IAAF Hall Of Fame, Class of 2013

[gh]

I have no idea what methodology the boys in Monaco are going to use to add to their (flawed) original 24, but who do you think the leading candidates are?

I ask because I was doing some prep work for this year's World Ranking issue of the magazine and I noted that the all-time leader in both points scored (single event) and years ranked didn't make the original cut.

So who ranked for 21 (!) years, and scored 168 points (which translates as an average placing of No. 3 for more than a score of years)?

[preston]

Ottey?

[rhymans]

Jan Z

[gh]

Ottey & Ž only 19 years each.

[Bruce Kritzler]

Got to be a field eventer, probably discus.
Unless it's Geb?

[Flumpy]

I'm assuming they are not inducting another 24 next time

Does anyone know what the procedure is for 2013?

I'm assuming they'll find a way to induct Usain Bolt

[gh]

not Geb either.

The published data on the HOF is that "at least 4" will be inducted every year.

And that the criteria "may" change. (meaning the double-OG/WC gold stricture goes away, which is totally ludicrous in the overall scheme of things)

[Dutra5]

Heike Dreschler

[Pego]

It seems, Lars Riedel was competing forever.

[mump boy]

not Geb either.

The published data on the HOF is that "at least 4" will be inducted every year.

And that the criteria "may" change. (meaning the double-OG/WC gold stricture goes away, which is totally ludicrous in the overall scheme of things)

As is WR which means in the future no Allyson, Sanya, VCB, SAF, Maria Mutola, Anna Quirot, Hassiba Boulmerka, Rosa Mota, Gail Devers, Tatyana Lebedeva, Astird Kumbernuss, Valerie Adams, Carolina Kluft etc etc etc

I can't for the life of me work out who was ranked for 21 years i agree it has to be a thrower but no idea who

[Dutra5]

The answer has been given.

[tandfman]

I ask because I was doing some prep work for this year's World Ranking issue of the magazine and I noted that the all-time leader in both points scored (single event) and years ranked didn't make the original cut.

Has this athlete been retired for 10 years or more? I believe that was one of the criteria.

[mump boy]

Oh it's Heike

She wasn't even in Barcelona which i thought was strange at the time, but tandfman is right you have to be retired for 10 years before you can be inducted

[Flumpy]

Heike was my 2nd guess today. You told me I was wrong

[preston]

Oh it's Heike

She wasn't even in Barcelona which i thought was strange at the time, but tandfman is right you have to be retired for 10 years before you can be inducted

Who won wLJ in '92 then?

[mump boy]

Oh it's Heike

She wasn't even in Barcelona which i thought was strange at the time, but tandfman is right you have to be retired for 10 years before you can be inducted

Who won wLJ in '92 then?

I meant at the Centenary Gala last weekend not OG

[mump boy]

Heike was my 2nd guess today. You told me I was wrong

No WE decided that she couldn't have been ranked that long. Who knew she was ranked from age of 16 in 81 ?? and then only had 1 year out to have a baby in 89 !! i assumed she was ranked from 83 and missed at least 1 other year in late 90's

She retired in 04 so should be a shoe in for '15

[Jon]

The criteria will most likely change for future additions:
https://iaafmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/misc ... ership.pdf

2013 and beyond

From 2013 onwards, the IAAF Hall of Fame Selection Panel will propose at least 4 new additions to the IAAF Hall of Fame membership each year some time prior to the annual World Athletics Gala.

While very strict criteria were agreed to select the inaugural list of 24 members in 2012, (at least 2 Olympic or World titles plus at least 1 World Record), these criteria may be extended in 2013 to allow athletes whose achievements had an extraordinary impact on our sport to be considered as well.

The IAAF only used such strict criteria for the first inductees simply as a way to whittle down the list, otherwise it would have been pretty overwhelming to try to choose 24 people from all the hundreds of legendary athletes.

I agree that there are several athletes who are more deserving than some of the ones who have so far been inducted, but wouldn't it be boring if all the big hitters went in at once?! Spacing them out keeps it interesting.

[mump boy]

wouldn't it be boring if all the big hitters went in at once?! Spacing them out keeps it interesting.

V diplomatic

[Pego]

wouldn't it be boring if all the big hitters went in at once?

No .

[gh]

Oops... forgot about the 10-year rule. USATF's stricture is only 3.

Allow me to suggest that 5 is good number (not coincidentally, the number baseball uses, which sets the standard by which all Halls should be measured).

What good will it do for the sport when 10 years from now Haile Gebrselassie still isn't in the Hall?

