Pick the Third or not.


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Pick the Third or not.

Postby KDFINE » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:14 am

Oftentimes the opinion is posted that the USA should allot the first two Olympic slots to the top two finishers in the trials, and that somehow it should be left to a committee to pick the third athlete Under this system who would have lost out? I'm guessing that Otis Davis and Les Carney may have not had the chance to compete in the Olympics, and probably neither Michael Bates or Harrison Dillard in the 100 in 1948. When I think of examples like these I figure the USA is better off with the system it has. What other trials third places might have been bumped off the team by a subjective evaluation system?
KDFINE
 
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Pick the Third or not.

Postby lonewolf » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:31 am

I have no idea which theoretically deserving also-rans may have been left off our Olympic teams but ,IMO, "first three past the post" on Trial date is the best of all flawed options.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Pick the Third or not.

Postby mcgato » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:36 pm

It's hard to say without figuring out who would have replaced the third finisher. My reason for agreeing with lonewolf's sentiment is that I could have seen a scenario where John Drummond would have been replaced in the 100m in 1996 by Carl Lewis. Carl would have had bigger media appeal and Nike backing. Never mind that he finished last in the trials final.

Many would say that Carl would not have been picked over Drummond, and I wouldn't disagree. But I'm not certain that it would not have happened. The problem is that there are too many chances for the declining, but still very famous, to be given too much favor due to media or sponsor reasons. Plus when that back door opens, the opportunity to game the system increases too much.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Re: Pick the Third or not.

Postby batonless relay » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:54 pm

In 1992
-Carl Lewis was 4th (20.15) and Michael Bates (20.14), the eventual bronze medallist in Barcelona was 3rd. I don't think Bates goes if third is not guaranteed.
-Greg Foster (13.32) is 4th and Arthur Blake (13.30) is 3rd.
1988
-Mark Dailey (3:41.31) Jim Spivey (3:41.52)
-Kevin Young (47.72), David Patrick (47.75), Danny Harris (47.76) *Harris was Silver medallist in '87 where he was .02 behind CR Edwin Moses
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Pick the Third or not.

Postby Marlow » Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:26 pm

KDFINE wrote:Oftentimes the opinion is posted that the USA should allot the first two Olympic slots to the top two finishers in the trials, and that somehow it should be left to a committee to pick the third athlete

NO ONE, that I know of, has ever asked that the USA pick anyone for the OG T&F team by committee. What I, and others, have said is that the third member should qualify (on the track) by another means than just the OT. While some athletes who finished third have gone on to fame and glory, not only would MOST of them have also been selected by an alternate system, but there would be more successes in an alternate method than the current one. I'm not going to waste anyone's time by explaining the superior alternate means, as we have played that game many times before. 'You could look it up.'
Marlow
 
Posts: 21121
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Pick the Third or not.

Postby batonless relay » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:15 am

Any other means that the third US representative would qualify on that wasn't the 3rd athlete past the post would be a superfluous process designed to give it's creator a woody or a bullet point for their CV. The only reason it would change is so that someone could take ownership of an idea that should have never seen the light of day; it's an exercise in arrogance, not creativity or even enlightenment. It's silly. It's unfair. And, thank heavens the serious people don't consider it.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests