While I like the change, for the 1500, I would have preferred going back to the format circa 1972-1976; more heats in the first round, with a limit of 10 runners in every race, including the final. In 1972, the format was:
Round 1: 7 heats, 9 runners, top 4 in each race plus next 2 fastest overall advanced
Semis: 3 heats, 9 runners, top 3 in each race plus the fastest fourth place finisher advanced
Final: 10 runners
Bit of trivia: In 1972 and 1976, the format allowed for only one runner to advance on time from the semi-finals to the final, and both times it was the same runner - Paul-Heinz Wellman. In the 1976 Final, he won bronze.... and yes, in both 72 and 76, he advanced from the last semi-final.
In theory, I like the little q's. They sound like a good way to balance out heats of different levels, and provide an incentive for races to go fast. But in practice, the system hasn't worked at the elite level. Gault's data is pretty damning, and when you're that far away from being equal, you've got to try something else. Perhaps the new system will turn out to be even more unfair, in which case they can always return to the current one, or try something different.
That said, I'm struggling to process this part of Gault's article:
From 2011-22, 1500-meter runners in the second semifinal at a global outdoor championship were twice as likely to earn a time qualifier to the final as runners in the first semifinal. In fact, you’d have to go back to 2003 to find the last time a man earned a time qualifier to the 1500-meter final at a World Championship from the first semifinal.
So on one hand, in the 1500m semis since 2011 for both men and women, one third of 1500m time qualifiers have come from the first heat. On the other hand, NONE of the male time qualifiers have come from the first heat in that time frame, or even from several years before. This would imply the following break-down for time qualifiers:
Men: 0% first heat, 100% second heat Women: 67% first heat, 33% second heat
This would be a huge discrepancy between the sexes that should be reflected in the qualifying policy. But I think I've misunderstood something because this is just far too improbable.
Yeah I perhaps should have phrased it better. The stat about zero time qualifiers refers specifically to Worlds (not the Olympics) -- in 2016, both men's time qualifiers came from the first semi (but in 2012 and 2021, both time qualifiers came from the second semis).
But there is a stark difference between the men and women in the 1500. On the women's side from 2011-22 (including Olympics and Worlds), 56% of time qualifiers came from the first semi and 44% from the second semi. On the men's side, 11% came from the first semi and 89% from the second semi. For some reason, the women are much more willing to get after it in the first semi.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Yeah I perhaps should have phrased it better. The stat about zero time qualifiers refers specifically to Worlds (not the Olympics) -- in 2016, both men's time qualifiers came from the first semi (but in 2012 and 2021, both time qualifiers came from the second semis).
But there is a stark difference between the men and women in the 1500. On the women's side from 2011-22 (including Olympics and Worlds), 56% of time qualifiers came from the first semi and 44% from the second semi. On the men's side, 11% came from the first semi and 89% from the second semi. For some reason, the women are much more willing to get after it in the first semi.
THIS DISPROVES YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE. You should have stated that initially.
There is no disadvantage to be in the 1st section if they make it an honest race. The women are proof of that. What you see with the women is that the 2nd section gets discouraged when the 1st section runs fast.
It's not an issue with time qualifier system, it's an issue with the men choosing idiotic tactics.
I'm not worried, and welcome the change. Those without kicks will have no choice but to take it out hard from the gun (or the last mile), or runners will specialize their training to close at near their top speed after jogging for a bunch of laps. Either way, it will make for some fun, entertaining races.
I always thought the speed skating rounds in the Olympics were pretty exciting to watch and those are time trials. Skate fast to advance or go home.
I would rather see an Olympic 1500m final with the twelve fastest runners in the world than an assortment of whoever ran a good 400m after an 1100m jog.
You are using the wrong speed skating reference point. At 10,000 and lower there are only two competitors and they have to remain in their own lane throughout, with frequent crossovers to make sure they skate the same distance.
The only classic speed skating event that resembles track 1500+ is the mass start. There are no lanes in that event. There are also no time qualifiers. Identical to this rules change, speed skating advances the top 8 finishers in each semifinal, regardless of time.
And there have been massive differences in how those semifinals are skated. One Beijing semifinal was 15 seconds slower than the other. Four years earlier in PyeongChang it was even more pronounced, with a 25 second variance.
Regardless, this is a fantastic change. It is more akin to World Cup soccer schedule adjustment with the final group stage games now played at the same time, to eliminate the opportunity to go second and know what result you need to advance.
Slow heats have several unattractive features for fans.
A. There is nothing to get excited about (they ran 3:44. Yawn. No threads about that.).
B. Scrubs with strong kicks off of slow paces get in, and have no chance in a fast final, while stalwarts are out.
C. More runners fall in slow races. We see that from 800m (not affected here) to 5000m and frequently on the women's side especially. Sometimes it happens to the favorites and we're deprived of a great final accordingly.
