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


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

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

Postby donley2 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:56 pm

On the women's side all the field events had at least 12 people who had achieved the "A" standard outdoors. However on the men's side the counts were

TJ 5
HT 5
DT 8
LJ 10
Seems like this is a bit steep. On a related note, is it just my imagination, or in the last decade or so have they made a conscious decision to limit the field sizes in the field events from where they were in the previous world championships?
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 tm71 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:54 pm

I think so. I remember 53 male long jumpers showing up at the worlds 20 yrs ago. Maybe they are trying to get rid of qualifying for field events which they have done at some world indoor meets. It doesn't help that the qualifying period is only 9
months.
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Flumpy » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:27 am

Yes.

some of them are ridonculous.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby tandfman » Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:36 am

donley2 wrote:On the women's side all the field events had at least 12 people who had achieved the "A" standard outdoors. However on the men's side the counts were

TJ 5
HT 5
DT 8
LJ 10
Seems like this is a bit steep. On a related note, is it just my imagination, or in the last decade or so have they made a conscious decision to limit the field sizes in the field events from where they were in the previous world championships?

In the first place, your counts are wrong. There are 12 qualified in the LJ and 8 in the TJ (remember that indoor marks qualify).

More important, it doesn't matter how many A qualifiers there are. What matters is the field size, and the field consists of all of those who qualified by whatever means. By my count, there are now 25 men qualified in the DT and 26 in the HT, and the qualifying period is still open. (I didn't count the jumps because that would have involved integrating the indoor and outdoor lists, but I'm sure there are enough qualifiers in those events as well.)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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

Postby jb » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 pm

The relevant consideration isn't field size, but situations in which deserving athletes fail to qualify because the standards are too restrictive. Some examples below:

Discus
Spain can not send both Mario Pestano (WC/OG finalist in '03, '07, '08, '09, '11) and Frank Casanas (OG 5th in '08, 7th in '12) as both have seasonal bests of 65.xx (A standard is 66.00).

Hammer
Russia can not send both Sergey Litvinov (WC 5th in '09), Aleksey Zagorniy (WC 3rd in '09, EC 2nd in '12), as both have seasonal bests of 78.xx (A standard is 79.00)
jb
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:22 pm

When doing the counts, you may need to truncate due to the Max of 3 (4) from one country.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby tandfman » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:50 pm

26mi235 wrote:When doing the counts, you may need to truncate due to the Max of 3 (4) from one country.

Yes, of course.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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

Postby donley2 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:23 pm

jb wrote:The relevant consideration isn't field size, but situations in which deserving athletes fail to qualify because the standards are too restrictive. Some examples below:

Discus
Spain can not send both Mario Pestano (WC/OG finalist in '03, '07, '08, '09, '11) and Frank Casanas (OG 5th in '08, 7th in '12) as both have seasonal bests of 65.xx (A standard is 66.00).

Hammer
Russia can not send both Sergey Litvinov (WC 5th in '09), Aleksey Zagorniy (WC 3rd in '09, EC 2nd in '12), as both have seasonal bests of 78.xx (A standard is 79.00)


Thank you. What I was trying to get at is that for countries that are used to sending multiple entrants (USA,GER,RUS etc) both the A and the B standard matter. I would personally prefer the A be a little more lax. My point being this could be done without affecting field sizes dramatically. I looked at the range of field sizes in the mens long jump and it has ranged from 27 to 50 and 01,05,07,and 11 have had four of the five smallest fields in the history of the WC, so in this particular case the field sizes are definitely trending down, and I am guessing that is intentional.
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 donley2 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:42 pm

While mistakes are likely here is the data for the field sizes in the lj, hj and dt for all of the world championships.
year lj hj dt total
83 34 37 26 97
87 40 34 27 101
91 43 40 36 119
93 45 40 31 116
95 50 35 43 128
97 39 35 42 116
99 45 31 37 113
2001 28 25 26 79
2003 36 32 27 95
2005 27 29 27 83
2007 32 39 29 100
2009 45 31 30 106
2011 36 34 33 103

The nineties have the five biggest fields, 2001 was the smallest and 2009 and 2011 are somewhere in the middle. What I am also interested in (but to lazy to actually try and do) is what is the number of A's and B's. If the target is roughly 35 people i would think you would want to try and get a roughly equal number of A's and B's.
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 tandfman » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:53 pm

It seems to me that many of those fields have been too big. You say that the target might be 35. Do you really think that's ideal from the point of view of either the athletes or the spectators? I think not. I think it should be a bit lower.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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

Postby donley2 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:08 pm

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.
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 gh » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:39 pm

every athlete you add to a field event Q round adds at least 3 minutes to the proceedings. The longer the competition, the longer it is between jumps/throws (not fair to the athletes) and the more you increase chances that the conditions change markedly (also not fair to the athletes).

We won't even get into providing some semblance of a meaningfull competition for the spectators.

All in all, I'd be quite happy with a max of 24, as nasty as that is and cutting things off at a pretty high level. But this is the WC after all, not an all-comer's meet.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby tm71 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:49 pm

gh wrote:every athlete you add to a field event Q round adds at least 3 minutes to the proceedings. The longer the competition, the longer it is between jumps/throws (not fair to the athletes) and the more you increase chances that the conditions change markedly (also not fair to the athletes).

We won't even get into providing some semblance of a meaningfull competition for the spectators.

All in all, I'd be quite happy with a max of 24, as nasty as that is and cutting things off at a pretty high level. But this is the WC after all, not an all-comer's meet.


