New IAAF World Rankings - Provisional lists! One of the most awaited moments. Farah makes top 10 in 2 events! Kamworor in 3.

New IAAF World Rankings ( provisional, not yet official ) - they will not be used as a qualifier method for Doha, they will though by 2021 for sure! Also, they will be used for road races, diamond league, will change the face of athletics in an attempt to make it more popular. Only men at the moment, women's provisional rankings coming soon. Full rankings and criterias in due course.

In every event there will be 5 types of runners and races, PLATINUM, GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE and NO LABEL.

There will only be 10 platinum runners, 20 gold, 50 silver and 100 bronze.

Races with a certain label or which want to obtain a certain label apart from all criterias who had to be met until now will have to bring a specified number of runners from different labels.

Ex : A platinum road race will have to bring at least 1 platinum runner, 2 gold, 3 silver and 4 bronze runners. This way your label will directly determine your appearance fee which for platinum runners will be HUGE and many others, so watered-down races will no longer truly exist as if the runners you invite don't match these criteria or they don't produce certain times, your label will go down!

As of Nov 2018 - MEN

Marathon - Platinum Runners(10)

1.Eliud Kipchoge

2.Wilson Kipsang

3.Shura Kitata

4.Mosinet Geremew

5.Lawrence Cherono

6.Sisay Lemma

7.Mo Farah

8.Lelisa Desisa

9.Geoffrey Kamworor

10.Geoffrey Kirui

Half Marathon - Platinum Runners(10)

1.Abraham Kiptum

2.Abraham Cheroben

3.Jemal Yimer

4.Bedan Karoki

5.Daniel Kipchumba

6.Eric Kiptanui

7.Geoffrey Kamworor

8.Andamlak Belihu

9.Jorum Okombo

10.Stephen Kiprop

10,000m - Platinum Runners(10)

1.Joshua Cheptegei

2.Mo Farah

3.Bedan Karoki

4.Rhonex Kipruto

5.Geoffrey Kamworor

6.Jemal Yimer

7.Abadi Hadis

8.Paul Tanui

9.Mohammed Ahmed

10.Mathew Kimeli

When's the last time Mo Farah even ran a 10,000? There should be a 1-year limit.

It's a 2-year time frame with performances in the current year being more valued. World/Olympic Champ is added by default in the Platinum group if it's within 2 years of the rankings moment.

Is this a joke? That is just about the worst ranking list I could've imagined.

Stupid Iaaf wrote:

Is this a joke? That is just about the worst ranking list I could've imagined.

+1. What a load of crap.

[quote]Pablo Ortiz Iaaf wrote:

New IAAF World Rankings ( provisional, not yet official ) - they will not be used as a qualifier method for Doha, they will though by 2021 for sure.

So not to be used for Olympics either? When this idea was first introduced it seemed a bit unfair to implement it so quickly.

I was looking up the IAAF rankings and stumbled across this website. I had to stay to fix this a bit.

Not very sure why Wilson Kipsang's 2nd - what did he do this year?

It's still to be seen but probably they will be used from january 1st 2020.

We would like to get feedback so we can update and use this system as a very functional, fair one.

Wilson Kipsang, won a WMM with CR. Came 2nd and 3rd in other WMM in the span of 2 years.

Where the fukk is Bekele? He was 2:08 in London in 6th despite having a bug and going out in 13:48 5k and 61 flat half. He was also injured and only had 7 weeks training and yet was still able to lead a 2:04 marathon course record until 30k. If he can get a good training in and clear the injuries once and for all the WR will be his again in sub 2:01:30.

Lmao. Seems like this system is looking worse and worse for up and coming athletes every day

Where's RUPP?!?!

What about the women's rankings?

mcvred wrote:

Lmao. Seems like this system is looking worse and worse for up and coming athletes every day

X1000. This is the dumbest thing in the history of humanity. IAAF is on the way to being irrelevant.

Why do you say that this system is not good for up and coming athletes?

They need to be consistent to get a good place in the rankings. Would you rather see a one hit wonder runs an incredible time to place high on the all-time list and then do nothing and just get appearance fees? It's harder to get in the gold or platinum lebel, but once you're there it's really worth it.

Galen Rupp is in the Gold label runners.

Based only on time is a bit silly i think. How come Jake Robertson is not in the top ten in the HM.... in Houston he beat quite a few of these guys....

