Ultimately, this is a fundamental question of what you think athletics should be about at the elite level: is it about competition or times? Should athletes be racing one another or racing the clock?
Racing the clock will not make the sport more popular. It reduces it to the level of a YouTube challenge. Competition between athletes is the basis of any popular sport, the stats are a secondary consideration.
Ultimately, this is a fundamental question of what you think athletics should be about at the elite level: is it about competition or times? Should athletes be racing one another or racing the clock?
Racing the clock will not make the sport more popular. It reduces it to the level of a YouTube challenge. Competition between athletes is the basis of any popular sport, the stats are a secondary consideration.
The problem with this is that every serious competition will be reduced to a Centro gold medal race; watch the recent Pac 12 1500m for an example. While entertaining, eventually people get tired of watching 3:50 1500m sit and kicks.
This race, and the Boston races earlier this year should be the final nails in the coffin for qualifying standards. Athletes have shown that unless WA makes them prohibitively hard - maybe 12:45 - then athletes will raise their game to meet them. When the person finishing second last runs 13-flat, the time no longer has meaning.
In light of that, why make athletes perform time trials that few people are interested in? Instead, make qualifying for the Olympics and World's based completely on rankings. In a world where times don't matter, get people racing for the win or places. Make racing matter.
People coming back from injury may struggle to get 5 meets in (for the shorter distances, 3 for the 5000) to get a ranking. I like having a tough standard, say 12:55.0 for 5k (which only 10 people have so far, which includes 2023 performances). I think the goal of getting 10-12 in through the entry standard and fill the rest via world ranking is good. But the standard needs to be unatainable to most, so we don't have the situation we currently have for the marathon.
Again, the way to make sure you get the number you want from the time standard is to not have a time standard, but to do it based on descending order list (possibly by some combination of global and area) and set the number you'll allow in off that list to the number you want, and let the rest in by World Rankings.
This also has the happy benefit of not letting someone rest on their laurels with 100% certainty that they have a qualifier after they pop one good early season time trial.
This race, and the Boston races earlier this year should be the final nails in the coffin for qualifying standards. Athletes have shown that unless WA makes them prohibitively hard - maybe 12:45 - then athletes will raise their game to meet them. When the person finishing second last runs 13-flat, the time no longer has meaning.
In light of that, why make athletes perform time trials that few people are interested in? Instead, make qualifying for the Olympics and World's based completely on rankings. In a world where times don't matter, get people racing for the win or places. Make racing matter.
The standards should probably be beefed up to 12:55/3:31.5. I don't think that LA Grand Prix race is worth being upset about. It was a really good race, and not a mindless time trial. Ditto those Chinese DL meets where some Kenyans got their marks. Ultimately, meets specifically designed for 1500/5K qualifying (Teare's Wake Forest, some of Wightman's Aussie races, BU races mostly, Bowerman time trials) are what you want to get rid of if athletes are doing them instead of doing interesting races like Millrose, World Indoors, Commonwealth Tour Gold/Diamond League. I'd leave out The Ten or Night of 10Ks or most of the road races. These become interesting spectacles, and there is not a great ecosystem of 10Ks out there. The ranking points in Gold/Silver/Bronze meets should be pretty strong so that it is better to finish 3rd in 3:35 in the LA Grand Prix 1500 (an enjoyable, solid race) like Centro did than to run 3:33 in some impromptu Time Trial somewhere. I wouldn't get rid of time standards completely just from an access perspective and also for athletes than run multiple events.
I think we should drop the standards entirely from 1500-Marathon (idc what they do below that lol). Make them entirely based on world ranking, but do it by country, not by athlete. If a country has 3 athletes that qualify based on world ranking, they can award those spots in any way they see fit (hopefully a trials system tho). That way, athletes without access to high level meets aren't harmed by it (or if they are, it will be the fault of their federation, not World Athletics).
For the 10k, at least 50% of the spots should come from XC ranking. This is to incentivize athletes to run XC more than anything. In the marathon, I like that placing top 5 in a major counts, so keep that too.
Also, give out WAY more points for place. Night of the 10ks was a great race to watch on Youtube, and must have been even better live. Imagine if they'd had the 5k field that LA had that night. That would've been incredible. Give whoever wins that like 500 bonus points to incentivize the best athletes to show up. We should be rewarding meets like Night of the 10ks for putting on such a great show. And I agree for gold/silver/bronze meets, a 3:35 for 3rd should be worth more than a 3:33 on a random track in Virginia. I'd rather have athletes racing more often, but a bit slower, than only racing a couple times per season because they have to nail a tough qualifying time.