Agree. The USOT have a max of 24 for the field events.
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby donley2 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:52 pm

jb wrote:The relevant consideration isn't field size, but situations in which deserving athletes fail to qualify because the standards are too restrictive. Some examples below:

Discus
Spain can not send both Mario Pestano (WC/OG finalist in '03, '07, '08, '09, '11) and Frank Casanas (OG 5th in '08, 7th in '12) as both have seasonal bests of 65.xx (A standard is 66.00).

Hammer
Russia can not send both Sergey Litvinov (WC 5th in '09), Aleksey Zagorniy (WC 3rd in '09, EC 2nd in '12), as both have seasonal bests of 78.xx (A standard is 79.00)


This example is not completely valid because Rutherford is now injured, but it is the most blatant by far. At this point the UK could not send both Rutherford and Tomlinson (world ranked 1 and 4 last year) because neither one of them has the A.
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 donley2 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:55 pm

gh wrote:every athlete you add to a field event Q round adds at least 3 minutes to the proceedings. The longer the competition, the longer it is between jumps/throws (not fair to the athletes) and the more you increase chances that the conditions change markedly (also not fair to the athletes).

We won't even get into providing some semblance of a meaningfull competition for the spectators.

All in all, I'd be quite happy with a max of 24, as nasty as that is and cutting things off at a pretty high level. But this is the WC after all, not an all-comer's meet.


I would be completely happy with that if they just took the top 24 on the world list when the qualifying period ended, but I don't see that happening.
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 tandfman » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:03 pm

donley2 wrote:I would be completely happy with that if they just took the top 24 on the world list when the qualifying period ended, but I don't see that happening.

I can imagine the IAAF going to the top X at some point, the number probably being higher than 24. They've done something similar with the relays, and with certain indoor events. But there would always be a limitation of 3 per country (plus wild cards). I don't ever see a WCh steeple with 10 Kenyans or a 100m Hurdles with 15 Americans, which is what you'd have right now if you took the top 24 in the world this year.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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

Postby lonewolf » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:42 pm

24 per event in Ch meets is too many. Max should be 16 by whatever elimination method from where ever with no limit per country.
I say this for NCAA, WC, Oly... I don't think there are more than 16 athletes in any event with a reasonable chance to medal and I believe they can be identified in the course of a season building up to the championship.

It is tedious for officials to work a three or four hour competition with multiple flights. I can't imagine how boring it is for spectators with little reliable info to keep up with the event.

Field events:2 flights of 8 in field events, (LJ will require 80-85 minutes, start to finish. 12 person flights are too many, too long between jumps)
Running events: one semi up to 800m, top 4 each heat to finals, all finals 1500 up. Keep it moving.. you could fit a meet into a compact 2 hour TV program with competent announcers keeping fans informed of point standings, etc..
I haven't worked out the details but I would watch such an event...
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 gh » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:19 pm

You've got to remember that at the WC/OG level there are only back-to-back flites in the 3 long throws. In all the jumps and the shot they have dual-pit/ring setups and run side-by-side, which is why I said 24 was doable.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby lonewolf » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:42 pm

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. .
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 gh » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:46 pm

with 200 member federations and everybody wanting at least a teensy-tiny piece of the pie, don't look for that to happen any time soon.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby lonewolf » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:51 pm

I understand that. .... but they don't get a very big piece of the pie sending 14' women long jumpers to the Olympics.. :(
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 Tuariki » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:21 pm

lonewolf wrote:I understand that. .... but they don't get a very big piece of the pie sending 14' women long jumpers to the Olympics.. :(

Could be worse. triple jumpers who are still on the runway when they land
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

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

Postby lonewolf » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:49 pm

Tuariki wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I understand that. .... but they don't get a very big piece of the pie sending 14' women long jumpers to the Olympics.. :(

Could be worse. triple jumpers who are still on the runway when they land

Yep, those too. :)
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 LopenUupunut » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:00 am

lonewolf wrote:24 per event in Ch meets is too many. Max should be 16 by whatever elimination method from where ever with no limit per country.
I say this for NCAA, WC, Oly... I don't think there are more than 16 athletes in any event with a reasonable chance to medal and I believe they can be identified in the course of a season building up to the championship.
I don't think this is true. Even now potential medalists are being left home; if only 16 athletes per event were allowed, the situation would be even worse.

Would Sylwester Bednarek have made the supposed top 16 in 2009? Would Gennadiy Avdyeyenko have made the supposed top 16 in 1983, with a PB of 225? Was Keshorn Walcott in the supposed top 16 last year? In the jumps - especially men's HJ and LJ - there are often more than 16 potential medalists; the HJ because it's so unpredictable, the LJ because it's so deep. There are tons of long jumpers around 805-820 who can medal if they get it right (Tommi Evilä, anybody?), many of whom are being left home even with the current system.

In any case, I can't think of any fair way of selecting the top 16 - apart from a qualification round, which is what we have now :)
LopenUupunut
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Sleeping in Finland

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

Postby Powell » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:09 am

gh wrote:All in all, I'd be quite happy with a max of 24, as nasty as that is and cutting things off at a pretty high level.


But, as said above, it's not so much about the overall number of participants as about top-class people not being able to compete. I'd be more or less OK with 24 athletes per event if there was only a single qualifying standard, but this A and B stuff screws everything up. Especially in an event like men's HT, where the B is relatively easy, while the A is ridiculously tough.

In general, I believe it's simply unfair to deny qualification to people who have shown the ability to perform at a level adequate to make the top 8. And looking at these standards, in nearly every case a result below the A is sure to place you higher than that at WC/OG, even in optimal weather conditions. Hell, it took less than 79 meters to MEDAL in HT in London last year :?
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 » 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: No registered users and 8 guests