I've been thinking about writing about the difference in the men's and women's fields and overall races at the Olympic Trials last weekend. Fortunately, David Monti did some good work on summarizing the numbers already...
http://www.letsrun.com/2012/wmtrials-0118.php
Having been around the national class marathoning scene now for over 10 years, I have seen US marathoning grow and improve in quality and depth. Others agree...
http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.com/2012/01/american-marathoning-has-really.html
The elimination of the men's "B" standard (you can compete, but you don't get funding for travel/accommodations) and the lowering of the "A" standard to 2:19:00 was controversial at the time. The women still have a "B" standard, and those two different procedures make the standards seem, well, arbitrary. The implementation of a half marathon and 10k standard (which were used for the previous trials as well) were also controversial. With this Trials on the books, it's a good time to do some objective evaluation of what effect the changes and different mens/womens standards may have had. How did they effect the fields? How did they impact the race itself? What effect may they have on US marathoning in general?
Looking at the women's field vs. the men's, you can can see some differences. The biggest difference is obviously the larger field for the women's race, which made all of the records for field depth possible. The men's race, from a depth perspective, looks a lot deeper at the front, though it is difficult to compare given the more challenging course in New York, and the different racing dynamics that resulted. This Trials had 21 men under 2:15 (vs. 7 in NY) and 50 under 2:20 (vs. 39 in NY).
At the front, both the men's and women's races in Houston, were impressively faster than previous trials. Again, it's difficult to say how much of this is related to the difference in courses vs. the difference in qualifying times vs. the difference in the overall quality of runners. For the women, that difference and improvement in depth carried down through the entirety of the field. For the men, the effect diminishes and disappears deeper into the field.
The women's finishing percentage was 81.7%, while the men's was 76.5%. A much greater percentage of the men's field got in on the standards of the shorter distances (about 33%, I believe). I don't know how many of the DNFs were due to injury, illness, etc. and how many may have been conscious decisions by those shorter distance specialists to save the legs for another day. Which brings me back to the original questions...what effect have these changes in qualifying standards had?
On the impact of eliminating the B standard for the men...
At the front of the race, I don't think the different standards have had any impact at all. Meb, Hall, Abdi, and Ritz were the contenders. They're all seasoned marathoners. They don't care if there are 111 guys in the race, or 211 or 30,000. They separate themselves and do what they need to do in whatever circumstances they face. Same thing with the top women.
As for the rest of us...Fewer men than women participated, and fewer of those who qualified actually finished. The slowest finishing times were the same from NY to Houston, but fewer men were out there getting the experience and giving it a shot. Even as a 3rd time Trials participant, I really experienced the boost in intensity and focus that comes with preparing for the Trials. I think that the more young, developing talents we can get preparing for the Trials, the more we will see improvements in depth and quality of American marathoning.
There's obviously a cap that needs to be placed, and it will always be somewhat arbitrary, but I think USATF ought to consider it a priority to get greater numbers of athletes involved at the national level. As one agent told me once...you get 500 guys who can run 2:20, and maybe 50 of them can eventually get down to 2:15. Of those 50 guys, maybe 1 can get down to 2:09.
In other words, you need numbers and you need to keep people motivated and involved. Having watched, over the last 15 years, literally thousands of collegiate runners who were all better than me either run for a year or two after college, or not at all, I think I can safely say that we have had a lot of great talent slip through the cracks. Some of that can't be changed. If you aren't motivated to compete anymore, no incentive will bring that back. But for the large majority who would like to compete but feel they can't justify it given the need to "get a real job", having a shot to run the Trials may be just the hook that they need.
On the implementation of the half marathon and 10 standards....
I was skeptical of these "other standards" when they were first used back in the last Trials. There was actually a 5k standard as well for those Trials. My opinion has shifted. Looking at the number of athletes who qualified on the half marathon standard and then ran very strong times at the Trials, I think it is obvious that the use of the half marathon standard is having the desired effect of encouraging younger athletes to give the marathon a shot without forcing them to fully commit to it and therefore compromising their track and other racing goals.
The 10k standard, in my opinion, needs to go the way of the 5k standard. It's not necessary, and I don't think it's expecting too much to ask an athlete to go and run a half in order to demonstrate a modest level of prowess at the longer distances. The marathon is over 4 times longer than the 10k -- it just doesn't make sense to use 10k times as a standard.