[dj]

Oops... forgot about the 10-year rule. USATF's stricture is only 3.

Allow me to suggest that 5 is good number (not coincidentally, the number baseball uses, which sets the standard by which all Halls should be measured).

What good will it do for the sport when 10 years from now Haile Gebrselassie still isn't in the Hall?

USATF is 5, used to be 4 .

[Flumpy]

Heike was my 2nd guess today. You told me I was wrong

No WE decided that she couldn't have been ranked that long. Who knew she was ranked from age of 16 in 81 ?? and then only had 1 year out to have a baby in 89 !! i assumed she was ranked from 83 and missed at least 1 other year in late 90's

She retired in 04 so should be a shoe in for '15

I said '82 - 93 with one year off in '89. After all these years you really should know better than to doubt me

[mump boy]

No WE decided that she couldn't have been ranked that long. Who knew she was ranked from age of 16 in 81 ?? and then only had 1 year out to have a baby in 89 !! i assumed she was ranked from 83 and missed at least 1 other year in late 90's

She retired in 04 so should be a shoe in for '15

I said '82 - 93 with one year off in '89. After all these years you really should know better than to doubt me

So that would be 11 years then

[mump boy]

Oops... forgot about the 10-year rule. USATF's stricture is only 3.

Allow me to suggest that 5 is good number (not coincidentally, the number baseball uses, which sets the standard by which all Halls should be measured).

What good will it do for the sport when 10 years from now Haile Gebrselassie still isn't in the Hall?

Because in those 10 year they can induct

Hannes Kolehmainen
Maritus Yifter
Vladamir Kuts
Lasse Viren
Said Aouita

instead

[dj]

Allow me to suggest that 5 is good number (not coincidentally, the number baseball uses, which sets the standard by which all Halls should be measured).

My underscore.

. . . Baseball . . . which sets the standard from which all Halls can be improved.

[andyjgt]

Allow me to suggest that 5 is good number (not coincidentally, the number baseball uses, which sets the standard by which all Halls should be measured).

My underscore.

. . . Baseball . . . which sets the standard from which all Halls can be improved.

It's also 5 in the NFL. (On that note, some of the inductions and omissions this year were a bit surprising I must say, and they still don't seem keen to add wide receivers.)

[gh]

I think the 10-year thing is a bad marketing mistake on the IAAF's part. That kind of gap is fine for the hardcore types who hang out here, but if you're trying to keep the sport vibrant and active and relate to the younger crowd, I think it imperative that your Hall of Fame be about people that impressionable young fans can relate to.

Even somebody as lordly as Bolt is going to see his star fade with the passage of time, and waiting 10 years to capitlize on him after he retires will be a lot of people lost.

Turning it into an old-farts game makes no sense at all to me.

[26mi235]

Five years feels right -- when you get to steady state. However, they have such a backlog to go through that it helps narrow the field at first. In general, I think recent events loom larger than stuff from long ago and would lead to a bit of a bias against achievements from the past.

[andyjgt]

As long as Daley Thompson goes in before Kelly Holmes, any criteria are good.

[Flumpy]

Spoke to Daley on Saturday. He called the IAAF Gala 'That thing in Barcelona' an when I suggested he should have been inducted before Dan O'Brien he said he couldn't care less and wished Dan all the best.

I think they'll induct him soon but I wouldn't hold your breathe he'll turn up and if he does I'm pretty certain he'll wear a tracksuit

By the way where were Jackie, Michael and Carl. All no shows

[AS]

Given current 8 year retrospective drug-testing window, perhaps the 10 year wait is judicious

[Flumpy]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

I also think there is a huge backlog of older athletes that deserve to be inducted before those that only retired 5 years should even be considered.

[gh]

You guys haven't thought this through all the way, but thanks to your insight, a new T&FN policy just went into effect: the 2012 World Rankings will be published in 2020. As will the results of the voting for Athlete Of The Year. And we've written to the IOC/IAAF urging that there be no medal ceremonies at an OG/WC until then, at which point we're start having them on a 8-year-delay basis.

What better way to sell the sport than to convince the general public that they shouldn't be believing anything they see? I stand in awe of your genius for opening our eyes on this.

[Flumpy]

Awarding a Gold medal or announcing end of year rankings aren't remotely similar to inducting someone into a Hall of Fame.

Surely it behooves everyone involved to at least try and make sure people are not inducted who may subsequently have to be sanctioned for drug taking. There will undoubtedly be people inducted who shouldn't be but there is absolutely no harm in limiting the damage as much as possible and absolutely no reasom why people recently retired (And potentially in their 30's) need to be inducted with such haste.