McCambridge running Rome in 2 Weeks

shels4ever

:):):):) 2:36:37

huskerdu

2.36.37

Just about did it.

Great news.

Itziger

The timing data thing is crap as well. Finished now yeah?

Itziger

Good for her, well done Maria. Told ye it was going to be close at halfway!

PainIsTemporary

Fantastic! Delighted for her!

Pisco Sour

Wonderful stuff. 3 qualified in the women's marathon. When is the last time we have had the full 3 qualified in an Olympic event? Women's 5000m in Sydney?

TJC

Brilliant!!! Well done Maria. Well Deserved!! :):)

Dan man

Fantastic news this morning. That's 15 through to the Olympics in athletics now. The Irish team is getting very big at this stage.

T runner

Thoroughly deserved result.

Itziger wrote: »

Good for her, well done Maria. Told ye it was going to be close at halfway!

May have been a course of two halves:14-15 running sub 2:07 pace at half way--Only 3 managing sub 2:10. That may be due to the groups going at the pace of the fastest runners in the early stages ofcourse.

Caprica

Fantastic running by Maria, it was a close at the end but she dug in to get the standard. Great to see that we have a full womens team for London.

Krusty_Clown

Excellent news. Many of the runners 35-40k splits were slow (+1 minute), so may have been conditions (wind, cobbles etc).

Maria was 9th female, and ~5:30 off the winning time, so a very solid performance. Great stuff. It'll be a cracking race between the ladies at the olympics.

BobMac104

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Excellent news. Many of the runners 35-40k splits were slow (+1 minute), so may have been conditions (wind, cobbles etc).

Maria was 9th female, and ~5:30 off the winning time, so a very solid performance. Great stuff. It'll be a cracking race between the ladies at the olympics.

Fantastic news well done Maria!

Abhainn

Link to results please? The TDS link is asking for a p/w

Pronator

Delighted for her. Brilliant:D

footing

Pronator wrote: »

Delighted for her. Brilliant:D

... and relieved!!

Truman Burbank

Very well done Maria. Delighted for you!

Krusty_Clown

Abhainn wrote: »

Link to results please? The TDS link is asking for a p/w

All results. Can't link directly to Maria's result. Site is a bit slow.

TJC

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

All results. Can't link directly to Maria's result. Site is a bit slow.

You can click on her result on 5th page of results. She was 43rd overall i think.

jeffontour

Good stuff, fair play to her.

thirstywork2

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/mccambridge-books-olympic-place-with-marathon-effort-3054227.html

menoscemo

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0320/1224313579683.html

She says she really struggled on the cobble stones over the last few miles.

EauRouge79

http://www.corkrunning.blogspot.com/2012/03/maria-mccambridge-qualifies-for-london.html

Well done to Maria, qualified for the Olympic Marathon in Rome on Sunday last. She was 23 seconds inside the A standard.
The team of 3 athletes is yet to be finalised however with others due to attempt to qualify in early April.

Article above.

Izoard

Great to see 3 women already qualified for the marathon, but given the difficulties of getting any men qualified, is the women's marathon A standard, one of the "softer" qualifying levels?

shels4ever

Izoard wrote: »

Great to see 3 women already qualified for the marathon, but given the difficulties of getting any men qualified, is the women's marathon A standard, one of the "softer" qualifying levels?

Yes, but they still need to get out there and run the times. Was planning on going over to watch the men's marathon but depending on the next few week might end up going to watch the girls.

TFBubendorfer

Izoard wrote: »

Great to see 3 women already qualified for the marathon, but given the difficulties of getting any men qualified, is the women's marathon A standard, one of the "softer" qualifying levels?

I've read on more than one occasion that the women's marathon qualifying time is supposed to be the softest standard of any olympic event. I am not qualified to judge that statement, of course, but it's definitely softer than the men's qualifying time.

P.S.: But congratulations to Maria all the same. Excellent work out there!

SeanKenny

Izoard wrote: »

Great to see 3 women already qualified for the marathon, but given the difficulties of getting any men qualified, is the women's marathon A standard, one of the "softer" qualifying levels?

I love posts like this.:eek:
People come on here extolling the virtues of jogging e.g. 70 mins and worse for 10 miles, 20 mins for 5k, 35 mins for 5 miles etc etc and people then are critical of how soft Olympic qualifying standards are for some events.

Well done Maria! Your Olympic place is well deserved and earned through hard work and consistency over the years. It'll be great to see three Irish ladies in the marathon in London.

