World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?


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

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby 18.99s » Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:17 am

The problem is more with the shortening of the qualifying window than the level of the standards per se. By eliminating the peak performance periods from the previous season, they've created situations where actual medalists from the previous year may find themselves unable to attain the A during the restrictive qualifying window.

This is troublesome in the sprints and long jump where wind-aided performances get thrown out, and 800m to 5000m where tactical races often result in unimpressive times (thankfully the 10K and marathon still start in January of the prior year). With just a little more wind at the US trials in the men's 200m, Tyson Gay still wouldn't have the A standard, which is absurd.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby tandfman » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:02 am

18.99s wrote: With just a little more wind at the US trials in the men's 200m, Tyson Gay still wouldn't have the A standard, which is absurd.

I'm sure that if his Des Moines time had been wind-aided, he would by now have run a 200 somewhere in Europe and gotten the A standard.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby pakillo » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:06 am

lonewolf wrote:I agree, 24 in the field events is doable if you have dual facilites. Even so, I prefer a more streamlined event. What I want most of all to avoid is prelims, quarter finals and semis in the shorter running events and semis in the longer. .

Then you just shouldn't watch prelims, semis... Just watch finals and when you don't see someone you expected to see ask "How? They had such a good SB" :mrgreen:
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby lonewolf » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:46 am

Clarification: I meant, I don't want the athletes to have to go through the attrition of multiple rounds.
Me, I can sit there all day.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby pakillo » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:37 pm

lonewolf wrote:Clarification: I meant, I don't want the athletes to have to go through the attrition of multiple rounds.
Me, I can sit there all day.
They have to go through multiple rounds if they want to be in a position to fight for a medal, top places or even just to run as many rounds as possible. That's what championships is about.
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby Powell » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:02 am

18.99s wrote:The problem is more with the shortening of the qualifying window than the level of the standards per se. By eliminating the peak performance periods from the previous season, they've created situations where actual medalists from the previous year may find themselves unable to attain the A during the restrictive qualifying window.


I disagree. I'd rather have softer standards with a shorter qualifying window than tougher standards and a longer period to attain them. In the latter case you end up with a bunch of qualified athletes who were indeed in excellent shape last year, but are nowhere near that form now, while people with much better chances of doing well stay home.
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby 18.99s » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:38 am

Powell wrote:
18.99s wrote:The problem is more with the shortening of the qualifying window than the level of the standards per se. By eliminating the peak performance periods from the previous season, they've created situations where actual medalists from the previous year may find themselves unable to attain the A during the restrictive qualifying window.


I disagree. I'd rather have softer standards with a shorter qualifying window than tougher standards and a longer period to attain them. In the latter case you end up with a bunch of qualified athletes who were indeed in excellent shape last year, but are nowhere near that form now, while people with much better chances of doing well stay home.


But with softer standards you end up with a larger bunch of people who have never ever in their lives performed at a level that could place them in the top 8 or close to it.

The system of starting the qualifying period 15-20 months before the championships worked well for many years; there was no good reason to narrow it down to less than a year. If too many people are qualifying, raise the standards, don't narrow the window.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby Powell » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:55 am

18.99s wrote:But with softer standards you end up with a larger bunch of people who have never ever in their lives performed at a level that could place them in the top 8 or close to it.


No, you don't. They could make the A standard in HT 77 meters instead of 79, and still everyone who got it would easily be good enough to potentially make the top 8.

18.99s wrote:The system of starting the qualifying period 15-20 months before the championships worked well for many years


And you're saying it worked well on the basis of what? My observation is just the opposite - in every major championship there would be a couple of people per event who qualified based on marks from the previous year, but were clearly not in sufficient shape to do much. If you're good enough to make an impact at the WC, you ought to be good enough to get a good mark at some point during the season. Qualifying deadline in late July gives you plenty of time and opportunity to do that.
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby 18.99s » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:52 am

Powell wrote:And you're saying it worked well on the basis of what? My observation is just the opposite - in every major championship there would be a couple of people per event who qualified based on marks from the previous year, but were clearly not in sufficient shape to do much.

Any qualifying system will result in some of that. For example, there will be some who peaked earlier in the season (including surpassing the A standard) and then don't have anything left for the championships.

The trouble with the shorter qualifying window is that it has a greater risk of leaving potential medalists and finalists at home (including actual medalists and finalists form the prior year). To me that's a bigger problem that admitting a few who couldn't replicate their top-class performance from last year. If they can give the winner from TWO years ago a wild card, they should at least give an automatic A standard to the medalists from one year ago.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby Powell » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:46 am

18.99s wrote:The trouble with the shorter qualifying window is that it has a greater risk of leaving potential medalists and finalists at home (including actual medalists and finalists form the prior year).


Not really. There's much stronger correlation between result in a major championship and SB for a given athlete than there is between the result and SB from previous year. Thus the more you base the qualification on current year's results, the fewer potential challengers will be left at home (keeping the total number of competitors constant).
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby 18.99s » Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:28 am

Powell wrote:Not really. There's much stronger correlation between result in a major championship and SB for a given athlete than there is between the result and SB from previous year.


Even if that is true, the relevant comparison isn't the SB of this year vs. the previous year, it's this year's pre-championship SB vs. the best of the previous 15-20 months including this season.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby donley2 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:49 pm

So to get really specific on this topic. The 2011 world champs and the 2012 olympic games A standard in the long jump was 8.20. For some reason I completely fail to comprehend they raised it to 8.25 in 2013. If they had simply left it alone all this late decision on Rutherford versus Tomlinson would not be necessary as they could both be on the team.
donley2
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby Alan Shank » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:30 pm

donley2 wrote:I don't think 35 is that problematic. The only way I would personally support them shoot for lower than that would be if a larger percentage of the field than now came from people with A standards. The whole, qualify by your best mark concept, is deeply flawed anyway, as it does not really measure ones ability to compete at a high level consistently.


It's not intended to measure that. I think the principle is, anybody who is going to be able to make a final, say, should be able at some point to reach the standard. If you can't reach the standard, then obviously you can't do it consistently.

As to reducing the events to finals, that's a DL meet! I loooooove to watch the rounds; that was one of the main reasons I started attending global championships. I think that, in the races, they have reached a good balance between too many rounds and not enough. At one time, I believe they had semis in the 5000 and steeplechase, and four rounds in the 800 (Snell ran 4). Of course, that results in these 3 semis, 2+2. There is no perfect solution.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA
Alan Shank
 
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: N38 40, W 121 52

Re: World Champs Men's Field Event A Standards Too High?

Postby bushop » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:16 am

I'd like to see:
• top–16 from the performance list (3-per-country)
• top–2 from four regional qualifying meets (does not count against 3-per-country)
• 'wild card' auto for last WC gold and Olympic gold medalists (does not count against 3-per-country)
* I think field size would stay under thirty
* one country could have seven in an event
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bruce Kritzler, exdrake, Google Feedfetcher, jjimbojames and 13 guests