D. Chance effects of positioning in a large crowd on the last lap have major consequences when contenders are bounced because they got boxed.
E. Team tactics have a much bigger effect. Kenyans and Ethiopians often qualify enough people to box out a leading rival in a slower heat. This happens even in the NCAA. Last year, the University of Washington had enough guys in the 1500m final to box out Mario Garcia Romo, who ended up not winning despite running 3:30 later that summer at World's.
A. No threads about Centro's Olympic win? Really? And "threads" is your metric for attractiveness of the sport? B. As opposed to scrubs who can't close and finishing 8th in a slightly faster heat getting in? C. Yes, sometimes runners fall. This isn't a time trial - part of being a good track runner is being able to run in a crowd. It's a skillset, not a bubble. Sometimes, heaven forbid, you might even get jostled. D. Positional tactics matter?! In a race?! That would be terrible. E. Positional tactics matter?! In a race?! That would be terrible.
You seem to want track to be something it is not. Time trials in a vacuum are not exciting to everyone and not what the sport is about. If guys with no kick want to move on, they are still welcome to push the pace and try to drop people, aka racing.
A. Centro's Olympic 3:50 was in the final, not the heats/semis, which is what we are talking about.
B. Everyone has the opportunity to run a fast prelim and qualify. Women and all steeplers have gotten many time qualifiers out of earlier heats.
C. Staying up is definitely a skill and running in traffic is usually necessary to qualify and win races, but you ramp up the chances of a fall radically by de-incentivizing time in the prelims.
D. Positional tactics matter in races either way but the question is whether you have herds fighting it out at the end in a scrum or the best go through, and very few enjoy it when the world record holder or world leader is knocked out by being boxed by lesser runners.
E. Nor by being boxed by team tactics. We want the best to win, not the ones with the most sacrificial compatriots in the race.
Races with auto and time qualifiers aren't time trials, because they have no pacers and the auto qualifiers don't have to worry about time, but they get pushed to faster times and so we get the real test of rounds, not essentially a 200m dash off a jog and then a Diamond League final. It's dishonest to use the straw man argument here, since I said nothing about time trials.
A. No threads about Centro's Olympic win? Really? And "threads" is your metric for attractiveness of the sport? B. As opposed to scrubs who can't close and finishing 8th in a slightly faster heat getting in? C. Yes, sometimes runners fall. This isn't a time trial - part of being a good track runner is being able to run in a crowd. It's a skillset, not a bubble. Sometimes, heaven forbid, you might even get jostled. D. Positional tactics matter?! In a race?! That would be terrible. E. Positional tactics matter?! In a race?! That would be terrible.
You seem to want track to be something it is not. Time trials in a vacuum are not exciting to everyone and not what the sport is about. If guys with no kick want to move on, they are still welcome to push the pace and try to drop people, aka racing.
A. Centro's Olympic 3:50 was in the final, not the heats/semis, which is what we are talking about.
B. Everyone has the opportunity to run a fast prelim and qualify. Women and all steeplers have gotten many time qualifiers out of earlier heats.
C. Staying up is definitely a skill and running in traffic is usually necessary to qualify and win races, but you ramp up the chances of a fall radically by de-incentivizing time in the prelims.
D. Positional tactics matter in races either way but the question is whether you have herds fighting it out at the end in a scrum or the best go through, and very few enjoy it when the world record holder or world leader is knocked out by being boxed by lesser runners.
E. Nor by being boxed by team tactics. We want the best to win, not the ones with the most sacrificial compatriots in the race.
Races with auto and time qualifiers aren't time trials, because they have no pacers and the auto qualifiers don't have to worry about time, but they get pushed to faster times and so we get the real test of rounds, not essentially a 200m dash off a jog and then a Diamond League final. It's dishonest to use the straw man argument here, since I said nothing about time trials.
A. Them removing little qs isn't what's stopping them from running a WR/CR in a distance race heat/semi, it's the fact that it's a heat/semi. Threads will be about who didn't get through in qualifying, as they always have been. I do not agree with your assertion that a heat won in 3:34 vs. 3:44 is so much better for track and field fandom.
B. Everyone still has the opportunity to run a fast prelim. Use whatever tactic gets you the best chance of getting that Q and move on. This doesn't favor "scrubs". A guy with a good finish and slower PB is no more a scrub than a guy with a faster PB who can't close for sh!t.
C. Runners are welcome to stretch it out and/or learn how to stay on their feet
D. If a WR holder or World Leader doesn't advance because they were in a position that prevented them from doing so then they are very much the lesser runner in that race, not those advancing.
E. If a WR holder or World Leader doesn't advance because they were in a position that prevented them from doing so then they are very much the lesser runner in that race, not those advancing.
I don't see it as a straw man to say you are wanting a "time trial" considering you complained about 1) finishing time of qualifying races 2) emphasis on positional tactics 3) congested fields in slower races 4) national team tactics. That doesn't seem like a wild inference for me to make.