Now I'm off. I'm going out to jog a kilometer in 4 minutes. But I will do one tomorrow again and maybe every day next week too. It will be a marvellous achievement and I await pomp and fanfare from boardsies.

walshb

I would say the time is fairly quality. Isn't it 2.37? The record is what, 2.20 or thereabouts?

TFBubendorfer

walshb wrote: »

I would say the time is fairly quality. Isn't it 2.37? The record is what, 2.20 or thereabouts?

2:15

thirtyfoot

Marathon times are much softer, no doubt. You can have 80 plus in an Olympic marathon versus an average of between 20 and 30 for most other events. In someways it's at odds with OCI policy of sending contenders with an A standard, ie probably top 16 or so.

That aside great run, the athletes don't set the standards. Craic will be mighty if a 4th gets the time.

Izoard

SeanKenny wrote: »

I love posts like this.:eek:
People come on here extolling the virtues of jogging e.g. 70 mins and worse for 10 miles, 20 mins for 5k, 35 mins for 5 miles etc etc and people then are critical of how soft Olympic qualifying standards are for some events.

Well done Maria! Your Olympic place is well deserved and earned through hard work and consistency over the years. It'll be great to see three Irish ladies in the marathon in London.

Now I'm off. I'm going out to jog a kilometer in 4 minutes. But I will do one tomorrow again and maybe every day next week too. It will be a marvellous achievement and I await pomp and fanfare from boardsies.

We have at least 3 girls qualified - fantastic - and I'll be on the streets of London roaring them on....

My question was more about the standards that are set by the IAAF or whomever.

Let me put it a different way - is the men's target too tough?

SeanKenny

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Marathon times are much softer, no doubt. You can have 80 plus in an Olympic marathon versus an average of between 20 and 30 for most other events.

There was 80 in the last Olympic Mens 100m event. 64 in the 200m. Are those standards too doft?

I don't think your assertation stacks up.

TFBubendorfer

Izoard wrote: »

Let me put it a different way - is the men's target too tough?

How many Kenyan men have the Olympic A standard in the marathon?

278 by March 14th. :eek:

Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the original thread any more.

Krusty_Clown

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

How many Kenyan men have the Olympic A standard in the marathon?

278 by March 14th. :eek:

Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the original thread any more.

I wonder how many Kenyan women would have a sub 2:37?
Lots, I'd imagine.

*Edit*: 61 it appears, in the same time-line.

Also interesting: The Canadian qualification times are 2:11:29 for men and 2:29:55 for women. We wouldn't have any representation.

myflipflops

Brilliant running from Maria. Looking good to be a 2 time Olympian now after running the 5k in Athens.

No doubt that the marathon standards are easier in comparison to some of the others. They certainly are not easy though. They are still quality times and if you run them, you fully deseve to go.

I always assumed the standards in the marathon (and the walks) are not as stringent because it makes no impact on television coverage to have 80/100 people in the marathon as you still only have to show the top finishers in the race. They don't really want 3 rounds of the 5k or 2 rounds of the 10k but loads in the marathon is fine.

Izoard

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Also interesting: The Canadian qualification times are 2:11:29 for men and 2:29:55 for women. We wouldn't have any representation.

Who sets the "A" standard?

I always assumed the IOC set the A & B standards for the Olympics, and that national federations with high performance like Kenya, US etc., then set their own, more stringent standards (top 3 in trials etc...)?

thirtyfoot

SeanKenny wrote: »

There was 80 in the last Olympic Mens 100m event. 64 in the 200m. Are those standards too doft?

No because of those 80 maybe 30+ haven't attained even the B standard. In Marathon you could count the non-standard athletes on one hand. The comparision, even if my original point of 20/30 per event being undercooked for certain events, is valid.

Doesn't matter, the standards are the standards, we have 4 marathoners so far which is great news. People are allowed debate things, doesn't mean they are negative or not happy about things.

SeanKenny

thirtyfoot wrote: »

No because of those 80 maybe 30+ haven't attained even the B standard. In Marathon you could count the non-standard athletes on one hand. The comparision, even if my original point of 20/30 per event being undercooked for certain events, is valid.

Doesn't matter, the standards are the standards, we have 4 marathoners so far which is great news. People are allowed debate things, doesn't mean they are negative or not happy about things.

True indeed re standards and I don't argue otherwise. However there were approx 15 entrants in 2008 with PB's slower than 2hrs 37.

