Randy Treadway wrote:But the 1500? I don't know---the downside (unnecessarily fatiguing the athletes) might outweigh the positives (get use to it, because that's what you're going to experience in London).
The National Championship / Olympic Trials is not supposed to be a training event. Leave that to the coaches.
It's not a training issue; it's to select athletes who can handle multiple rounds better. Recall what happened to Bannister in 1952. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
Hasay is running the wrong race. She's not quick enough for the 1500 at the top level. She is a 5k/10k runner.
Uceny and Simpson look great but they were cruising, not running. This looks like 4 women for 3 positions and if I'm Uceny, Simpson and Rowbury, I try to make Pierce run, not sit back and kick.
Randy Treadway wrote:But the 1500? I don't know---the downside (unnecessarily fatiguing the athletes) might outweigh the positives (get use to it, because that's what you're going to experience in London).
The National Championship / Olympic Trials is not supposed to be a training event. Leave that to the coaches.
It's not a training issue; it's to select athletes who can handle multiple rounds better. Recall what happened to Bannister in 1952. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
My only problem with this theory is that we don't need to duplicate Olympic rounds now. How often to we hear of athletes having difficulty peaking now and then again (or trying to maintain it) for the Olympics.
Maybe it would be easier to not have those problems with one less race now?
All of this talk of how importance of 'being able to handle the rounds' might, a big might, be true if the US had an overabundance of phenomenal athletes, which is not the case at all. What the extra rounds do in the Trials is give the best athletes, the ones who can actually medal, or place well in the finals, an opportunity to get injured.
odelltrclan wrote:My only problem with this theory is that we don't need to duplicate Olympic rounds now. How often to we hear of athletes having difficulty peaking now and then again (or trying to maintain it) for the Olympics. Maybe it would be easier to not have those problems with one less race now?
Yes, 1000 times yes. One of the most baffling myths of present-day athletics is that there is any true logic in mimicking the Olympic schedule. There is none whatsoever. In fact, I'm happy to make an argument that our current system is utterly counterproductive: it lulls athletes into thinking that the first round is a mere formality--basically a warm up run. In our Trials it may well be; at the Olympics, that attitude could well be fatal. It is NOT the number of rounds that matters, but the QUALITY/INTENSITY of the competition, round to round. Meaningless early rounds just dull the genuine racing smarts of athletes.
In the 70s it made sense to have an Oly Trials system that was as much like the Oly Games as possible, in order to become familiar with it. But now that we have Worlds every two years, and athletes' careers are longer, athletes have plenty of chances to run rounds besides the OT. All it does here is use up gas that could be better spent elsewhere.
And if you're going to insist on 3 rounds, then please let more athletes qualify.
odelltrclan wrote:My only problem with this theory is that we don't need to duplicate Olympic rounds now. How often to we hear of athletes having difficulty peaking now and then again (or trying to maintain it) for the Olympics. Maybe it would be easier to not have those problems with one less race now?
Yes, 1000 times yes. One of the most baffling myths of present-day athletics is that there is any true logic in mimicking the Olympic schedule. There is none whatsoever. In fact, I'm happy to make an argument that our current system is utterly counterproductive: it lulls athletes into thinking that the first round is a mere formality--basically a warm up run. In our Trials it may well be; at the Olympics, that attitude could well be fatal. It is NOT the number of rounds that matters, but the QUALITY/INTENSITY of the competition, round to round. Meaningless early rounds just dull the genuine racing smarts of athletes.
kuha wrote: I'm happy to make an argument that our current system is utterly counterproductive: it lulls athletes into thinking that the first round is a mere formality--basically a warm up run.
Uceny and Simpson made it look so easy in the semi, it seemed they were treeating it as mere formality. So why not have just one final with 12 runners?
kuha wrote: I'm happy to make an argument that our current system is utterly counterproductive: it lulls athletes into thinking that the first round is a mere formality--basically a warm up run.
Uceny and Simpson made it look so easy in the semi, it seemed they were treeating it as mere formality. So why not have just one final with 12 runners?
I'm not against this at all. The point is, if the top 5 or 6 are there, you're going to get pretty much the best team possible.
odelltrclan wrote:My only problem with this theory is that we don't need to duplicate Olympic rounds now. How often to we hear of athletes having difficulty peaking now and then again (or trying to maintain it) for the Olympics. Maybe it would be easier to not have those problems with one less race now?
Yes, 1000 times yes. One of the most baffling myths of present-day athletics is that there is any true logic in mimicking the Olympic schedule. There is none whatsoever. In fact, I'm happy to make an argument that our current system is utterly counterproductive: it lulls athletes into thinking that the first round is a mere formality--basically a warm up run. In our Trials it may well be; at the Olympics, that attitude could well be fatal. It is NOT the number of rounds that matters, but the QUALITY/INTENSITY of the competition, round to round. Meaningless early rounds just dull the genuine racing smarts of athletes.
I agree with both. odelltrclan puts it well, and as others and I have said, our best athletes have to peak at the Olympics. And train through the Trials.
mcgato wrote:Anderson DQ? I'd like to see the video on that one.
Yep, Anderson out; Schmidt in, on sf results and on last day start list.
