Forums >Racing>Olympic Marathon Trials
Quickly going though the data for the men's race showed that runners who qualifying with a half-marathon time had a greater share of DNFs than their share of the field. Pretty quick and dirty look at the data; I'm sure it could be broken down better to give further insight.
Assume Masters was over 40; as it used to be when I turned 40. Article just says "...., but his 2:12:20 is a new US Masters Marathon Record". Looks like they have not updated records site; as Meb had previous record of 2:13:32. But good that a Master runner is still # 2 in country.
Assume Masters was over 40; as it used to be when I turned 40.
Article just says "...., but his 2:12:20 is a new US Masters Marathon Record". Looks like they have not updated records site; as Meb had previous record of 2:13:32. But good that a Master runner is still # 2 in country.
Updated now. That was fast. Generally it takes a few months for these lists to be updated.
http://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/byEvent.asp?division=american&location=road&age=masters&distance=42.195&distanceUnits=km&distanceType=run
Also, yay me, I have something in common with Meb.
http://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/byEvent.asp?division=american&location=outdoor%20track%20%26%20field&age=masters&distance=24&distanceUnits=hr&distanceType=run
Quickly going though the data for the men's race showed that runners who qualifying with a half-marathon time had a greater share of DNFs than their share of the field. Pretty quick and dirty look at the data; I'm sure it could be broken down better to give further insight. --Qualifier-- --% of field-- --% of DNFs-- 13.1 55.95 63.33 26.2A 13.10 5.00 26.2B 30.95 31.67
Great Job!
What's the number (n) that started, and was this men and women combined?
I think participation in this event is great, but even before the trials was wondering if they shouldn't up the HM qualifying standard even more, something in the line of sub 1:04 and sub 1:14.
Stats are cool, for real. But this is the one race I never miss. For reasons totally inexplicable to me, I always end up with tears in my eyes at the end. Something about the pain of 26.2 combined with Olympic dreams just gets me. Watching the fourth place finisher come through is more than I can take.
I swore off running, then this race came along and ruined my plans. Totally.
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus
GO NADS!!!
Allo, Mizzz Tonay!
Great Job! What's the number (n) that started, and was this men and women combined? I think participation in this event is great, but even before the trials was wondering if they shouldn't up the HM qualifying standard even more, something in the line of sub 1:04 and sub 1:14.
That was just for the men's race. n=168 runners started the men's race, of which 94 had qualified with a half marathon time, 22 had qualified with the marathon A standard, and 52 had qualified with the B standard.
I haven't gone through the women's results, but I don't think the issue is as relevant there. Looking at qualifiers for each race (regardless of whether they competed, because that is the data readily available), on the men's side 125 out of 211 (59.2%) runners eligible to compete qualified via a half marathon performance (even after the marathon B standard was expanded from 2:18 to 2:19, increasing the number of eligible marathon performance qualifiers). Strikingly, on the women's side only 48 out of 246 (19.5%) of runners eligible to compete had qualified via a half marathon performance. It's a curious disparity, but indicates that inexperience in the marathon (roughly approximated by having a half marathon qualifying time rather then a full marathon time) probably wasn't a large contributor to DNFs on the women's side.
I agree with you that participation in the Trials is great. Based on the McMillan calculator, a 1:05 half marathon is "equivalent" to a 2:16:48 full marathon, and a 1:15 half is "equivalent" to a 2:37:50 full. Obviously, the term "equivalent" is important, since it assumes equal levels of the fitness appropriate to each race distance (thus most 4:00 milers probably won't be able to go out a few weeks later and run 2:15 for the marathon). I think the issue is that the marathon involves a different kind of fitness than a half, since a well fueled runner won't come up against glycogen depletion during a half. So, a change in half marathon qualifying standards probably wouldn't address the fact that some runners who qualify via the shorter race won't have adjusted their training to the different demands of the marathon. I don't know the historical data at all, but I'm guessing there are rarely runners who qualify with the half marathon standard who go on to make the Olympic team. I think the main point of having that standard is that it provides incentive for runners who are just beginning to compete at longer distances. This is just speculation, but I would guess that in the rare event that a half marathon qualifier makes the Olympic team, that person is going to be the kind of monster athlete who makes the half marathon standard irrelevant by smashing it effortlessly (as we have seen this year). Someone who has run closer the half marathon standard time and is going to be a realistic competitor for a spot on team is probably better suited to the marathon/has more experience in the marathon and therefore would be more likely to have qualified with a marathon standard time.
I kind of got carried away on some streams of speculation there; this is an area I've thought a lot about in terms of my own training and plotting a course from collegiate competitive distances to the half marathon and marathon. Interesting stuff!
Are we there, yet?
Some interesting speculation here, but I'd lean toward an explanation that factored in the inexperience or those who qualified with a half marathon time of how to deal with the heat during a marathon rather than focusing on the distance per se.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.