But since the worm has turned, she’s dominated Tuohy.
WA has been clear that they dont value placing in a college race very highly, and I dont think they even score Cross Country races. So while thats all well and good to show what she could do, its irrelevant to the matter at hand. Show up to a pro race and do well and beat some pros and the ranking will reflect that. If you only want to run in college races when you have every opportunity to challenge yourself then you dont have room to complain.
It's dumb World Athletics is pushing XC so hard on their circuit but won't award any points for FAR more competitive races than most of their own races.
College students shouldn't be put at a disadvantage. Same with high schoolers like Mia Brahe-Pederson. Or what about someone without a contract who can't afford to pay to go all over the world for meets? Running a fast time should be enough.
The beauty of our sport is it's simplicity. You can clearly see who wins the race, there are no officiating errors like in soccer or basketball. But this overcomplication of the qualifying process turns qualifying into politics, not racing.
This is a lot of nonsense about a ranking that is irrelevant at this point. Tuohy's 8:35 isn't going to count for the World Rankings when the trials roll around and if she's back to running those equivalencies next spring then its a justified ranking anyways.
WA has been clear that they dont value placing in a college race very highly, and I dont think they even score Cross Country races. So while thats all well and good to show what she could do, its irrelevant to the matter at hand. Show up to a pro race and do well and beat some pros and the ranking will reflect that. If you only want to run in college races when you have every opportunity to challenge yourself then you dont have room to complain.
It's dumb World Athletics is pushing XC so hard on their circuit but won't award any points for FAR more competitive races than most of their own races.
College students shouldn't be put at a disadvantage. Same with high schoolers like Mia Brahe-Pederson. Or what about someone without a contract who can't afford to pay to go all over the world for meets? Running a fast time should be enough.
The beauty of our sport is it's simplicity. You can clearly see who wins the race, there are no officiating errors like in soccer or basketball. But this overcomplication of the qualifying process turns qualifying into politics, not racing.
I agree its not a perfect system but part of the intent of the bonus points is to incentivize the worlds best to actually show up an race each other in the top rated events. The sport would be a lot worse off if more athletes treated it like Bobby Kersee's athletes and rarely raced.
Every track that Valby runs on keeps getting faster and faster for her, whereas Tuohy at her best just keeps running slower and slower. This is probably due to the difference in tracks, even when they're running the same one, like happened in cross country.
Isn’t the ‘ranking’ irrelevant when an athlete hits the OlyStandard? What am I missing??
This guy nailed it. Those with the standard don't care where they are ranked. All they need to do is show up in Eugene in June and make top-3 and they are on a plane to Paris.
But the system is stupid either way. Addy Wiley, 8th fastest time in the world in 2023 but "ranked" #104 - how? Simple. She jogged her NAIA Nationals semifinal in 2:11 just to make the final and only scored 967 points. Because it was a semi, there was no place bonus. That one race alone dropped her from #54 to #104. What is she supposed to do, run a PR in her semifinal to help her ranking?
Isn’t the ‘ranking’ irrelevant when an athlete hits the OlyStandard? What am I missing??
This guy nailed it. Those with the standard don't care where they are ranked. All they need to do is show up in Eugene in June and make top-3 and they are on a plane to Paris.
But the system is stupid either way. Addy Wiley, 8th fastest time in the world in 2023 but "ranked" #104 - how? Simple. She jogged her NAIA Nationals semifinal in 2:11 just to make the final and only scored 967 points. Because it was a semi, there was no place bonus. That one race alone dropped her from #54 to #104. What is she supposed to do, run a PR in her semifinal to help her ranking?
If she really cares about her ranking she should run the semi harder (which is dumb) or compete in D1 or as a pro where she would not get by running such a slow time. Or run one more fast 800 someplace so the 2;11 would not count. But I bet the ranking is not her primary goal.
I agree its not a perfect system but part of the intent of the bonus points is to incentivize the worlds best to actually show up an race each other in the top rated events. The sport would be a lot worse off if more athletes treated it like Bobby Kersee's athletes and rarely raced.
WRONG. The world's best don't need the extra points because they will easily get the standard. The points ONLY penalize people who don't have the means, or connections, to race those meets. If you want the world's best to compete against each other - pay them more!