Those Canadian standards seem excessive for a country with as little distance success as they enjoy. Maybe they would be better off promoting the event by relaxing their distance standards a little.

I think we should be sending as many as possible to London for experience - A and B standards.

Larry Brent

SeanKenny wrote: »

Those Canadian standards seem excessive for a country with as little distance success as they enjoy. Maybe they would be better off promoting the event by relaxing their distance standards a little.

But... the 2nd qualifier Eric Gillis ran 2:11:28 to qualify. I wonder would he have run 2:14:59 if the standard was 2:15???

Pisco Sour

SeanKenny wrote: »

There was 80 in the last Olympic Mens 100m event. 64 in the 200m. Are those standards too doft?

I don't think your assertation stacks up.

That's because all the useless countries like American Samoa, Tijikistan, Central African Republic, Vanuatu etc etc are allowed to send 1 athlete that hasn't reached a qualifying standard just to esnure representation at the Games. Usually these athletes are very slow so they throw somebody in the 100m or 200m because the gap in those events is less obvious and time consuming than say somebody getting lapped 6 times by Bekele in the 5000 or 10000.

The women's marathon standard is soft relative to the other events. There's no ifs, buts and maybes about it. The men's marathon standard is also soft in comparison to the men's track events. The reason is that the marathon can support a field of 70-80 while the track events cant. The 10000m in particular is a tough standard as since they decided to do away with the heats after the Sydney Olympics they have tried to limit the numbers to 20-25 so they can run a straight final. In the women's 10000m in Sydney there were 40 athletes or so. 2 heats of 20. Sonia literally went for a jog to finish 7th in her heat and qualify automatically with ease. I guess they realised this was a waste of time so they strengthened the standard to limit the numbers. No such problem in the marathon. Can have as many as you want in that as it is not run on a 400m track so there's plenty of space to support a big field, and theres no need for heats.

Big congrats to Maria, and good on her for targetting the marathon.

Do a bit of research on the standards. Read the IAAF Scoring tables and you will see that the marathon standards are relatively soft.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/33/41/20110124082825_httppostedfile_IAAF_Scoring_Tables_of_Athletics_2011_23299.pdf

BeepBeep67

Interesting debate on this this thread, to support inclusion at these 'world' games would it ever be considered to have 'A' and 'B' finals? Or does that dilute the Faster, Higher, Stronger ethos?

TFBubendorfer

Larry Brent wrote: »

But... the 2nd qualifier Eric Gillis ran 2:11:28 to qualify. I wonder would he have run 2:14:59 if the standard was 2:15???

I agree with Larry, I think the mere fact that the standard was so tough increased the quality of their runners.

There's a great video from the Toronto marathon where their first qualifier, Reid Coolsaet, left his most exuberant celebrations for the moment his mate achieved the standard by the skin of his teeth. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/video/#id=2154809677 , 1:45 into the video.

Shows what a great guy he is, and his blog is an excellent read.

Hard Worker

It's difficult to compare standards for the marathon against standards for track events. You can only run 1 or 2 marathons per year. If things don't go right on the day, then your whole year is wasted. You can run track races twice per week.
For those thinking of going over to watch the marathon, you may need to obtain a ticket. I have heard that they are closing the whole course.

EauRouge79

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

How many Kenyan men have the Olympic A standard in the marathon?

278 by March 14th. :eek:
.

Ah jesus, are you serious? Im very naive and gullible....
Pick three from that bunch....ha ha....!

T runner

Larry Brent wrote: »

But... the 2nd qualifier Eric Gillis ran 2:11:28 to qualify. I wonder would he have run 2:14:59 if the standard was 2:15???

EauRouge79 wrote: »

Ah jesus, are you serious? Im very naive and gullible....
Pick three from that bunch....ha ha....!

Just to develop the point that the standards can improve the quality: If Moses Mosop breaks the world record in Rotterdam; then in all liklihood the world record holder Patrick Makau and second on that world list Kipsang (4 seconds behind Makau) will fight it out in London for a place with no guarantee that either will travel bar winning the race in a new world record time. Geoffrey Mutai (Boston 2:03:03 and New York winner) would seeem to be a strong favourite to travel if fit and wins Boston.

Attaning the standard time is clearly not an issue for Kenyans. Being in the top 3 Kenyan marathoners in the world is the standard that hopefully will see the world record fall again this Spring.

RayCun

There's a good argument for having US-style trials for the Kenyan Olympic marathon places. Too late for this cycle of course, but maybe next time.

