The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:00 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:if you don't have the standard or you're not even allowed entry without the standard it makes it impossible to make the argument of what you could do. All A's, less fuss, no permutations.

That is by far the most ****** ** thing you've ever posted :wink:
Peaking at the right time is a real (and important) concept. You GET the A at the Trials, if you don't already have it. Having only A-qualifiers (have you REALLY looked at how high they are?!) show up makes it the WORST meet ever, with tiny (or non-existent!) fields in the majority of events. The OTs are a great celebration of the sport in America and you'd reduce it to virtually nothing. There's little chance of meaningful competition, competition that can battle-harden you.
I think people are already trying as hard as they can to get the A now - your idea is not going to suddenly 'force' people to get it.

Marlow, please remember that we're talking about the easiest way to make the trials fair. And, to me that would include no marks chasing. And, the only way to stop marks chasing is to require that everyone get the A BEFORE entry. Does it bother me that there is marks chasing now? No. But it would bother me tremendously if the "favorites" were pre-selected - I might even consider that ****** **.

Also, there is NOTHING about going through an extremely slow race (which is what usually happens at USOT/USATF) that "battle hardens" any mid-distance runners for what will happen in the medal territory of the world stage. So, I might consider MOST distance races meaningless.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:07 am

batonless relay wrote:Marlow, please remember that we're talking about the easiest way to make the trials fair.

Perhaps I did misunderstand. The way you posted it made it sound like this was a real viable idea that you thought should actually be done, not a hypothetical scenario to be 'fairest'. Mia apologia.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby TN1965 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:01 am

batonless relay wrote:And, the only way to stop marks chasing is to require that everyone get the A BEFORE entry. Does it bother me that there is marks chasing now? No. But it would bother me tremendously if the "favorites" were pre-selected - I might even consider that ****** **.

Also, there is NOTHING about going through an extremely slow race (which is what usually happens at USOT/USATF) that "battle hardens" any mid-distance runners for what will happen in the medal territory of the world stage. So, I might consider MOST distance races meaningless.


Did any one chase the mark after the trial last year? NO. Was the trial entry limited to A-qualifiers? NO. So why do we have to require the A-standard for entry in order to prevent chasing? Makes absolutely no sense.

And what would be a good way to prevent extremely slow pace mid-distance races? Having runners who are trying to hit the A-standard at the trial.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:26 am

What the heck is the problem that there are several permutations in several of the events. It actually adds some interesting discussion and drama.

I do not see it as a problem that needs solving, much less the extreme 'solution' of sending no one in some events (including ones where we might eventually send a full compliment), having fields of 2-4 for the Trials/National Championships.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:52 am

26mi235 wrote:What the heck is the problem that there are several permutations in several of the events. It actually adds some interesting discussion and drama.

I do not see it as a problem that needs solving, much less the extreme 'solution' of sending no one in some events (including ones where we might eventually send a full compliment), having fields of 2-4 for the Trials/National Championships.

If the "offshoot" of the permutations is that Marlow can hope for a day where 'favorites' get a pass then it makes sense to do away with it now, imo. I will NEVER agree that is favorable to what we have now - that's why I came up with the only A's at trials; it becomes too hard to argue one A over another A (though obviously not all A's would be the same).
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media, valleyrunner and 7 guests