The 2023 World Athletics qualifying standards are significantly tougher in most distance events. Plus you can now use mile times (track or road) to qualify in the 1500m.
When is the last time the US did not send 3 people to Worlds for every event on the track? Hasn't happened in a while but it could happen with this system.
Hopefully WA comes up with a better system so in general the US can send the top 3 from USAs to Worlds (assuming the US would send 3 anyway).
You guys are usually good on this topic, but this wasn't good. Qualification didn't get tougher. Automatic qualification got tougher. The US will still be able to send 3 in pretty much every event. We will just have to pay more attention to world rankings because fewer will hit the automatic standards. Really bad framing on this article.
The part that is concerning for US-based athletes is the requirement that the competition be sanctioned / permitted by WA. Most competitions in the USA are conducted at the NCAA level (sanctioned by NCAA, not USATF or other agenecies). The question is whether an NCAA meet (with NCAA rules, which sometimes differ from USATF/WA rules) can even be sanctioned by World Athletics.
Maybe this will make US distance runners actually work hard. Rather than sit at home running stupid @$$ set up time trials with 4 other no names in the race and they still run a pathetic time, they should go to Europe for a month and race 4-6 times. This will prepare them for the high level competition they will see at global competitions. If you've only raced 3:36 and slower guys all year, how in the world do you expect to compete with 3:30 guys? You can't. That's why our 1500 guys were awful. And really excluding Grant, all U.S. distance runners were awful. And if Grant followed my advice above he would have medalled twice. He just lacks that little bit of experience that you can only get racing the big dogs in Europe for a month.
Maybe this will make US distance runners actually work hard. Rather than sit at home running stupid @$ set up time trials with 4 other no names in the race and they still run a pathetic time, they should go to Europe for a month and race 4-6 times. This will prepare them for the high level competition they will see at global competitions. If you've only raced 3:36 and slower guys all year, how in the world do you expect to compete with 3:30 guys? You can't. That's why our 1500 guys were awful. And really excluding Grant, all U.S. distance runners were awful. And if Grant followed my advice above he would have medalled twice. He just lacks that little bit of experience that you can only get racing the big dogs in Europe for a month.
This.
x 1000
Track is a sport. Sports are about competition.
That means competition with other athletes. Good athletes who are as good and better than you are.
Competition does not mean keeping up with a teammate at a prearranged pace. It certainly doesn't mean doing it out in front of a mediocre field in a small meet. Or on a remote track in what amounts to a practice with no one watching.
The part that is concerning for US-based athletes is the requirement that the competition be sanctioned / permitted by WA. Most competitions in the USA are conducted at the NCAA level (sanctioned by NCAA, not USATF or other agenecies). The question is whether an NCAA meet (with NCAA rules, which sometimes differ from USATF/WA rules) can even be sanctioned by World Athletics.
NCAA is outside of WADA, no way around that. They won't want to join as it will subject their money-sport athletes to WADA rules as well and things could get tricky if that happens
My big problem with the 50/50 auto-qualifiere and rankings qualifiers is the difficulty for some athletes to get into meets that have high ranking points, like DLs. Connections matter way too much so athletes with connected agents will be at an advantage. A solution may be to bump the ranking points of other meets. Alternatively, find a system that guarantees athletes entry to a set number of gold label and/or DL meets each year. Qualification can't be in the hands of agents
Why is the auto standard for the women’s marathon so weak compared to the other distance events?
You can fit a lot more people on a marathon course at one time than you can on a track.
Similar reason the 10,000m is harder than 5,000m. 10,000 doesn't have heats to reduce the size of the field for the final, so the qualification standard has to do all of the work in getting it to a manageable size.
Sure hope they are! If they can’t meet the standards then they don’t belong. Maybe this will put an end to championship tourists, in USA colors or in finding some ancestry loophole to nationality-hop.
Maybe this will make US distance runners actually work hard. Rather than sit at home running stupid @$ set up time trials with 4 other no names in the race and they still run a pathetic time, they should go to Europe for a month and race 4-6 times. This will prepare them for the high level competition they will see at global competitions. If you've only raced 3:36 and slower guys all year, how in the world do you expect to compete with 3:30 guys? You can't. That's why our 1500 guys were awful. And really excluding Grant, all U.S. distance runners were awful. And if Grant followed my advice above he would have medalled twice. He just lacks that little bit of experience that you can only get racing the big dogs in Europe for a month.
This.
x 1000
Track is a sport. Sports are about competition.
That means competition with other athletes. Good athletes who are as good and better than you are.