As a coach, I'm very interested to see what happens with the qualification standards for the next round of the Olympic Trials Marathon. The above are just my opinions, thoughts and observations...I'm curious to know what other people think.
http://www.letsrun.com/2012/wmtrials-0118.php
Having been around the national class marathoning scene now for over 10 years, I have seen US marathoning grow and improve in quality and depth. Others agree...
http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.com/2012/01/american-marathoning-has-really.html
The elimination of the men's "B" standard (you can compete, but you don't get funding for travel/accommodations) and the lowering of the "A" standard to 2:19:00 was controversial at the time. The women still have a "B" standard, and those two different procedures make the standards seem, well, arbitrary. The implementation of a half marathon and 10k standard (which were used for the previous trials as well) were also controversial. With this Trials on the books, it's a good time to do some objective evaluation of what effect the changes and different mens/womens standards may have had. How did they effect the fields? How did they impact the race itself? What effect may they have on US marathoning in general?
Looking at the women's field vs. the men's, you can can see some differences. The biggest difference is obviously the larger field for the women's race, which made all of the records for field depth possible. The men's race, from a depth perspective, looks a lot deeper at the front, though it is difficult to compare given the more challenging course in New York, and the different racing dynamics that resulted. This Trials had 21 men under 2:15 (vs. 7 in NY) and 50 under 2:20 (vs. 39 in NY).
At the front, both the men's and women's races in Houston, were impressively faster than previous trials. Again, it's difficult to say how much of this is related to the difference in courses vs. the difference in qualifying times vs. the difference in the overall quality of runners. For the women, that difference and improvement in depth carried down through the entirety of the field. For the men, the effect diminishes and disappears deeper into the field.
The women's finishing percentage was 81.7%, while the men's was 76.5%. A much greater percentage of the men's field got in on the standards of the shorter distances (about 33%, I believe). I don't know how many of the DNFs were due to injury, illness, etc. and how many may have been conscious decisions by those shorter distance specialists to save the legs for another day. Which brings me back to the original questions...what effect have these changes in qualifying standards had?
On the impact of eliminating the B standard for the men...
At the front of the race, I don't think the different standards have had any impact at all. Meb, Hall, Abdi, and Ritz were the contenders. They're all seasoned marathoners. They don't care if there are 111 guys in the race, or 211 or 30,000. They separate themselves and do what they need to do in whatever circumstances they face. Same thing with the top women.
As for the rest of us...Fewer men than women participated, and fewer of those who qualified actually finished. The slowest finishing times were the same from NY to Houston, but fewer men were out there getting the experience and giving it a shot. Even as a 3rd time Trials participant, I really experienced the boost in intensity and focus that comes with preparing for the Trials. I think that the more young, developing talents we can get preparing for the Trials, the more we will see improvements in depth and quality of American marathoning.
There's obviously a cap that needs to be placed, and it will always be somewhat arbitrary, but I think USATF ought to consider it a priority to get greater numbers of athletes involved at the national level. As one agent told me once...you get 500 guys who can run 2:20, and maybe 50 of them can eventually get down to 2:15. Of those 50 guys, maybe 1 can get down to 2:09.
In other words, you need numbers and you need to keep people motivated and involved. Having watched, over the last 15 years, literally thousands of collegiate runners who were all better than me either run for a year or two after college, or not at all, I think I can safely say that we have had a lot of great talent slip through the cracks. Some of that can't be changed. If you aren't motivated to compete anymore, no incentive will bring that back. But for the large majority who would like to compete but feel they can't justify it given the need to "get a real job", having a shot to run the Trials may be just the hook that they need.
On the implementation of the half marathon and 10 standards....
I was skeptical of these "other standards" when they were first used back in the last Trials. There was actually a 5k standard as well for those Trials. My opinion has shifted. Looking at the number of athletes who qualified on the half marathon standard and then ran very strong times at the Trials, I think it is obvious that the use of the half marathon standard is having the desired effect of encouraging younger athletes to give the marathon a shot without forcing them to fully commit to it and therefore compromising their track and other racing goals.
The 10k standard, in my opinion, needs to go the way of the 5k standard. It's not necessary, and I don't think it's expecting too much to ask an athlete to go and run a half in order to demonstrate a modest level of prowess at the longer distances. The marathon is over 4 times longer than the 10k -- it just doesn't make sense to use 10k times as a standard.
As a coach, I'm very interested to see what happens with the qualification standards for the next round of the Olympic Trials Marathon. The above are just my opinions, thoughts and observations...I'm curious to know what other people think.
I agree that the women's standard needs to be tightened a little. And the 10K standard is really not needed. Sure it allowed someone like Brian Olinger to entry the race - and go out with the leaders before dropping out - but asking them to run 13.1 miles is not too much.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the men's s/be loosened a little. I mean there were only like 80 finishers.
Granted the people after 25th or 30th place really have no chance of making the team, but I do think anyone in the Trials inspires other runners. If it's old, slow, Masters runners that they inspire, it has to be good for the sport.