Pisco Sour

RayCun wrote: »

There's a good argument for having US-style trials for the Kenyan Olympic marathon places. Too late for this cycle of course, but maybe next time.

Same is going on right now down here in Oz with the swimming. They've so many under the standard in each event that it doesn't even get a mention. Top 2 in each event go to the games. Simple as. Suppose there are pros and cons to such a method. Certainly makes it exciting anyway. The Thorpedo is gone anyway. No fairytale Olympic comeback. Wasn't even remotely close to making it in the end.

RayCun

In the marathon you can't just rank people by time. Berlin is a faster marathon than London, everyone agrees, but by how much? Which is better, 2.03.38 in Berlin or 2.04 in London?
Boston had a tailwind last year - did that make it 36 seconds faster than Berlin that year? or 46? or 26?
It's easier to run with pacers, how much extra credit do you give to someone who ran a fast time with no pacers?
If the marathon contenders had to race each other to qualify, it would avoid those questions.

SeanKenny

04072511 wrote: »

That's because all the useless countries like American Samoa, Tijikistan, Central African Republic, Vanuatu etc etc are allowed to send 1 athlete that hasn't reached a qualifying standard just to esnure representation at the Games. Usually these athletes are very slow so they throw somebody in the 100m or 200m because the gap in those events is less obvious and time consuming than say somebody getting lapped 6 times by Bekele in the 5000 or 10000.

The women's marathon standard is soft relative to the other events. There's no ifs, buts and maybes about it. The men's marathon standard is also soft in comparison to the men's track events. The reason is that the marathon can support a field of 70-80 while the track events cant. The 10000m in particular is a tough standard as since they decided to do away with the heats after the Sydney Olympics they have tried to limit the numbers to 20-25 so they can run a straight final. In the women's 10000m in Sydney there were 40 athletes or so. 2 heats of 20. Sonia literally went for a jog to finish 7th in her heat and qualify automatically with ease. I guess they realised this was a waste of time so they strengthened the standard to limit the numbers. No such problem in the marathon. Can have as many as you want in that as it is not run on a 400m track so there's plenty of space to support a big field, and theres no need for heats.

Big congrats to Maria, and good on her for targetting the marathon.

Do a bit of research on the standards. Read the IAAF Scoring tables and you will see that the marathon standards are relatively soft.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/33/41/20110124082825_httppostedfile_IAAF_Scoring_Tables_of_Athletics_2011_23299.pdf

I am well aware of the IAAF scoring tables however I wouldn't view them as the bible - athletics is a sport with several other factors. Maria ran accross cobbles in Rome and some research will show you that most competitors were up to a minute slower for that section than any other 5k. What adjustment would you make for that?? None because if you start that nonsense where does it all end.

Some sports are easier to be successful in. The triathlon is a first world sport, partly due to economic factors. Does that diminish the achievements of the Brownlee brothers?

Its not just the 100m that gets those entries from the "useless countries"!! There were 15 women in beijing in the womens marathon with PB's slower than the entry time.

PainIsTemporary

RayCun wrote: »

There's a good argument for having US-style trials for the Kenyan Olympic marathon places. Too late for this cycle of course, but maybe next time.

Agreed. Would make for a very exciting race! Would've been great idea for Irish Olympic Marathon selection too. American template is the first 3 across the line in the Olympic trials (track and marathon) qualify for Olympic's if they've already achieved the A Standard, and if they haven't they're given a certain timeframe within which to achieve it. If any of the top 3 athletes don't achieve the A standard within the time permitted then any other US athletes who have achieved the A standard are given the slot.

The Olympic Council of Ireland shot the idea down this time round. The idea had been put to them in June of last year. The reason given was that it could cause legal problems or something along those lines. Would've made for a cracking line up for the Dublin Marathon. (As it happens the 3 women to have achieved the A Standard ran Dublin). Maybe sometime in the future.

RayCun

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

The Olympic Council of Ireland shot the idea down this time round. The idea had been put to them in June of last year. The reason given was that it could cause legal problems or something along those lines. Would've made for a cracking line up for the Dublin Marathon. (As it happens the 3 women to have achieved the A Standard ran Dublin).

While it would make for a great race in the Dublin marathon, there isn't the same need in Ireland. So far, everyone who has made the marathon A standard is going anyway.
In Kenya they have the world marathon holder, the runner of the fastest marathon ever, the marathon world champion... and none of them are guaranteed a place.