Competition does not mean keeping up with a teammate at a prearranged pace. It certainly doesn't mean doing it out in front of a mediocre field in a small meet. Or on a remote track in what amounts to a practice with no one watching.
It's called learning to race.
It's not complicated.
Would the down voters on these two comments care to explain their viewpoint? Just how do you see American distance runners being able to compete for medals outside of these ideas? You've never competed at a national/international level or coached athletes at a high level at any age. Participation trophies arent awarded at WC/Olympics.
When is the last time the US did not send 3 people to Worlds for every event on the track? Hasn't happened in a while but it could happen with this system.
Hopefully WA comes up with a better system so in general the US can send the top 3 from USAs to Worlds (assuming the US would send 3 anyway).
If you think the distance standards are tough, look at the 100m minimum A standard it's a flat 10.
That means competition with other athletes. Good athletes who are as good and better than you are.
Competition does not mean keeping up with a teammate at a prearranged pace. It certainly doesn't mean doing it out in front of a mediocre field in a small meet. Or on a remote track in what amounts to a practice with no one watching.
It's called learning to race.
It's not complicated.
Would the down voters on these two comments care to explain their viewpoint? Just how do you see American distance runners being able to compete for medals outside of these ideas? You've never competed at a national/international level or coached athletes at a high level at any age. Participation trophies arent awarded at WC/Olympics.
The strategy is to be fit as possible for the trials and then the WC. All of the guys capable of making the team have plenty of race experience.
Maybe this will make US distance runners actually work hard. Rather than sit at home running stupid @$ set up time trials with 4 other no names in the race and they still run a pathetic time, they should go to Europe for a month and race 4-6 times. This will prepare them for the high level competition they will see at global competitions. If you've only raced 3:36 and slower guys all year, how in the world do you expect to compete with 3:30 guys? You can't. That's why our 1500 guys were awful. And really excluding Grant, all U.S. distance runners were awful. And if Grant followed my advice above he would have medalled twice. He just lacks that little bit of experience that you can only get racing the big dogs in Europe for a month.
This.
x 1000
Track is a sport. Sports are about competition.
That means competition with other athletes. Good athletes who are as good and better than you are.
Competition does not mean keeping up with a teammate at a prearranged pace. It certainly doesn't mean doing it out in front of a mediocre field in a small meet. Or on a remote track in what amounts to a practice with no one watching.
It's called learning to race.
It's not complicated.
Both these posts x 10,000. I can think of a perfect example of this from last year. Some new female miler gets a so-called "breakout" season (has yet to repeat it this year btw) by running time trials at a few meets where no one of any major talent was entered, why? Because they all just ran in the Olympics. And she couldn't even make the top 10 in the trials with the best US racers. Its not just about the time - its about strategy and being a tactician in each and every race when you run with the best. Anyone who runs a great time at some rinky dink meet and can't make it to the front pack in a major race is not impressive.
Just allocate the number of slots in each event based on something (prior country performance, country's athlete rankings, cumulative points, etc.) and let each country figure it out. It's not that hard (TWSS).
The part that is concerning for US-based athletes is the requirement that the competition be sanctioned / permitted by WA. Most competitions in the USA are conducted at the NCAA level (sanctioned by NCAA, not USATF or other agenecies). The question is whether an NCAA meet (with NCAA rules, which sometimes differ from USATF/WA rules) can even be sanctioned by World Athletics.
NCAA is outside of WADA, no way around that. They won't want to join as it will subject their money-sport athletes to WADA rules as well and things could get tricky if that happens
FYI World Athletics confirmed to me that the restrictions below in their 2023 Worlds qualifying criteria only apply to countries that are on the Competition Manipulation Watchlist.
USA is not on that watchlist. So you can still qualify for Worlds at NCAAs, etc. pic.twitter.com/kV8OI6eqBQ
Track and field does not need a points based ranking system. This is so dumb. It is an objective sport. You run a time, throw / jump a distance, jump a height or you don't. If you want to select off world ranking just select on season best performance, not try to apply some silly points system valuing one meet higher than another. It will benefit athletes that are rich enough to travel to higher value meets and athletes that have better agents to get into the meets. It will benefit established athletes as they will get the places in the big meets. It is unfair on up and coming athletes who won't get into the big meets and stops people coming out of left field. It is also unfair to less well known or poorer athletes who don't have an agent or have a poor one and can't get into good meets.
Say someone runs 27:15 for 10k solo in a small meet but someone else runs 27:20 with pacers, wave light and competition, what is the sense in ranking the 27:20 higher?
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.
