That's a really good explanation for something I found hard to understand. Thanks. But it seems like you're going to have numerous cases where there are people who have possibly qualified but could get bumped if someone moves ahead of them in the rankings. And I also believe you're going to need to get your qualifying marks in competitions sanctioned by WA and there will be people who can't get into those races.
Those qualifying standards are just stupidity.Itll be almost impossible for anyone to achieve those times without drug cocktails.There might be some natty women marathoners,and a few others,but thats it.
And I also believe you're going to need to get your qualifying marks in competitions sanctioned by WA and there will be people who can't get into those races.
Why wouldn't one of the top athletes in the world be able to get into a World Athletics sanctioned meet?
Oh great, this will only lead to more time trials.
Or...will this force more athletes (cough...Bowerman TC...cough) to start racing more often and showing up at Diamond League events to earn world ranking points?
This keeps coming up, but here it is again. The emphasis is now on WORLD RANKING. World Athletics doesn't want to post a time standard and take in anyone and their dog who hits it. So they made the time standards really hard, such that a lot of the field will be pulled in through the world rankings. And for the most part if you are someone who can hit the world standard, you more than likely have the world standard.
So really people should just stop looking at the world/olympic standards. The world ranking is generally how you qualify now. The world athletics site has a nice filter where you limit to 'top 3 per country' so you can see what type of world ranking score is good enough to qualify. Then you filter by country rankings, and anyone who has a ranking score higher than what you saw as 'the last guy in' at the world level can technically qualify.
Here is an example, let's say they will accept 24 athletes for the 10,000m on the track. Limiting to 3 per country, Jack Rayner of Australia is the 24th highest ranking score athlete with 1186 points. For reference Sean McGorty is the USA #3 guy at 1207 points. Right now USA only has 3 guys above the 1186 points that is the 24th spot right now, Grant Fisher, Joe Klecker, and Sean McGorty. Those three would go to the olympics right now since we have exactly three, even though only one of them has the 'standard' of sub 27. The standard doesn't really matter, it's about the world rankings now. Let's say Mantz runs a little better and moves up from a 1177 score to a 1190. Now USA has 4 guys who have a ranking score high enough to be in the top 24 when limiting to 3 per country. Now you have a race amongst those 4 guys at the US championships to pick the three guys we send. And it is possible that there is a 5th guy, who is right on the outside of being ranked high enough and if he could win and get the bonus points for winning USAs and have a fast 'enough' time such that it improves his ranking score above that 1186 then that person could now go.
So the standards don't really matter, it's largely about world ranking now. And bonus points are a large part of the ranking, so if you can run fast and WIN a big race, you're going to be rewarded with a good ranking.
Sure that is all true. It may only matter in the US, but it makes the trials more confusing.
Who knows, maybe it will help get people to race more often. But you have to get in to those races to have a chance to get points. Part of the purity of running, is that if you hit the time nobody can argue it. There is no subjectivity (or confusing point system).
It's like indoor NCAAs today. They take the top 16 people, no standards. For the most part the rankings aren't changing that much. If you're solidly in the top 24 a month out from our Trials which is usually the last possible weekend before the rankings freeze, you're not really worried about suddenly dropping out of the rankings. And going into the olympic trials, it's pretty easy to just look at how many Americans in each event are ranked high enough, knowing they could potentially qualify. So instead of marking people with the time standard with an asterisk at the olympic trials, you mark the people ranked high enough with an asterisk... And then you have a couple people just outside of being ranked high enough, and if they can place top 3 which gets bonus points, and run remotely close to the time standards, then they'll get bumped up in the rankings and qualify. It's really no different than today needing to know which people have the time standard, now you just need to know which people are ranked high enough.
I kind of like the idea that they are trying to incentivize people to compete against each other more to accumulate world rankings points, but I think the world ranking system as it currently stands is incredibly flawed
This keeps coming up, but here it is again. The emphasis is now on WORLD RANKING. World Athletics doesn't want to post a time standard and take in anyone and their dog who hits it. So they made the time standards really hard, such that a lot of the field will be pulled in through the world rankings. And for the most part if you are someone who can hit the world standard, you more than likely have the world standard.
