The new WC US Marathon standards are out.

What timeframe, and who is in now?

I don't hate it.

USATF wants contenders for medals instead of rewarding 2:14 / 2:32 runners with an all expenses paid vacation. It also forces better Americans to run at domestic WMM events instead of second and third tier races where they will not be challenged nor run particularly fast times.

So long as the Oly Trials still exist for younger post collegiate athletes to shoot for, then it is probably a smart move.

Source, please.

Great news for anyone who likes head to head competetion

I am calling BS although it wouldn't be surprising if all of the 2022 Team members met this criteria.

So Sisson wouldn't be eligible? Or could they still use Boston 22?

I wonder then, what might happen if, say, some recent grad goes to Dubai and runs a 2:04.

Come on guys, someone go for it!

how special is special wrote:

Must be in the top 10 at Olympics, Chicago, Boston or NY. Full stop.

No other marathon matters.

I don't believe the WC marathon has ever been a high prestige event and the top runners usually skip it. I suppose if Rupp runs it, it will receive more attention than it usually does.

I like the athletes who will likely go as a result of the criteria, but I hate the criteria and it's dumb they finally posted it. All of the majors are done except New York and it's kind of too late for anyone to suddenly decide to get in New York and do well. It should have been known over the summer what the criteria was.

It will likely be Rupp (supposedly he intends to run it), Colin Bennie, and either Colin Mickow or whoever the top American at New York is. I could see Ben True being the third person. For women looks Seidel will get the free selection, and then Emma Bates. And then will be up to either Sara Hall, Nel Rojas, or someone who emerges from New York.

A good selection, bad and late criteria wrote:

It will likely be Rupp (supposedly he intends to run it).

What are the odds Rupp runs this in front of friends and family and promptly retires?

Zero. He's a lock for the 2024 Games, and logic tells me he'd have a very good shot at top-3 in the 2028 Trials. Rupp is our Nick.

A good selection, bad and late criteria wrote:

I like the athletes who will likely go as a result of the criteria, but I hate the criteria and it's dumb they finally posted it. All of the majors are done except New York and it's kind of too late for anyone to suddenly decide to get in New York and do well. It should have been known over the summer what the criteria was.

It will likely be Rupp (supposedly he intends to run it), Colin Bennie, and either Colin Mickow or whoever the top American at New York is. I could see Ben True being the third person. For women looks Seidel will get the free selection, and then Emma Bates. And then will be up to either Sara Hall, Nel Rojas, or someone who emerges from New York.

I think you mean CJ Albertson instead of Micklow or whoever beats Bennie’s or Albertson’s times at NYC.

Seems weird criteria limiting it to WMM races and announcing it two weeks before the last qualification race. What if CJ runs a 2:09 at CIM?

A good selection, bad and late criteria wrote:

I like the athletes who will likely go as a result of the criteria, but I hate the criteria and it's dumb they finally posted it. All of the majors are done except New York and it's kind of too late for anyone to suddenly decide to get in New York and do well. It should have been known over the summer what the criteria was.

Even though that wouldn't change a damn thing

It comes down to time after placing, which really hurts New York. I can't think of a single reason an athlete should chose that over Chicago, a much faster course, unless he or she suspects the field there is much weaker.

I think they are using placing, so Mickow is now second because he was 6th at Chicago, whereas Bennie was 7th at Boston. That doesn’t make sense, but that seems to be how they are trying to choose the best marathoners. I hope I’m wrong; Boston had a much deeper field of international men than Chicago, and Bennie was a lot closer to the winner of Boston than 6th was at Chicago.

As someone who is trying to qualify for the world championships for a different country, maybe I can shed some light on the criteria:

World championship qualifications:

1. 2:11:30 / 2:29:30

2. Top 10 finish at platinum label race (WMM + Amsterdam, Seoul, and a couple of other races. Maybe Valencia?)

3. Winner of gold label race

4. After 1-3 has declared. Any remaining spots may be filled using world rankings.

Qualifying times need to be run on a world Athletics approved / record eligible course. So CIM is out (excessive elevation loss). Times run on courses like CIM/Boston/Grandma’s will be eligible for world rankings (see #4) with an adjustment for net elevation loss. CIM has a 15 pt penalty based on the IAAF tables (about 55-60s for a 2:15-2:20 performance).

USATF probably made its selection criteria based on the fact that the domestic WMM races will fulfill WC selection criteria #2 above.

[quote]dual citizen wrote:

As someone who is trying to qualify for the world championships for a different country, maybe I can shed some light on the criteria:

World championship qualifications:

1. 2:11:30 / 2:29:30

2. Top 10 finish at platinum label race (WMM + Amsterdam, Seoul, and a couple of other races. Maybe Valencia?)

3. Winner of gold label race

4. After 1-3 has declared. Any remaining spots may be filled using world rankings.

Qualifying times need to be run on a world Athletics approved / record eligible course. So CIM is out (excessive elevation loss). Times run on courses like CIM/Boston/Grandma’s will be eligible for world rankings (see #4) with an adjustment for net elevation loss. CIM has a 15 pt penalty based on the IAAF tables (about 55-60s for a 2:15-2:20 performance).

USATF probably made its selection criteria based on the fact that the domestic WMM races will fulfill WC selection criteria #2

Grandma's is a World Athletics approved course for qualifying because its elevation loss is less than 42 meters (but not for records since it is point-to-point). However, it is really an academic discussion for thiz thread because I don't think an American has run under 2:11:30 there in years (decades?).

Did this just come out now?

When Jonathan Gault wrote his piece on the 4 x 100 team, I meant to write an accompanying piece entitled, "Amateur hour at USATF." Just about how unprofessional the group is. They don't think their head coach needs to talk to the media, their 4 x 100 coach, etc.

Now they release a standard AFTER 2 of the 3 races are already held? That's ridiculous. Things like this should be published MONTHS ahead of time so people can make their appropriate decisions. Now, considering nearly all of the elite US marathoners try to run a US major, it may not have the much of an actual impact on the quality of the team but the fact tha it's being announced now is absurd.