Seriously USATF, what type of incompetence does it take to not only set a standard that only one athlete achieved, but then to actually enforce it? I would like to assume they'll accept additional athletes hopefully sooner than later, but history has shown reasonability cannot be expected from USATF.
What's the standard?
Can't they waive other competitors into the meet?
You'd think that USATF would want a full field - even if everyone other than Lowe doesn't meet the standard, and even if (hypothetically) those other athletes could not qualify for the World Championships once allowed into the competition. The point is to have a full competition and many athletes could benefit from competing, even if below the standard.
1.90, a mark that only 33 women in the world have met. Like I said they most likely will "waive" others into the meet but it should have been done already. Proactivity is not the strength of USATF.
Final declarations deadline is today (6/18).
You will see all fields filled out with non-Q athletes starting tomorrow.
You may suggest the Q standard for wHJ is too high . . . or maybe it's just that women's high jumping in the US is really bad right now.
ElJumpO wrote:
Final declarations deadline is today (6/18).
You will see all fields filled out with non-Q athletes starting tomorrow.
You may suggest the Q standard for wHJ is too high . . . or maybe it's just that women's high jumping in the US is really bad right now.
Isn't Amy Acuff still competing quite (I said quite) successfully in Texas?
Texas Relays, etc.
messi wrote:
ElJumpO wrote:Final declarations deadline is today (6/18).
You will see all fields filled out with non-Q athletes starting tomorrow.
You may suggest the Q standard for wHJ is too high . . . or maybe it's just that women's high jumping in the US is really bad right now.
Isn't Amy Acuff still competing quite (I said quite) successfully in Texas?
Texas Relays, etc.
Yeah, she won Texas Relays with a jump of 6'2", far below here PB, but hardly embarrassing. She could (not always, but occasionally) make bigger meet finals with that sort of jump.
She's sort of like Khadevis Robinson - long career as a competitor, many times national champ, lots of Olympic, WC, and bigger pro meet finals, but no Olympic or WC medals (4th at 2004 Olympics).
She's 39. HJ isn't an endurance sport. I wonder how age affects her event. Probably not as much "pop". If she could go even 6'4" she could maybe make finals at WC. Is she even competing at Nationals?
US wHJ just seems to be on a down cycle right now, and US mHJ isn't exactly setting the world on fire either with the exception of Kynard. But neither of them continue to be the ongoing joke that US wTJ is!
When IAAF published the worlds 1.94 standard I thought it was a bit high.
Then I looked and saw last year 20 countries(29 athletes) had a jumper at 1.94 or better. The USA had Lowe, Inika McP and Barrett and Butts and Jackson a bar lower last year and I figured we had a good chance to send two to Worlds.
But it's the national champs and we only had 10 over or within a bar of 1.90.
I thought you had to have three entries to make a valid event but that might just be an old HS rule I'm thinking about thus thinking it was set a bar too high
If Lowe could jump her PB, she'd be in contention on the world stage.
But, HJ is HJ, and even athletes who are generally in their prime seemingly have performances all over the map - 6-7 or 6-8 one competition, followed by 6-3 or 6-2.
Vashti Cunningham, high school only usa women with IAAF standard this year, 1.94 wow
Joseph Robles wrote:
Vashti Cunningham, high school only usa women with IAAF standard this year, 1.94 wow
Cunningham did not submit an entry for Nationals.
USATF is currently updating the accepted lists
Women High Jump - Women
Name Affiliation Mark Status Declaration
Chaunte Lowe Nike 1.97 qualified declared
Elizabeth Patterson 1.89m accepted declared
Amy Acuff 1.88m accepted declared
Rachel McCoy 1.88 accepted declared
Zibby Boyer UCLA 1.86 accepted declared
Erika Hurd Cincinnati 1.86 accepted declared
Amber Melville Maryland 1.86m accepted declared
Tynita Butts 1.85m accepted declared
Lauren Crockett Oregon 1.85m accepted declared
Megan Glisar South Dakota 1.85 accepted declared
Colleen O'Brien 1.85 accepted declared
Maya Pressley NAI 1.85 accepted declared
Amina Smith 1.85 accepted declared
Elizabeth Evans 1.84 accepted declared
Julisa Tindall Col. of Charleston 1.84 accepted declared
Taylor Burke 1.85 not qualified scratched
Nakita Gray South Carolina 1.82m not qualified
Amy Acuff turns 40 on July 15th. Just short of being a Master at USATF. Longevity like that in the HJ is rare. You go girl!
I'm glad they did post the additional accepted entries today (rather than later), but at the time of my initial post all the "accepted/declared" atlhetes said "not qualified/not accepted". This should never have been the case, if the intention is to accept additional athletes they should never be tagged "not accepted," that distinction should be final for athletes once they have been deemed unqualified. Basically I'm highlighting the process is flawed, perhaps it's simply an oversight in their registration software, but they've used the same poor entry process for several years and it's time this is addressed if USATF desires to be seen as a proper organisation.
CGBatch you are 100% correct their terminology is very misleading and imprecise.
When there are fewer athletes that meet the published standard than the expected field size those athlete in between should be given a label to denote that status.
But as we all know I should be the very the last one to be asked to educate about the proper way to English.
wineturtle wrote:
[quote]Joseph Robles wrote:
Vashti Cunningham, high school only usa women with IAAF standard this year, 1.94 wow
Cunningham did not submit an entry for The Outdoor Nationals but is entered in the Junior Nationals
Vashti Cunningham Nevada Gazzelles 1.94m qualified declared
also Jailah Mason Morgan St has a. 1.84m clearance that would give her entry to the Outdoor Nationals
Could Cunningham be included on the team roster if the meet fails to produce other Worlds standard q 1.94 athletes?
wineturtle wrote:
Could Cunningham be included on the team roster if the meet fails to produce other Worlds standard q 1.94 athletes?
My understanding is that is perfectly legal by IAAF standards, however USATF has their own rule about having to compete at US Outdoor Nationals (I believe they specify the Sr championships, but I'm not certain). Either way the right thing to do (if no one else qualifies) would be to ask Cunningham after USAs if she wants a place on the team that she is rightfully qualified for in the eyes of those hosting it.
Brigetta Barrett (only 24 years old, Olympic and World silver)?
Barrett isn't competing this season, I'm unaware of the reason
surgery on her hip bone that was connected to her knee bone.