Perfect example - Lipari won a B level meet (LA Grand Prix) against weak competition (Cranny was not at 100%), with several rabbits through 4200m, in only 15:08. She got an extra 100 bonus points, giving her 1246 for that performance compared to Valby getting 1207 total for her 14:56. That was the same weekend as NCAA regionals, where Valby must run for the school that is paying her tuition.
That 39 point difference is actually MASSIVE. Valby would have needed a 14:36.50 to equal Lipari's 1246, and that's counting Valby's whopping extra 12 points for winning. Sorry, there's no arguing that a 14:36 should be equal to Lipari's 15:08. It is BROKEN.
I agree its not a perfect system but part of the intent of the bonus points is to incentivize the worlds best to actually show up an race each other in the top rated events. The sport would be a lot worse off if more athletes treated it like Bobby Kersee's athletes and rarely raced.
WRONG. The world's best don't need the extra points because they will easily get the standard. The points ONLY penalize people who don't have the means, or connections, to race those meets. If you want the world's best to compete against each other - pay them more!
Perfect example - Lipari won a B level meet (LA Grand Prix) against weak competition (Cranny was not at 100%), with several rabbits through 4200m, in only 15:08. She got an extra 100 bonus points, giving her 1246 for that performance compared to Valby getting 1207 total for her 14:56. That was the same weekend as NCAA regionals, where Valby must run for the school that is paying her tuition.
That 39 point difference is actually MASSIVE. Valby would have needed a 14:36.50 to equal Lipari's 1246, and that's counting Valby's whopping extra 12 points for winning. Sorry, there's no arguing that a 14:36 should be equal to Lipari's 15:08. It is BROKEN.
It seems to me if it is broken, it is because USA college athletes may have fewer chances to score big. Oh woe is them! Free education vs a higher WA ranking until they get out of school by 22.
Isn’t the ‘ranking’ irrelevant when an athlete hits the OlyStandard? What am I missing??
This guy nailed it. Those with the standard don't care where they are ranked. All they need to do is show up in Eugene in June and make top-3 and they are on a plane to Paris.
But World Athletics has made it very clear they want 50% of all qualifiers to come from world ranking. That means if 75% of the qualifiers in a given event hit the auto mark, then World Athletics is going to make that standard much faster to get 50% next year.
World Athletics is going ALL-IN on this crappy ranking system so this is going to be an issue every year. It's even worse in the 10k where certain spots are held for the top XC runners in races that nobody cares about.
WRONG. The world's best don't need the extra points because they will easily get the standard. The points ONLY penalize people who don't have the means, or connections, to race those meets. If you want the world's best to compete against each other - pay them more!
Perfect example - Lipari won a B level meet (LA Grand Prix) against weak competition (Cranny was not at 100%), with several rabbits through 4200m, in only 15:08. She got an extra 100 bonus points, giving her 1246 for that performance compared to Valby getting 1207 total for her 14:56. That was the same weekend as NCAA regionals, where Valby must run for the school that is paying her tuition.
That 39 point difference is actually MASSIVE. Valby would have needed a 14:36.50 to equal Lipari's 1246, and that's counting Valby's whopping extra 12 points for winning. Sorry, there's no arguing that a 14:36 should be equal to Lipari's 15:08. It is BROKEN.
It seems to me if it is broken, it is because USA college athletes may have fewer chances to score big. Oh woe is them! Free education vs a higher WA ranking until they get out of school by 22.
What about someone from a 3rd world country that has no money to fly anywhere to race? What if the closest high level meet to someone is 2000 miles away?
Even if someone had the money to travel for a meet, the meet director could deny them for a slower runner if he's friends with the other coach. Do you want Monaco to run 25 sections of the 1500 like a high school meet?
There are limited meets that offer big points, and limited space in those meets. If you are a Under Armour athlete trying to get into a meet sponsored by Nike - sorry you are out of luck. Why would Nike give a competitor an opportunity to get those points?
I agree its not a perfect system but part of the intent of the bonus points is to incentivize the worlds best to actually show up an race each other in the top rated events. The sport would be a lot worse off if more athletes treated it like Bobby Kersee's athletes and rarely raced.
