess is that it is not record eligible but rather World Athletics qualifying eligible. Grandmas is, but CIM and Boston aren't. My guess is they will allow Boston and say it is because it has some significant uphills.
None of those are record eiligble.
Read the documents that I attached to my second post above. A "point to point" course is eligible for legal top lists, ENTRY STANDARDS, and world rankings if the net elevation loss is less than one meter per kilometer.
A marathon is 42.2 kilometers. Therefore, a net elevation loss of 42.2 meters is allowed.
Grandma's has a net elevation loss of 38 meters. It makes the cut for World Athletics entry standards by a small margin.
CIM has a net elevation loss of 104 meters. Too much.
Boston has a net elevation loss of 140 meters. Too much.
For the purposes this discussion, St. George has a net elevation loss of 780 meters.
committee will be disliked wrote:
They are still finalizing a couple things.
Early Report
2:40 women
2:18 men
All courses must be record eligible
Hoping for 150-200 for each gender
1. Super shoes changed things
2. Non record courses are a joke
Possibly allowing Boston
Women are generally 30 seconds per mile slower than men over a marathon or 13 minutes. Why is there a 22 minute gap between the qualifying times? 2:40 is equivalent to a 2:27 male runner qualifying.
Women are generally 30 seconds per mile slower than men over a marathon or 13 minutes. Why is there a 22 minute gap between the qualifying times? 2:40 is equivalent to a 2:27 male runner qualifying.[/quote]
Although you’re not wrong if they made the women’s standard 13 minutes slower (2:18) than the men’s it would be 2:31 and there’s probably less than 50 women in the country who will run that.
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Sometimes it seems like Cooper Teare is not that good BUT…
Ingebrigtsen brothers release incredibly catchy Olympic music video (listen here + full lyrics)
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach