Why doesn't the USATF allow for altitude adjusted national qualifying times? It doesn't make sense when the NCAA does. It would certainly make meets run at CU, BYU, Northern Arizona, New Mexico, and the Air Force Academy much more interesting.
Why doesn't the USATF allow for altitude adjusted national qualifying times? It doesn't make sense when the NCAA does. It would certainly make meets run at CU, BYU, Northern Arizona, New Mexico, and the Air Force Academy much more interesting.
............because the conversions that the NCAA uses for their lists don't work. Altitude can effect people differently, up to a fairly obvious amount. It is not like a track conversion from 200 flat to 200 banked.
Hopefully the USATF doesn't go that route in the future.
But the NCAA's conversions are if anything not generous enough to altitude runners. It's not like you ever get an altitude trained nobody on the top of the NCAA 3000m list because of faulty conversions. Clearly, sea-level trained athletes still wouldn't flock to Boulder to run qualifying times, but the conversions would offer elite athletes who train at altitude a chance to get some credit for running fast on tracks close to home. To me it just seems fair.
No one else is irked by this? Really?
milers left out wrote:
No one else is irked by this? Really?
I guess it bothers me. But I don't know enough about the topic to comment.
I will bump the thread, however.
From an philosophic point of view, it's interesting conversation. But in reality, even the people who go to the 5 schools you just listed go to sea-level to run their qualifiers. Which means that even if USATF did convert times for altitude, it would likely change very litte.
yeah, i don't see why this would be a big deal. it certainly makes sense that the ncaa does this and usatf doesn't - the ncaa has schools at altitude and forcing schools to travel just so their athletes have the chance to qualify for nationals would be contrary to what the ncaa stands for. i don't really see much of a compelling argument for usatf to do this. also, i'm not entirely certain, but i believe the iaaf doesn't accept times from altitude.
How is being fair to schools at altitude and different then being fair to elite groups in places such as Flagstaff, Gunnison, Alamosa, Albuquerque, and Boulder? Why not allow athletes like Celedonio Rodriguez, Ryan Kirkpatrick, the Culpeppers, and the brothers Torres a chance to qualify close to home in front of a home crowd? It's certainly every bit as valid as the argument for giving altitude schools some solice from traveling every weekend.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'd be uncomfortable with having someone's qualifying time based not on what he ran, but on what he "would have run if..."
milers left out wrote:
How is being fair to schools at altitude and different then being fair to elite groups in places such as Flagstaff, Gunnison, Alamosa, Albuquerque, and Boulder? Why not allow athletes like Celedonio Rodriguez, Ryan Kirkpatrick, the Culpeppers, and the brothers Torres a chance to qualify close to home in front of a home crowd? It's certainly every bit as valid as the argument for giving altitude schools some solice from traveling every weekend.
because the ncaa is about "opportunity" and all that. professional track isn't. would it be nice that these guys wouldn't have to travel? probably. but this isn't about being nice. and even if they did hold meets there where you could qualify, would anyone really want to run in them? you're not going to get as fast a time as you would in the perfect conditions of, say, stanford. and you're certainly not going to see sealevel atheltes travelling to these meets. heck, even for the altitude athletes, part of the point of altitude training/living is coming down. and if they did qualify, they'd have to go someplace else to get a WC or olympic standard because the iaaf et al don't accept conversion either.
maybe if we could come up with a legit conversion this would be a good idea. otherwise, pass.
It's not like those times would win championships through, they would simply get you there. Regardless, the NCAA conversions, which I assume would be the model, are very conservative, and almost never produce any shockers.
Wow, I'm really fighting the tide on this one. Of course altitude meets would not replace the high quality, fast sea-level races at Washington, Stanford, Oregon, and Mt. SAC. But let's say that Jorge Torres wanted to run the 3k at indoor nationals, and didn't want to interupt his training by flying out and spending a weekend in Washington, Arkansas or Boston. Instead, he could simply run a meet on Air Force's excellent track with minimal time commitment. Also, this would allow the myriad track fans in places like Boulder to see top notch distance runners on the track.
lol. jorge torres run an indoor championship? that will be the day.
i see your larger point but i don't think very many people - including the athletes themselves - care. sorry.
Hahaha, perhaps Torres was a bad example. Truthfully, I'm more concerned with myself qualifying.
yes, i gathered that. sorry. stanford for you.
This thread cracks me up when most of the posters on this board consider Ultramarathons so easy yet most of the most difficult 100 mile courses take place at altitudes which would leave most of you gasping for air.
May I suggest that you all quit whining and realize that life isn't fair.
chuck d wrote:
milers left out wrote:How is being fair to schools at altitude and different then being fair to elite groups in places such as Flagstaff, Gunnison, Alamosa, Albuquerque, and Boulder? Why not allow athletes like Celedonio Rodriguez, Ryan Kirkpatrick, the Culpeppers, and the brothers Torres a chance to qualify close to home in front of a home crowd? It's certainly every bit as valid as the argument for giving altitude schools some solice from traveling every weekend.
because the ncaa is about "opportunity" and all that. professional track isn't. would it be nice that these guys wouldn't have to travel? probably. but this isn't about being nice. and even if they did hold meets there where you could qualify, would anyone really want to run in them? you're not going to get as fast a time as you would in the perfect conditions of, say, stanford. and you're certainly not going to see sealevel atheltes travelling to these meets. heck, even for the altitude athletes, part of the point of altitude training/living is coming down. and if they did qualify, they'd have to go someplace else to get a WC or olympic standard because the iaaf et al don't accept conversion either.
maybe if we could come up with a legit conversion this would be a good idea. otherwise, pass.
I think chuck d is right on with this one. The NCAA has to keep the playing field as level as possible, and many high altitude schools don't have the budget to travel to the big meets at sea level to qualify. The USATF has no incentive to do this. Plus, do you think professional runners are really going to run slower by choice? When fit, if given a choice between racing on the track in Flagstaff or Stanford, a pro runner is gonna choose Stanford 100% of the time. Regardless of conversions.
Actually only one guy is whining and we still don't care about your ultramarathoning experiences.
How bold of you to speak on behalf of an entire population.
Never could figure altitude..is it 1000ft..or 2000 or maybe 3600, or is it 4300 or what about just 500 feet above sea level. Jim Ryun used to say he ran his best races at altitude. Is it different for different people at 2000 feet as compared to 5300 or pretty much the same for all people at 3200 feet or maybe got to be at 5600 feet for that. So if you give 17 seconds for altitude in the 2 mile..are you sure you need 2000 0r 3500 or just over 4000 or WHAT!!!!!!!! Got me?@$%#^:".