WRONG. The world's best don't need the extra points because they will easily get the standard. The points ONLY penalize people who don't have the means, or connections, to race those meets. If you want the world's best to compete against each other - pay them more!
Perfect example - Lipari won a B level meet (LA Grand Prix) against weak competition (Cranny was not at 100%), with several rabbits through 4200m, in only 15:08. She got an extra 100 bonus points, giving her 1246 for that performance compared to Valby getting 1207 total for her 14:56. That was the same weekend as NCAA regionals, where Valby must run for the school that is paying her tuition.
That 39 point difference is actually MASSIVE. Valby would have needed a 14:36.50 to equal Lipari's 1246, and that's counting Valby's whopping extra 12 points for winning. Sorry, there's no arguing that a 14:36 should be equal to Lipari's 15:08. It is BROKEN.
The issue i have with your argument is that Parker Valby does have the means and connections to get in category A and B level meets, she just chooses not to for whatever reason. Tuohy is also a collegian who must run for the school that is paying her tuition and she still found a way to get to big events that give bonus points. The Florida Athletic Department can certainly afford it if NC State's can. Valby and Katie Camarena are the only American women who have broken 15:20 in the last 12 months that didn't go to at least 2 B level events in that time.
The system is not perfect as i've already agreed, but its not setup to consider athletes with pro level talent who choose not to race against pros.
The issue i have with your argument is that Parker Valby does have the means and connections to get in category A and B level meets, she just chooses not to for whatever reason. Tuohy is also a collegian who must run for the school that is paying her tuition and she still found a way to get to big events that give bonus points. The Florida Athletic Department can certainly afford it if NC State's can. Valby and Katie Camarena are the only American women who have broken 15:20 in the last 12 months that didn't go to at least 2 B level events in that time.
The system is not perfect as i've already agreed, but its not setup to consider athletes with pro level talent who choose not to race against pros.
You don't get it. Runner A can be undefeated head to head against runner B, have a faster time in the qualifying window, beat that athlete head to head at the olympic trials, and still lose their Olympic spot to that athlete due to world rank. That the definition of broken.
An injury during the indoor season can ruin an athlete's chances because they will have had less chances to race and thus less opportunities to get 1 of 3 required high points scoring performances.
If we want to grow the fan base of the sport, we should make the qualifying system more straight forward and less susceptible to these confusing scenarios
The issue i have with your argument is that Parker Valby does have the means and connections to get in category A and B level meets, she just chooses not to for whatever reason. Tuohy is also a collegian who must run for the school that is paying her tuition and she still found a way to get to big events that give bonus points. The Florida Athletic Department can certainly afford it if NC State's can. Valby and Katie Camarena are the only American women who have broken 15:20 in the last 12 months that didn't go to at least 2 B level events in that time.
The system is not perfect as i've already agreed, but its not setup to consider athletes with pro level talent who choose not to race against pros.
You don't get it. Runner A can be undefeated head to head against runner B, have a faster time in the qualifying window, beat that athlete head to head at the olympic trials, and still lose their Olympic spot to that athlete due to world rank. That the definition of broken.
An injury during the indoor season can ruin an athlete's chances because they will have had less chances to race and thus less opportunities to get 1 of 3 required high points scoring performances.
If we want to grow the fan base of the sport, we should make the qualifying system more straight forward and less susceptible to these confusing scenarios
Who does this apply to? I'm not really sure how to argue against a hypothetical that seems very unlikely without an example provided.
You don't get it. Runner A can be undefeated head to head against runner B, have a faster time in the qualifying window, beat that athlete head to head at the olympic trials, and still lose their Olympic spot to that athlete due to world rank. That the definition of broken.
Who does this apply to? I'm not really sure how to argue against a hypothetical that seems very unlikely without an example provided.
Dani Jones, ranked #4 US at 1500m, Addy Wiley ranked #7 US
Jones 2023 best - 4:01.66 Wiley 2023 best - 3:59.17
Head -to-head: Beale Street Mile - Wiley 4:37.7, Jones 4:39.8 USATF Outdoors - Wiley 5th, Jones DNF
Who does this apply to? I'm not really sure how to argue against a hypothetical that seems very unlikely without an example provided.