Okay, that's fine, that's fine. But what about bringing back the 10,000 or put another distance event in such as the 2000 or 8000? Let's Not Get Rid of Distance Running.
It would be funny to see like a 15-16 minute 5K with a 48 second closing lap. Guys just having casual conversations for 11 laps and then going from tempo pace to a full sprint
1st even if 90% of "q" 's come from the final semi, there is still 10% of the time the 1st heat did have "q" 's in it. Leaving the semis more suspenseful. There is always the bubble person and their fans watching the clock intently in the final heat. Where's the drama in eliminating that from WC's? The best drama events in Track and Field are the Field events as they have inherently more drama, at any moment the order can drastically change and there is such a suspenseful atmosphere to the field events. This rule loses most of the suspense from these Track events.
2nd as a fan I don't want to see an elite race slower than what average college kids can run. What are those in favor going to say when the women's semis are faster than the men's? or a women's semis wouldn't win a HS state meet? Yes, its about racing but would you watch a ball sport's game if they took turns scoring without any defense until the 4th quarter?
Anyone can jog 90% of a race and have a big kick. The true exciting racing comes from a honest pace with multiple surges, different runners tactics, etc.... I don't consider it racing when everyone runs slow and then kicks the last 200-300, that's middle schoolish.
Anyone remember Ben Blankenship's grueling ordeal waiting for the official FAT to come up, where he was bumped by only 0.13 by Wightman in 2019 semi's? can't get more suspenseful than that.
Side note 2008 and 2016 Olympics heat 1 had the 2 "q" 's and in 2008 Lagat in heat 2 was denied "q" by .02. How shocking was that? Name a more memorable semi then that one? Lagat the double WC gold in 07 not making the final in 08. (It appears the heat 1 runs faster at Olympics then WC's.)
Real stat would be medalists. Are there more medalists in the faster 2nd heat vs the 1st heat or does 1st heat get the real advantage for not having to work as hard in semi's?
Face it the little "q" leads to a lot more drama and fan interest.
Unfortunately, the casual fan doesn't give a chit about most of that.
I agree with you that for most people on here or the more interested fan (which is a small percentage of all fans) they probably would tend to like the little qs better.
Seeding for the semis is based on finishing place in the prelims. So in theory one semi by chance could get stacked with all of the fast runners. A small chance, but possible.
I haven't thought the numbers through but there are many times where they just don't add up which is when time qualifiers make sense. If there are 5 heats of a 1500 and you want 12 in the final, it has to be 2 + 2.
I always thought the speed skating rounds in the Olympics were pretty exciting to watch and those are time trials. Skate fast to advance or go home.
I would rather see an Olympic 1500m final with the twelve fastest runners in the world than an assortment of whoever ran a good 400m after an 1100m jog.
You are using the wrong speed skating reference point. At 10,000 and lower there are only two competitors and they have to remain in their own lane throughout, with frequent crossovers to make sure they skate the same distance.
The only classic speed skating event that resembles track 1500+ is the mass start. There are no lanes in that event. There are also no time qualifiers. Identical to this rules change, speed skating advances the top 8 finishers in each semifinal, regardless of time.
And there have been massive differences in how those semifinals are skated. One Beijing semifinal was 15 seconds slower than the other. Four years earlier in PyeongChang it was even more pronounced, with a 25 second variance.
Regardless, this is a fantastic change. It is more akin to World Cup soccer schedule adjustment with the final group stage games now played at the same time, to eliminate the opportunity to go second and know what result you need to advance.
Along similar lines to world cup stage games being played at the same time, I have often thought about a proposal for a fair way to do time qualifiers: Have them start simultaneously on opposite sides of the track. It would incentivize everyone to run fast without putting either heat at a disadvantage. Would it be chaotic, potentially lead to falls from athletes looking over their shoulder, and be impossible to televise? Sure, but I see that as part of the fun of this system.
To all of the people who aren’t in favour of the change, I respect your opinion but I have to disagree. I see absolutely no reason why the 1500m semis would become a complete jog fest without the fastest loser rule. People like Ingebrigtsen, Kipsang, Cheruiyot or McSweyn don’t take it out fast to get a fastest loser spot, they take it out because that’s the best way for them to race and make it through to the final. Taking fastest losers away doesn’t change that.
As for the 5km, the heats aren’t that fast as things are. The first one usually goes out fairly slowly and the second heat goes out slightly faster, but still fairly slow. A runner who finishes 10th in the second heat but with a faster time than 6th place in the first heat is probably a worse runner than the 6th place runner from the first heat, yet that runner advances due to having better circumstances in their heat, whereas the better runner does not. Top 8 from each heat is a far more fair way to do it and should result in a much stronger final that is more representative of the world’s best 5km runners.
I agree with you that for most people on here or the more interested fan (which is a small percentage of all fans) they probably would tend to like the little qs better.
you might want to check the vote counts on the OP.