US 2020 Marathon Trials Analysis: Part 1
The 2020 US Marathon Olympic Trials in Atlanta are fast approaching. This 4 year-cycle has already seen record numbers of men and women hit the qualifying standard at the Marathon distance (386 women and 182 men as of Oct. 22) with about 2 months still to go. There has also been a large drop in the number of qualifiers hitting the standard in the Half-marathon (and not also having the Marathon standard) with a meager 5 women and 18 men currently qualified in the Half only. The other very noticeable trend this cycle has been how many more women have qualifier this year than men. In the plot below, the women and men's number of qualifiers has fluctuated depending on the cycle, but the men and women's numbers have always moved together, both peaking in 2012 and seeing a sharp decrease in 2016. But this year the number of Women qualifiers has bounced back to 2012 levels, while the men's has stayed much lower.
Total Qualifiers for the US Trials each year. Hover over the lines for more info. If on mobile device, charts and graphs are best viewed horizontally.
Total qualifiers hitting a specific distance standard. The standards (and distances at which a standard can be achieved) change each cycle. We have only counted each athlete once per 4-year cycle. Therefore if an athlete achieved both the Marathon and Half-marathon standard, they will appear only in the Marathon standard count. Each runner is counted in the long distance in which they have the standard.
So what is behind the changes this cycle? For one, the Half-marathon standards this cycle were lowered to 64 minutes for the men (from 65 minutes) and 73 minutes for the women (from 75 minutes), while the Marathon distance standards were unchanged (2:19 and 2:45). This update alone may have caused more runners to attempt to hit the standard at the Marathon distance, which seemed relatively easier than in years past. A side point to note is that for most of the 2016 cycle the standard was set at 2:18/2:43 before being revised upward to 2:19/2:45 late in the cycle, so this is the first full cycle at the 2:19/2:45 number.
It appears that when runner are trying to hit the standard they are attempting the Marathon distance, rather than go for the Half standard. When looking at the IAAF scoring tables the old 65 minute Half standard for men was equivalent to running 2:19:53, almost a minute slower than the standard, but the new standard of 64 minutes is equivalent to a 2:17:32. So the updated Half standard appears to be pushing more men up in distance. On the Women's side (again using IAAF scoring tables), the old standard of 75 minutes was worth a 2:40:49 Marathon, already well below the qualifying standard. But the new 73 minute standard, is equivalent to a Marathon a full 9 minutes under the standard (2:35:58)! The difficulty of the Women's Half standard shows why men have hit the Half standard at a much high rate than women every year it's been offered. With the Half standards now much tougher than the Full standard, it will be interesting to see if they stick around next cycle. I would at least expect them to be adjusted again.
When looking at repeat qualifiers (runners that qualified for both the 2016 and 2020 Trials), we see that lots of runners who qualified using the Half standard in 2016, instead hit the Marathon standard this cycle. On the Women's side there are 92 total repeat qualifiers with 73 of those repeaters hitting the Full standard in both cycles. Of the 19 repeaters that hit the Half standard in 2016, all of them ran the Full standard this cycle. On the men's side, there were 85 repeaters with 46 hitting the Full standard both cycles, 3 hitting the Half standard both cycles, and 36 that ran the Half in 2016 and Full in 2020. All of these runners may have gotten four years older and may just be transitioning into Marathon racing this cycle, but among repeaters, there has been a clear goal to hit the Marathon standard this cycle.
Adding to the push for runners to go for a Marathon standard is the fact that the IAAF Standards for the actual Olympics were released this year and were much harder (2:11:30 Men and 2:29:30 Women) than 2016. If a runner wants to run in the Olympics in addition to being in the top 3 in the US Olympic Trials race, they would need to hold that Standard or finish top 10 in World Marathon Major or the 2019 Marathon World Championship or top 5 in an IAAF Gold Label Marathon. This update meant that anyone serious about making the team would need a good Marathon under their belt or had better plan to run under 2:11:30/2:29:30 at the Trials. In 2016, only the Men's winner (Rupp) was under the mark, while only the top 3 Women (Cragg, Linden, Flanagan) got under the mark. However, the 2020 Trials received Gold Label status from the IAAF several months after the harder Standard were announced by IAAF, meaning that anyone in the top 5 automatically gets a Standard for the Marathon. So while there were several months of worry among those just beyond the Olympic Standard, that concern is no longer an issue.