Dani Jones, ranked #4 US at 1500m, Addy Wiley ranked #7 US
Jones 2023 best - 4:01.66 Wiley 2023 best - 3:59.17
Head -to-head: Beale Street Mile - Wiley 4:37.7, Jones 4:39.8 USATF Outdoors - Wiley 5th, Jones DNF
You don't get it. Runner A can be undefeated head to head against runner B, have a faster time in the qualifying window, beat that athlete head to head at the olympic trials, and still lose their Olympic spot to that athlete due to world rank. That the definition of broken.
Did I miss Dani already making the Olympic team? Or are you just crying over the ranking?
Who does this apply to? I'm not really sure how to argue against a hypothetical that seems very unlikely without an example provided.
Dani Jones, ranked #4 US at 1500m, Addy Wiley ranked #7 US
Jones 2023 best - 4:01.66 Wiley 2023 best - 3:59.17
Head -to-head: Beale Street Mile - Wiley 4:37.7, Jones 4:39.8 USATF Outdoors - Wiley 5th, Jones DNF
Sorry should have asked for a non-collegian example. She's in the same boat as Valby where she simply doesn't race enough "top" meets and doesn't have to race her best in other meets to win. The 4:12 at Drake Relays is killing her ranking. If you simply remove that race (which it will be as it was not run during the window) and average her other 4 scored races then she is ranked ahead of Jones. Nikki Hiltz also ran in that slow race but it doesn't count for her because she raced enough other meets that she has 5 better results.
I agree college kids get screwed unless they commit to racing a bunch of non-college meets. Wiley started to do this with the DL meet where she ran 3:59 but the system works better for full-time pro runners, fair or not.
The issue i have with your argument is that Parker Valby does have the means and connections to get in category A and B level meets, she just chooses not to for whatever reason. Tuohy is also a collegian who must run for the school that is paying her tuition and she still found a way to get to big events that give bonus points. The Florida Athletic Department can certainly afford it if NC State's can. Valby and Katie Camarena are the only American women who have broken 15:20 in the last 12 months that didn't go to at least 2 B level events in that time.
The system is not perfect as i've already agreed, but its not setup to consider athletes with pro level talent who choose not to race against pros.
You don't get it. Runner A can be undefeated head to head against runner B, have a faster time in the qualifying window, beat that athlete head to head at the olympic trials, and still lose their Olympic spot to that athlete due to world rank. That the definition of broken.
An injury during the indoor season can ruin an athlete's chances because they will have had less chances to race and thus less opportunities to get 1 of 3 required high points scoring performances.
If we want to grow the fan base of the sport, we should make the qualifying system more straight forward and less susceptible to these confusing scenarios
I’m getting more confused, maybe.
Suppose runner A, Valby, runs 14:50 at the Valentine, getting the Standard. Suppose runner B, Tuohy, runs 14:51.5 at an Armory meet, getting the standard. Then suppose the Trials race is tactical, with Cranny and Monson going 1&2, with 3rd going to Kelati, who doesn’t have the standard, then 4th to Valby, and 5th to Tuohy. In that scenario, who, besides Cranny and Monson, makes the team?
Suppose runner A, Valby, runs 14:50 at the Valentine, getting the Standard. Suppose runner B, Tuohy, runs 14:51.5 at an Armory meet, getting the standard. Then suppose the Trials race is tactical, with Cranny and Monson going 1&2, with 3rd going to Kelati, who doesn’t have the standard, then 4th to Valby, and 5th to Tuohy. In that scenario, who, besides Cranny and Monson, makes the team?
SCENARIO 2 Suppose runner A, Valby, runs 14:51 at the Valentine, getting the Standard. Suppose runner B, Tuohy, runs 14:53 at an Armory meet, NOT getting the standard. Then suppose the Trials race is tactical, with Cranny and Monson going 1&2, with 3rd going to Kelati, who doesn’t have the standard, then 4th to Valby, and 5th to Tuohy. In that scenario, who, besides Cranny and Monson, makes the team?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.