So really people should just stop looking at the world/olympic standards. The world ranking is generally how you qualify now. The world athletics site has a nice filter where you limit to 'top 3 per country' so you can see what type of world ranking score is good enough to qualify. Then you filter by country rankings, and anyone who has a ranking score higher than what you saw as 'the last guy in' at the world level can technically qualify.
Here is an example, let's say they will accept 24 athletes for the 10,000m on the track. Limiting to 3 per country, Jack Rayner of Australia is the 24th highest ranking score athlete with 1186 points. For reference Sean McGorty is the USA #3 guy at 1207 points. Right now USA only has 3 guys above the 1186 points that is the 24th spot right now, Grant Fisher, Joe Klecker, and Sean McGorty. Those three would go to the olympics right now since we have exactly three, even though only one of them has the 'standard' of sub 27. The standard doesn't really matter, it's about the world rankings now. Let's say Mantz runs a little better and moves up from a 1177 score to a 1190. Now USA has 4 guys who have a ranking score high enough to be in the top 24 when limiting to 3 per country. Now you have a race amongst those 4 guys at the US championships to pick the three guys we send. And it is possible that there is a 5th guy, who is right on the outside of being ranked high enough and if he could win and get the bonus points for winning USAs and have a fast 'enough' time such that it improves his ranking score above that 1186 then that person could now go.
So the standards don't really matter, it's largely about world ranking now. And bonus points are a large part of the ranking, so if you can run fast and WIN a big race, you're going to be rewarded with a good ranking.
This is true to an extent, but worth repeating that WA wants half of athletes to get in by the standards and half to get in by world ranking. Either way, it's encouraging competition in a way that easier standards do not. This way, the biggest stars who have the most talent face less risk in missing out on the Olympics, and most everyone gets more of an incentive to compete at big meets. More meets might even actually matter.
That's a really good explanation for something I found hard to understand. Thanks. But it seems like you're going to have numerous cases where there are people who have possibly qualified but could get bumped if someone moves ahead of them in the rankings. And I also believe you're going to need to get your qualifying marks in competitions sanctioned by WA and there will be people who can't get into those races.
It's very unlikely that someone will get bumped in the rankings at the olympic trials because they take place the last week before the rankings freeze for the olympics. It would take someone somewhere else in the world running a big track meet that same day who is also ranked right on the edge.
We have already experienced this. Cole Hocker in 2021 qualified for the 1500m olympics from world ranking, he was right on the edge as one of the last ones in on ranking.
I kind of like the idea that they are trying to incentivize people to compete against each other more to accumulate world rankings points, but I think the world ranking system as it currently stands is incredibly flawed
The current world ranking system is accomplishing exactly what World Athletics wants it to accomplish which is that it heavily overweight Diamond League meets.
You may not like that's how it was set up, but it's intention is to force more athletes to compete in the Diamond League.
And I also believe you're going to need to get your qualifying marks in competitions sanctioned by WA and there will be people who can't get into those races.
Why wouldn't one of the top athletes in the world be able to get into a World Athletics sanctioned meet?
There won't be much of a problem for a top athlete but it's people not quite at the top but hoping to get there who'll have the problem. Let's say you've got a best 10,000 of 27:50 or so and you're in the US . You're not likely anywhere close to qualifying via the rankings and you MAY not be fast enough to get into the few 10,000s where you can improve your ranking. And the path of going to Stanford in May in that meet where the weather is usually perfect and everyone cooperates to get as many people their qualifier isn't going to work, as I understand it, because that meet won't have a sanction from WA.
And I also believe you're going to need to get your qualifying marks in competitions sanctioned by WA and there will be people who can't get into those races.
Oh great, this will only lead to more time trials.
I actually wonder if it will lead to fewer time trials. The times are such an extreme reach for the vast majority of Olympic Trials competitors. It seems like it could actually be a good way to get athletes to compete more often or more strategically to ensure a good world ranking. Even the likes of BTC can't assume they would hit these standards in a time trial.
Possibly. That was the intent. But what might actually happen is athletes run multiple trials. So instead of trying to hit 13:05 they try to run 13:10-13:15 three times to boost their ranking. More racing but still lots of time trials.