With so few Half qualifiers for 2020, we are going to focus on all of the people who have hit the Full standard, which is 91% of the Men's field and 99%(!) of the Women's field. Looking at a histogram of the qualifiers (below) we see two distinct differences between the Men's and Women's qualifiers. The Women have a longer tail (the qualifiers with the best times [Hasay, Cragg, Hall, Sisson, etc.] are more ahead of the field than the men). While their are seventeen Women under 2:30, where the histogram shows the Women's "main pack" beginning, the Men only have Rupp, Korir, Ward, and Fauble ahead the "main pack" (which was at least partially driven by almost all 40 thousand runners hitting between between 2:11 and 2:13 at Chicago this year [ok, it wasn't quite that many]). In the Men's race, those four runners look to have a clear advantage, but if any of them stumble, it's anybody's guess who comes out of the pack to secure a spot or two. On the Women's side, even at the very top, their is absolutely no room for error with more than 10 runners very seriously in contention. For example, 2xOlympic Qualifier and 2018 Boston champ Des Linden has only the 11th fastest qualifying time heading into the Trials. Adding to the intrigue on the Women's side, several of the top runners have some question marks about how healthy we can expect them to be when the Trials roll around in a few months.
Qualifiers with a Marathon distance standard. Hover over the circles along the bottom to see the names of Qualifiers. If on mobile device, charts and graphs are best viewed horizontally.
The second interesting characteristic on the women's side is the much higher peak right around the qualifying time. We should always expect a large number of Qualifiers just under the standards, but there are currently 76 women who are qualified with a time between 2:44 and 2:45! On the men's side 50 have qualified between 2:18 and 2:19. If we expand the time to the number of qualifiers who have hit the standard by less than 5 minutes (2:14 and 2:40), the number become even more favorable on the Women's side with 267 women in that time range to only 138 men. While some might take that mean that the Women's standard is softer than the Men's (the IAAF scoring tables would say that giving 990 points to the Women's standard and 1007 points to the men's standard), I also think that the strength of women's distance running is a big contributing factor as well. And although I don't have a great empirical argument at this point, anecdotally, I would say that as a group, the American Women the last decade have put together a stronger showing then the men and that depth appears to be strengthening.
After looking at the fields, 2020 is definitely looking to be one of the more interesting Olympic Trials, with both strength up front and a larger depth on both sides then we've seen in a while. On the Men's side there are 17 men under 2:12 and 27 under 2:13. On the Women's side there are 12 under 2:28 and 28 under 2:32. Below is a plot showing how the depth up front has changed for Trials Qualifiers over the years. After a dip in Marathon qualifiers for 2016 (which was at least partially caused by the fact that so many runners avoided the Marathon in favor of qualifying via the Half instead), the lead up to the 2020 has shown the growth and depth of American distance running on both the Men's and Women's side.
That wraps up Part 1 of my look at the Trials Qualifiers. Part 2 focuses on looking back at the previous races and comparing how runners have performed based on their qualifying marks.
US Olympic Marathon Trials Qualifiers
| Year | Distance | M Qualifiers | W Qualifiers | M Standard | W Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | Full | 96 | 133 | 2:22:00 | 2:48:00 |
| 2008 | Full | 126 | 161 | 2:22:00 | 2:47:00 |
| 2008 | 10k | 8 | 1 | 28:45 | 33:00 |
| 2012 | Full | 134 | 288 | 2:19:00 | 2:46:00 |
| 2012 | Half | 161 | 88 | 1:05:00 | 1:15:00 |
| 2012 | 10k | 51 | 38 | 28:30 | 33:00 |
| 2016 | Full | 86 | 198 | 2:19:00* | 2:45:00* |
| 2016 | Half | 125 | 48 | 1:05:00 | 1:15:00 |
| 2020 | Full | 182 | 386 | 2:19:00 | 2:45:00 |
| 2020 | Half | 18 | 5 | 1:04:00 | 1:13:00 |
So what is behind the changes this cycle? For one, the Half-marathon standards this cycle were lowered to 64 minutes for the men (from 65 minutes) and 73 minutes for the women (from 75 minutes), while the Marathon distance standards were unchanged (2:19 and 2:45). This update alone may have caused more runners to attempt to hit the standard at the Marathon distance, which seemed relatively easier than in years past. A side point to note is that for most of the 2016 cycle the standard was set at 2:18/2:43 before being revised upward to 2:19/2:45 late in the cycle, so this is the first full cycle at the 2:19/2:45 number.
It appears that when runner are trying to hit the standard they are attempting the Marathon distance, rather than go for the Half standard. When looking at the IAAF scoring tables the old 65 minute Half standard for men was equivalent to running 2:19:53, almost a minute slower than the standard, but the new standard of 64 minutes is equivalent to a 2:17:32. So the updated Half standard appears to be pushing more men up in distance. On the Women's side (again using IAAF scoring tables), the old standard of 75 minutes was worth a 2:40:49 Marathon, already well below the qualifying standard. But the new 73 minute standard, is equivalent to a Marathon a full 9 minutes under the standard (2:35:58)! The difficulty of the Women's Half standard shows why men have hit the Half standard at a much high rate than women every year it's been offered. With the Half standards now much tougher than the Full standard, it will be interesting to see if they stick around next cycle. I would at least expect them to be adjusted again.