This race, and the Boston races earlier this year should be the final nails in the coffin for qualifying standards. Athletes have shown that unless WA makes them prohibitively hard - maybe 12:45 - then athletes will raise their game to meet them. When the person finishing second last runs 13-flat, the time no longer has meaning.
In light of that, why make athletes perform time trials that few people are interested in? Instead, make qualifying for the Olympics and World's based completely on rankings. In a world where times don't matter, get people racing for the win or places. Make racing matter.
What about a runner that has been hindered by injuries, but has recovered to the point of being at the top of his game at the trials? Your system would eliminate a lot of good runners.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
This race, and the Boston races earlier this year should be the final nails in the coffin for qualifying standards. Athletes have shown that unless WA makes them prohibitively hard - maybe 12:45 - then athletes will raise their game to meet them. When the person finishing second last runs 13-flat, the time no longer has meaning.
In light of that, why make athletes perform time trials that few people are interested in? Instead, make qualifying for the Olympics and World's based completely on rankings. In a world where times don't matter, get people racing for the win or places. Make racing matter.
People coming back from injury may struggle to get 5 meets in (for the shorter distances, 3 for the 5000) to get a ranking. I like having a tough standard, say 12:55.0 for 5k (which only 10 people have so far, which includes 2023 performances). I think the goal of getting 10-12 in through the entry standard and fill the rest via world ranking is good. But the standard needs to be unatainable to most, so we don't have the situation we currently have for the marathon.
Remember, Norway has zero athletes with the standard at the moment
Ultimately, this is a fundamental question of what you think athletics should be about at the elite level: is it about competition or times? Should athletes be racing one another or racing the clock?
Racing the clock will not make the sport more popular. It reduces it to the level of a YouTube challenge. Competition between athletes is the basis of any popular sport, the stats are a secondary consideration.
I actually think racing the clock is fine. People here won't admit it but they love those time trial meets where athletes chase sub-13 at BU. Unless it's a major championship I don't think anybody will ever care who wins a sit-and-kick race to win the USATF Classic at Occidental in May or whatever, they want to see fast times.
One reason I would prefer more emphasis on the ranking system is it would at least force athletes to race 3-5 times to get a good ranking. I do think it's a problem when you can get your qualifier out of the way in February and then not race.
People coming back from injury may struggle to get 5 meets in (for the shorter distances, 3 for the 5000) to get a ranking. I like having a tough standard, say 12:55.0 for 5k (which only 10 people have so far, which includes 2023 performances). I think the goal of getting 10-12 in through the entry standard and fill the rest via world ranking is good. But the standard needs to be unatainable to most, so we don't have the situation we currently have for the marathon.
Remember, Norway has zero athletes with the standard at the moment
But under the system I proposed they'd be in under world ranking. I agree that a 13min 5k is too soft of a standard.
The level of athletic performance continues to increase while management of the sport by organizing bodies gets worse and worse. It's a tribute to the athletes who continue to prepare and show up ready to race in spite of how they are jacked around. The LA Grand Prix men's 5,000m was an unbelievable field that someone managed to pull together, even though they didn't figure out how to promote the meet and only a small number of spectators showed up to watch. I'm grateful for the athletes' perseverance in spite of how the sport is managed. The atmosphere felt more like an all-comers meet than the highest level competition in the world, and a casual fan likely did not appreciate it.
Whether trials or rankings or some combination of the two, Worlds and Olympics will have shrinking audiences if they don't figure out how to make the sport more accessible to a broader audience. Burying competitions behind 3-4-5 different paywalls is not the answer. The major sports NFL, NBA, MLB have figured out a way to offer a single subscription. It's what we need for US and World competition - a single channel that is easy to find and follow.
This race, and the Boston races earlier this year should be the final nails in the coffin for qualifying standards. Athletes have shown that unless WA makes them prohibitively hard - maybe 12:45 - then athletes will raise their game to meet them. When the person finishing second last runs 13-flat, the time no longer has meaning.
In light of that, why make athletes perform time trials that few people are interested in? Instead, make qualifying for the Olympics and World's based completely on rankings. In a world where times don't matter, get people racing for the win or places. Make racing matter.
You are forgetting that not every athlete can get into every race. If they do not have a reputation or previous fast times or are the wrong nationality, race directors won't be interested. A college athlete who runs say, 13:05 (the men's 5,000m qualifying standard) would have no chance to get in based on ranking. It's good to have both. Having a standard covers the gaps in ranking. Ranking covers the gaps in time standard.
