simplicity wrote:
In the U.S. the top 3 at the trials with the A go. Period.
Are you sure about that?
simplicity wrote:
In the U.S. the top 3 at the trials with the A go. Period.
Are you sure about that?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
In the U.S. the top 3 at the trials with the A go. Period.
Are you sure about that?[/quote]
I'm suggesting it should work that way - not that it necessarily does now.
Hingle McCringleberry wrote: For example, if Rupp somehow finished outside the top 3 in the trials he still gets selected so long as he can prove his fitness because he's Galen MF Rupp.
This makes no sense at all.
If you don't finish in the top 3, how does that qualify you as more fit than the top 3?
This makes no sense at all.
If you don't finish in the top 3, how does that qualify you as more fit than the top 3?
Well it depends what athlete we're talking about. If Gay, Rupp, Felix, Eaton, Merritt finish outside the top 3 they should be considered for selection.
If the first 2 at the trials were auto selected and the 3rd spot was decided by USATF in most cases they would just pick the 3rd guy at the trials anyway. But it gives them insurance to make sure the top guys make the team in the rare event that they have a bad day at the trials due to illness/injury or whatever.
If Rudisha/Bolt have a bad race at their trials should they be left at home? No of course not. You assess the situation and if they're going to be fit for the main event then they're the first name on the team sheet.
This is how the majority of nations pick their teams.
The American selection system only opens the door for an unnecessarily weakened team.
I liked the idea of a top-15 showing at world cross country earning an A-standard. A similar qualifier should exist at every high-quality meet.
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:
The American selection system only opens the door for an unnecessarily weakened team.
It allows every athlete a fair and equal chance to make it on to the team instead of favoring some athletes over others.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
It allows every athlete a fair and equal chance to make it on to the team instead of favoring some athletes over others.
Certain athletes have earned this favouritism on account of being far superior to the rest of the competition.
Aries Merritt and Ashton Eaton are world record holders at the peak of their careers.
Yet a simple mistake or a bit of bad luck could see them miss the World Championships.
They absolutely should be considered for selection in the freak event that they finish outside the top 3.
I just think it's absurd that a medal contender like Rupp could be sitting at home watching Derrick/Bumbalough/True/Puskedra finish in 13th place at the Worlds.
No disrespect to these guys but they're no Galen Rupp.
A bit of food poisoning at the wrong time and a 26:50 shape Rupp could miss the team.. Or he could be given the 3rd spot by selectors..
It's a no-brainer to me.
Dan O'Brien was the 1991 reigning world champion in the decathlon.
In 1992 he no-heighted in the pole vault at the US Trials and missed the team.
He then went on to break the world record that year.
There's your example right there but it was fair.
He failed to make top three when it mattered to make the team.
Rob Muzzio was third at the Trials.
And he went on to get 5th at the Olympics.
He earned his spot on the team and his 5th at the Olympics and it luckily wasn't taken away from him by a committee.
Moses Kiptanui didn't make the Kenyan steeplechase team that but broke the world record that year.
Bolt false started in the 2011 100m WC finals.
They didn't hand him the Gold medal for being ranked the highest.
Jim Ryun fell in the 1500m rounds at the 1972 Olympics.
That kept him out of the final.
Race to make the team.
Race to make the finals.
Race to win the medals.
wejo wrote:
"A" Standards if they exist should be by country and probably over a longer window. If the US has 3 "A" standards, then it can send whichever three guys it wants to the Worlds.
Let's use your rules for the following example:
The US men has only B qualifiers at 1500m going into their Trials.
Here is the order of finish:
Manzano, Leer, Andrews, Wheating, Centro
After the Trials they all go to Europe and both Wheating and Centro go on to hit the A standard but no one else.
So that now allows Manzano, Leer and Andrews to go to Moscow while Wheating and Centro stay home.
If only Centro hits the time, that puts Leer in but Andrews and Centro are out.
That's what you want, right?
The top 3 relying on other athletes to hit the standard so they can get in.
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:It allows every athlete a fair and equal chance to make it on to the team instead of favoring some athletes over others.
Certain athletes have earned this favouritism on account of being far superior to the rest of the competition.
This is exactly why I don't want selection committees. No athletes have "earned" favoritism. If they can't get it done when it counts, well there is no reason to suspect they can get it done when it counts.
There is always an element of luck involved with any sport. It was bad luck that El G, Slaney, Uceny, etc. were tripped even though they almost surely would have medaled. Rupp could just as easily get food poisoning the day before the Olympic final.
Once you start making exceptions it opens up a whole lot of issues and controversies. Who is really worthy of this type of favoritism and who decides?
It's only favouritism when you're choosing between athletes with similar abilities. In such cases the top 3 at the trials will be selected.
I'm talking about choosing between a truly world class athlete and another guy who is just going to be making up the numbers.
If the world class athlete finishes outside the top 3 he has to be considered for selection. This is common sense not favouritism.
Do you not want the strongest possible team representing your country?
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:
I'm talking about choosing between a truly world class athlete and another guy who is just going to be making up the numbers.
If the world class athlete finishes outside the top 3 he has to be considered for selection. This is common sense not favouritism.
Do you not want the strongest possible team representing your country?
Where in the world does this magical committee exist that will make unbiased logical choices about who to send? You're talking about a unicorn. In the real world, with real people, crappy, unfair, biased decisions will be made.
You don't know how the "truly world class athlete" will perform in a given year.
In 2007, Alan Webb had the #1 time in the world at 1500m.
He placed 5th in the 2008 Olympic Trials.
You would have put him on the Olympic team. But he had a bad year all around and wouldn't have done well.
In 1991 Carl Lewis was World Champions and set the 100m world record.
In 1992 he was 8th at the Trials. And he didn't dominate that year outside of the Trials. You don't just put him on the team for past success.
Manzano just won the Olympic Silver at 1500m. Centro was ranked higher in the world last year. Wheating has one of the fastest American 1500m times ever.
All truly world class. You can't just put them on the team and there is no objective way to even guarantee one of them a spot.
They have to race.
If the IAAF wants to exempt not only reigning Gold medalists but all recent medalists without affecting national limits, that would be fine.
But you can't take a spot away from someone that beats you for it.
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:
It's only favouritism when you're choosing between athletes with similar abilities. In such cases the top 3 at the trials will be selected.
I'm talking about choosing between a truly world class athlete and another guy who is just going to be making up the numbers.
If the world class athlete finishes outside the top 3 he has to be considered for selection. This is common sense not favouritism.
Do you not want the strongest possible team representing your country?
The problem is an athlete can be world-class one year but not the next. Webb was world-class in 2007 but not 2008. Ucency was world-class in 2011 and 2012 but certainly not this year so far. Same goes for Simpson and Anna Pierce who were world-class one year but struggled in following years.
That's the problem with some committee making the selection. It's too subjective.
Good post! We were thinking alike but you beat me to it.
Hingle McCringleberry wrote:
Do you not want the strongest possible team representing your country?
I want the people who show up and perform well when it counts representing my country.
Anybody who can make the A standard is world class.