When looking at repeat qualifiers (runners that qualified for both the 2016 and 2020 Trials), we see that lots of runners who qualified using the Half standard in 2016, instead hit the Marathon standard this cycle. On the Women's side there are 92 total repeat qualifiers with 73 of those repeaters hitting the Full standard in both cycles. Of the 19 repeaters that hit the Half standard in 2016, all of them ran the Full standard this cycle. On the men's side, there were 85 repeaters with 46 hitting the Full standard both cycles, 3 hitting the Half standard both cycles, and 36 that ran the Half in 2016 and Full in 2020. All of these runners may have gotten four years older and may just be transitioning into Marathon racing this cycle, but among repeaters, there has been a clear goal to hit the Marathon standard this cycle.
Repeat Qualifiers
| 16 Half & 20 Half | 16 Half & 20 Full | 16 Full & 20 Full | 16 Full & 20 Half | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 3 | 36 | 46 | 0 |
| Women | 0 | 19 | 73 | 0 |
Adding to the push for runners to go for a Marathon standard is the fact that the IAAF Standards for the actual Olympics were released this year and were much harder (2:11:30 Men and 2:29:30 Women) than 2016. If a runner wants to run in the Olympics in addition to being in the top 3 in the US Olympic Trials race, they would need to hold that Standard or finish top 10 in World Marathon Major or the 2019 Marathon World Championship or top 5 in an IAAF Gold Label Marathon. This update meant that anyone serious about making the team would need a good Marathon under their belt or had better plan to run under 2:11:30/2:29:30 at the Trials. In 2016, only the Men's winner (Rupp) was under the mark, while only the top 3 Women (Cragg, Linden, Flanagan) got under the mark. However, the 2020 Trials received Gold Label status from the IAAF several months after the harder Standard were announced by IAAF, meaning that anyone in the top 5 automatically gets a Standard for the Marathon. So while there were several months of worry among those just beyond the Olympic Standard, that concern is no longer an issue.
With so few Half qualifiers for 2020, we are going to focus on all of the people who have hit the Full standard, which is 91% of the Men's field and 99%(!) of the Women's field. Looking at a histogram of the qualifiers (below) we see two distinct differences between the Men's and Women's qualifiers. The Women have a longer tail (the qualifiers with the best times [Hasay, Cragg, Hall, Sisson, etc.] are more ahead of the field than the men). While their are seventeen Women under 2:30, where the histogram shows the Women's "main pack" beginning, the Men only have Rupp, Korir, Ward, and Fauble ahead the "main pack" (which was at least partially driven by almost all 40 thousand runners hitting between between 2:11 and 2:13 at Chicago this year [ok, it wasn't quite that many]). In the Men's race, those four runners look to have a clear advantage, but if any of them stumble, it's anybody's guess who comes out of the pack to secure a spot or two. On the Women's side, even at the very top, their is absolutely no room for error with more than 10 runners very seriously in contention. For example, 2xOlympic Qualifier and 2018 Boston champ Des Linden has only the 11th fastest qualifying time heading into the Trials. Adding to the intrigue on the Women's side, several of the top runners have some question marks about how healthy we can expect them to be when the Trials roll around in a few months.
Qualifiers with a Marathon distance standard. Hover over the circles along the bottom to see the names of Qualifiers. If on mobile device, charts and graphs are best viewed horizontally.
The second interesting characteristic on the women's side is the much higher peak right around the qualifying time. We should always expect a large number of Qualifiers just under the standards, but there are currently 76 women who are qualified with a time between 2:44 and 2:45! On the men's side 50 have qualified between 2:18 and 2:19. If we expand the time to the number of qualifiers who have hit the standard by less than 5 minutes (2:14 and 2:40), the number become even more favorable on the Women's side with 267 women in that time range to only 138 men. While some might take that mean that the Women's standard is softer than the Men's (the IAAF scoring tables would say that giving 990 points to the Women's standard and 1007 points to the men's standard), I also think that the strength of women's distance running is a big contributing factor as well. And although I don't have a great empirical argument at this point, anecdotally, I would say that as a group, the American Women the last decade have put together a stronger showing then the men and that depth appears to be strengthening.
After looking at the fields, 2020 is definitely looking to be one of the more interesting Olympic Trials, with both strength up front and a larger depth on both sides then we've seen in a while. On the Men's side there are 17 men under 2:12 and 27 under 2:13. On the Women's side there are 12 under 2:28 and 28 under 2:32. Below is a plot showing how the depth up front has changed for Trials Qualifiers over the years. After a dip in Marathon qualifiers for 2016 (which was at least partially caused by the fact that so many runners avoided the Marathon in favor of qualifying via the Half instead), the lead up to the 2020 has shown the growth and depth of American distance running on both the Men's and Women's side.
That wraps up Part 1 of my look at the Trials Qualifiers. Part 2 focuses on looking back at the previous races and comparing how runners have performed based on their qualifying marks.