I actually think racing the clock is fine. People here won't admit it but they love those time trial meets where athletes chase sub-13 at BU. Unless it's a major championship I don't think anybody will ever care who wins a sit-and-kick race to win the USATF Classic at Occidental in May or whatever, they want to see fast times.
One reason I would prefer more emphasis on the ranking system is it would at least force athletes to race 3-5 times to get a good ranking. I do think it's a problem when you can get your qualifier out of the way in February and then not race.
Well to be fair times do matter from a points perspective in the rankings. What eliminating soft standards would do is professionalize where key races happen. It would make the Tour Gold/Silver/Bronze meets better places to secure points as opposed to chasing achievable standards. Races would be paced and guys would still run competitive times because of pacemakers, records (personal, national etc.) and the points for a faster time.
Every country should have an Olympic Trials and choose their team from that. It doesn’t matter the number that make the Olympics. In the 1500m have the fastest 40 times of Olympic qualifiers auto into the quarterfinals. Depending on the number of athletes competing the lower tier should have to race to be one of the 8 advancing to quarter finals.
Except it does matter the number that make the olympics. The olympics has a total quota of athletes for all sports, then they designate how many in each sport. They can't have variable numbers of athletes because they have to have accommodations for them in the athlete village. That's why they cut certain sports sometimes from the olympics to add new ones, because they can't have both because it's too many athletes.
Yes, races have quotas and perhaps they should be based on rankings. for example, the marathon has 80 places, but instead of basing it strictly on rankings, they’re giving the last 10 spots to under represented countries, which screws some of the guys that are ranked in the top 80.
Ultimately, this is a fundamental question of what you think athletics should be about at the elite level: is it about competition or times? Should athletes be racing one another or racing the clock?
Racing the clock will not make the sport more popular. It reduces it to the level of a YouTube challenge. Competition between athletes is the basis of any popular sport, the stats are a secondary consideration.
The problem with this is that every serious competition will be reduced to a Centro gold medal race; watch the recent Pac 12 1500m for an example. While entertaining, eventually people get tired of watching 3:50 1500m sit and kicks.
How many of the millions who will watch the Olympics in August will know the difference between a 3:50 1500m and a 3:50 mile?
This race, and the Boston races earlier this year should be the final nails in the coffin for qualifying standards. Athletes have shown that unless WA makes them prohibitively hard - maybe 12:45 - then athletes will raise their game to meet them. When the person finishing second last runs 13-flat, the time no longer has meaning.
In light of that, why make athletes perform time trials that few people are interested in? Instead, make qualifying for the Olympics and World's based completely on rankings. In a world where times don't matter, get people racing for the win or places. Make racing matter.
What about a runner that has been hindered by injuries, but has recovered to the point of being at the top of his game at the trials? Your system would eliminate a lot of good runners.
Sure, that happens, but getting fit and staying fit is part of the game and you don't make decisions about what is good for sport based on edge cases. If you really want to do something about this, then you could develop a protected ranking system like they have in tennis for players who get long injuries.
Ultimately, this is a fundamental question of what you think athletics should be about at the elite level: is it about competition or times? Should athletes be racing one another or racing the clock?
Racing the clock will not make the sport more popular. It reduces it to the level of a YouTube challenge. Competition between athletes is the basis of any popular sport, the stats are a secondary consideration.
The problem with this is that every serious competition will be reduced to a Centro gold medal race; watch the recent Pac 12 1500m for an example. While entertaining, eventually people get tired of watching 3:50 1500m sit and kicks.
I disagree. You'd get some of those races but Jakob still believes that running hard from the gun is his best path to victory so he'll do it. Besides, I don't think it's a bad thing if some of the races finish in 3:50, that's part of the game. It wasn't on Centro to run that race as hard as he could, it was on Kiprop. When you're a 3:26 guy losing to a 3:30 guy, you've screwed up.
The problem with pure rankings is that the lower tier athletes may not have access to all these high level meets.
But that's easily resolved by revising the place score points, which are currently a bit of a mess anyway - the 8th place finisher in the women's 10000m in Budapest ran 31:35 and got 145 place points for a total score of 1306. That would be equal to a performance of 28:58! So yeah, that needs would need to be addressed, but it's not an insurmountable problem. And having more meets where the result actually matters would benefit everyone.
Any fast final is even more tilted points-wise for the top finishers. Kerr received 1629 points from winning in a 3:29. Arop received 1572 for winning in 1:44.7. Lyles' is even crazier with a 1673 score from winning Budapest in 19.52.