Why is Olympic Marathon standard so easy????

thirtyfoot

Was looking for Olympic entry lists and came across the qualifiers for the Olympic Marathon and its crazy. There are over 500 qualified in the women and over 800 in the men. Obviously only 3 per country will go but there are 11 British women inside the standard at a time when British women's distance running isn't booming. This isn't a slight on our marathon qualifiers as they don't set the standard but when you see an athlete like Deirdre Byrne burst sweat, blood and tears and be on the verge of making a serious international breakthrough not go when if she was chasing a marathon equivalent "soft" standard in the 1500, she'd be 10-12 secs inside it.

Anyone know why the marathon standard is soft, is it for the team event?


http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Statistics/Standards/BeijingMarathonRunnersWomen13July2008_4127.pdf

Stupid_Private

More people run in the London Marathon than in the 1,500m for the whole of Europe in one year.

If you take into account the amount of people that take part in marathons and the amount of people that make the Olympic standard it doesn't seem that bad at all.

Maybe the walkers have it easy and all... I doubt there's many marathoners taking part in the Olympics that haven't sweat blood and tears in training over the past 10+ years

robinph

Maybe the standard is set a bit lower because the Olympics is always at a very bad time of year for running a marathon so you have to be a bit crazy to even enter.

thirtyfoot

Stupid_Private wrote: »

More people run in the London Marathon than in the 1,500m for the whole of Europe in one year.

If you take into account the amount of people that take part in marathons and the amount of people that make the Olympic standard it doesn't seem that bad at all.

Maybe the walkers have it easy and all... I doubt there's many marathoners taking part in the Olympics that haven't sweat blood and tears in training over the past 10+ years

I think if they have based their qualifying marks on the massive numbers of fun runners in the event then they should be shot. The standards they have set are so off being world class (compared to all other events) that there must be some other logic there. Does anyone know the real reason because no offence the mass participant fun running numbers reason is a bag of cack. By that account we'd have 100 teams at the football world cup:D

I'd be really interested to know as would the 100 or so Irish athletes in other track and field events in Ireland who if they had similarly soft targets would be on their way to Beijing.

copacetic

isn't the standard generally higher also to keep the fields small in other events? The marathon can obviously contain a lot more runners that an 1500m, unless you ran days and days of heats. So they keep the numbers to a level to take that into account.


As you say there would be a lot more Irish in other events if standards were lower, as there would be from every country. The olympics would run for months just doing the heats

thirtyfoot

copacetic wrote: »

isn't the standard generally higher also to keep the fields small in other events? The marathon can obviously contain a lot more runners that an 1500m, unless you ran days and days of heats. So they keep the numbers to a level to take that into account.

Thats true that could be it, but isn't that unfair if it is. Sounds like a good reason though.

Stupid_Private

I don't see where being able to run 5mins 9 secs per mile for 26.2 miles is soft?

thirtyfoot

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I don't see where being able to run 5mins 9 secs per mile for 26.2 miles is soft?

For the average guy or girl in the street no. For the elite olympic standard athlete, yes it is. "Soft" in athletics can mean standard is easy or the event or record is easy, its not saying these people are soft. For example, womens Pole Vault was regarded for years as "soft" and still possibly is if you take Isinbayeva out of the equation. Womens steeple is "soft" at the moment as its such a new event, expect big jumps in the standards here between now and London. But in those events the standards are still close and relevant to the elite athletes performances in these events.

Forgot about the thousands who run the city marathons, they have no relevance to elite marathon standards or shouldn't have anyway. This isn't a slight on marathon running and I appreciate marathon runners here may have "proximity bias" but when you take the tinted glasses off you cannot statistically argue that the marathon standards are in line with other athletics events, they simply aren't. If you can, I'm all ears and eyes.

There has to be a reason and I think the numbers reasons that copacetic talked about could be the reason.

High&Low

Maybe the qualifying standard is "soft" due the lack of marathons that are run every year, the inability for an individual to run a large number in a year (unlike the 800m or 1500m) and the various different marathon courses which vary unlike an athletics track.

aburke

Hi Tingle
The PDF you attached included B Standard too I think.

According to
http://www.olympicsport.ie/CUuploads/Upload/224/Athletics%20Qualifying%20Agreement.pdf

The A Standard is 2:37, and B is 2:42

The document you attached has a 'qualification best' which for many of the Athletes is outside the A standard.

This doesn't mean you are wrong about the standard being 'soft', It probably is a bit soft.
But in many events, I guess there must be a heap of athletes inside the B Standard.
The Mens 100m - how many USA athletes could make the B standard, along with Jamicans.
And they can still only send 3 each.

Anyway- Roll on tomorrow!

hunnymonster

copacetic wrote: »

isn't the standard generally higher also to keep the fields small in other events? The marathon can obviously contain a lot more runners that an 1500m, unless you ran days and days of heats. So they keep the numbers to a level to take that into account

That's what I always believed, but can't remember how I got the idea.

Koroibos

There is a big difference in marathon courses and weather. Often Championship races are slower do to the conditions. By putting a high standard to achieve, forces athletes to choice a fast course and not run the championship that year as one of their marathons. The IAAF want the best in the championships. Also if a slower athlete is in the race it does not hold up other races as would happen on the track. Even thought it is a "soft" standard 2008 is the first year we have an athlete in the marathon since 1992!

shels4ever

May also be due to the fact that you should only run a couple or marathons per year. If the standard was set too high would may have people running too many marathons in order to get the time. Could be on medical advise .

Dodge

I think copacetic is right. The amrathon is still seen as the blue ribband event and the IOC and IAAF want as many nations as possible represented in the marathon. Limiting it to 3 per country wll obviously mean the race won't get ridiculous numbers but as its a road course, they aren't limited to a certain number (as in other track/field based events)

Oh and for however soft it is, only one Irishman got the A standard, and no Irishwoman got the A standard.

robinph

Dodge wrote: »

Oh and for however soft it is, only one Irishman got the A standard, and no Irishwoman got the A standard.

Couldn't Ireland claim Paula Radcliffe now though.

robinph

Looks like you can actually send one entrant for the road races even if they don't make either A or B standard.
IOC rules

Entry Standards for Road Events

Each NOC can enter a maximum of 3 competitors in a single event (all must have Standard A) or 1 competitor with Standard B.NOC-s can enter one athlete (one man and one woman) in only one event without Standard A or Standard B.