Official start list for last day just now revised to show Anderson back in, Schmidt back out. Total of 12. They haven't yet fixed the results from Friday, however, as of this moment.
kuha wrote: I'm happy to make an argument that our current system is utterly counterproductive: it lulls athletes into thinking that the first round is a mere formality--basically a warm up run.
Uceny and Simpson made it look so easy in the semi, it seemed they were treeating it as mere formality. So why not have just one final with 12 runners?
I'm not against this at all. The point is, if the top 5 or 6 are there, you're going to get pretty much the best team possible.
Best OT qualification: a) Presently active AR holders, defending OG medalists, and WC medalists qualify for the OT.
b) Everyone else who has achieved the OG B-standard qualifies, unless there are more qualifiers than we take into the OT in the present system. Then take the number of present qualifiers.
c) In those events in which the first two methods yield fewer qualifiers than would fill out a final, take as many performers as necessary to fill out a final in rank order of best performance during the qualifying period. Straight finals in those events.
Under this system, the great majority of events at the US trials would be straight finals. Every potential medalist would be present.
kuha wrote: I'm happy to make an argument that our current system is utterly counterproductive: it lulls athletes into thinking that the first round is a mere formality--basically a warm up run.
Uceny and Simpson made it look so easy in the semi, it seemed they were treeating it as mere formality. So why not have just one final with 12 runners?
I'm not against this at all. The point is, if the top 5 or 6 are there, you're going to get pretty much the best team possible.
Best OT qualification: a) Presently active AR holders, defending OG medalists, and WC medalists qualify for the OT.
b) Everyone else who has achieved the OG B-standard qualifies, unless there are more qualifiers than we take into the OT in the present system. Then take the number of present qualifiers.
c) In those events in which the first two methods yield fewer qualifiers than would fill out a final, take as many performers as necessary to fill out a final in rank order of best performance during the qualifying period. Straight finals in those events.
Under this system, the great majority of events at the US trials would be straight finals. Every potential medalist would be present.
I don't have an issue with a straight final....particularly in the mid/long distance events. 400m down maybe semi and final.
I might expand the fields to include either top finishers from the year previous national championship (3-5) and/or team members from WC/Olympic.
Nice race for the Big Three! They all looked as if there is more in the tank. Here's hoping they are up to the task if the London pace goes out at sub 4.
Anderson was DQ'ed and Schmit was then added, but then after the protest they just added Anderson back instead of kicking Schmit out since I think the protest was finalized this morning.
bobguild76 wrote:Nice race for the Big Three! They all looked as if there is more in the tank. Here's hoping they are up to the task if the London pace goes out at sub 4.
It could happen, too. Soboleva is in 4:00 shape, and IIRC she used to be a front-runner; of course, she has to make the Russian team and then the final first, and there are three Russians ahead of her on the year list.
I think the best possible team selected itself in this race.
Moser and Martinez were in that need-the-standard position and led the race up to 7-800, but, like the men, they weren't going fast enough and faded away. It's just extremely unlikely for someone who hasn't been able to get the standard to do so at the Trials after two preliminary rounds. Solomon did it in the 8 and Conley in the W 5, and major kudos to them.
60.14 for Uceny's last 400. I really hope she is ready for a big breakthrough. Arigawe and "Baby" Dibaba are scary good. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
ATK wrote:Anderson was DQ'ed and Schmit was then added, but then after the protest they just added Anderson back instead of kicking Schmit out since I think the protest was finalized this morning.
USATF has a "long" history of doing this, at least in non-lane races. If you tell somebody they've advanced, you don't later rip their guts out by saying "my bad!" It's pretty much a no-harm situation, and I think fairer to all concerned.
mrbowie wrote:Of all the athletes at the Trials, Morgan Uceny was the fittest looking. She is a veritable machine. A fantastic athlete. Good luck to her!
She did look in excellent form. BTW, I believe she is entered in the Paris DL 15, and will be severely challenged there; it will be a good test. I hope she's not too jet-lagged. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
mrbowie wrote:Of all the athletes at the Trials, Morgan Uceny was the fittest looking. She is a veritable machine. A fantastic athlete. Good luck to her!
She did look in excellent form. BTW, I believe she is entered in the Paris DL 15, and will be severely challenged there; it will be a good test. I hope she's not too jet-lagged. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
Yep, deres a 3:56 in the race, me thinx Uceny P.R.'s
I seem to recall that most US runners perform poorly in their first European meet after the national championships. The NC just takes too much out of most of the US athletes. More emotional than physical.
mrbowie wrote:Of all the athletes at the Trials, Morgan Uceny was the fittest looking. She is a veritable machine. A fantastic athlete. Good luck to her!
She did look in excellent form. BTW, I believe she is entered in the Paris DL 15, and will be severely challenged there; it will be a good test. I hope she's not too jet-lagged. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
Well, I looked again just now and I don't see Uceny listed, so, "Never mind!". It seemed fairly unlikely that she'd put herself in that field right after the Trials. Cheers, Alan Shank Woodland, CA, USA
kuha wrote:Right. For the millionth time, that's precisely what us "shorten the Trials so that every race actually means something" types have been saying for years.
In the latest editorial, September, I see gh is pushing his 6 day, 2 weekend, Trials idea again, using this race as an example of what is wrong with the present format. I agree.