Plus i agree on the 1 year suggestion... Kipsang ranked #2 is nowhere close to reality....

Pablo Ortiz Iaaf wrote:

Why do you say that this system is not good for up and coming athletes?

They need to be consistent to get a good place in the rankings. Would you rather see a one hit wonder runs an incredible time to place high on the all-time list and then do nothing and just get appearance fees? It's harder to get in the gold or platinum lebel, but once you're there it's really worth it.

Galen Rupp is in the Gold label runners.

So it's kind of like scoring your free agent contract in other sports? You work hard to get there and pay your dues, but once you're there you can kind of turn it off a bit and just collect your checks?

where's the ladies list at?

I typed out a response to this on another computer but had to delete, so here goes.

First off, what does Galen have to do with up and coming runners? He is a 2x Olympic medalist, 4th at worlds/world indoors, 3:50 mile, and has a WWM victory. It would be an insult to his pedigree to not include him as a gold label ranked athlete.

My objection to this system is that especially in the U.S, athletes gain entry to large races like Diamond Leagues by qualifying for World/Olympic teams. While some NCAA victors/All-Americans get spots in these meets and are picked up by sponsors, many stay in their collegiate environment and stagnate, while some join good training groups (and as we're seeing, there are more of these than ever) and consistently improve, as you put it. They have to demonstrate year in/year out that they're worthy of being in these races.

However, how the hell would the 3rd man/woman on a US or British 1500/800 team even dream of being ranked in this system? Johnny Gregorek was 3rd in the US 1500 at the 2017 Outdoor Champs and yet was the only US man in the 1500 final at Worlds. Kori Carter missed the Olympic team in 2016 and in 2017 was the World champion. I could go on and on. Results are black and white but what happens before them is impossible to qualify, as this proposed system tries to do.

What this comes down to is that right off the bat, your lists provided are nonsensical; Mo Farah is ranked 2nd in a track event he claims to have retired from, Kamworor 5th in an event he has medaled in once, almost 4 years ago, and yet Paul Tanui, who has been the most consistent performer since 2012 at the 10k besides Mo Farah, is ranked 8th?? I agree with Cheptegei as #1 but by and large these rankings seem to benefit already established runners, some of whom are incorrectly ranked and some who might not even run the event they're ranked in at the world stage next year. Wilson Kipsang as #2 in the marathon? Hahaha. Amazing athlete but he has DNFed twice in the last year.

All the athletes I've listed in the above paragraph are going to be taken care of by sponsors/race directors no matter what the IAAF does and yet the IAAF has consistent corruption issues, WADA has said it will reinstate Russia, Rashid Ramzi hasn't had his 2005 world double medals stripped, but you want a new qualification system?! How about instead of asking that athletes living below the poverty line perform "consistently" in a system that disadvantages them the IAAF figures out how to make this sport marketable, clean, and entertaining for non runners. Shorter meets. Equal prize money for men and women. Better pacers. Ban the Vaporfly 4% until every shoe company has a commercially available equivalent. These seem like much better ideas and better for the sport long term than making it harder for athletes to gain access to the world stage.

Also, get better announcers/commentators for Diamond Leagues. Some of the most important meets of the year have godawful uninformed commentary.

Pablo Ortiz Iaaf wrote:

New IAAF World Rankings ( provisional, not yet official ) - they will not be used as a qualifier method for Doha, they will though by 2021 for sure! Also, they will be used for road races, diamond league, will change the face of athletics in an attempt to make it more popular. ...

Pablo, please can you explain how it will make athletics more popular? Whilst it might produce some interesting talking points it will make following who is qualifying for major championships very complicated for fans.

My concern is not for who ranks #1 or #2 etc. Rather, as a qualification system for major championships I think the system as it stands is greatly flawed and potentially disadvantages many athletes who are going to be on the cusp of qualifying.

Please read these forum threads and pass them on to your colleagues - they express the concerns that many fans have with the system:

As I see it, many of the problems will be ameliorated if the differential in Placing Points at the different levels of meetings is halved. Imagine 2 women running 2:01.00 for the 800m. One could get an additional 90 placing points for 5th at a World Challenge meeting whilst the other, for placing 2nd at a good European meeting like Montreuil or Padova, would only get 50 placing points. This is not an unlikely scenario and even averaged out over 5 performances the difference could be the difference between qualifying for a championships or not. Is that fair? I don't see how it can be.

I get that you want to reward good performances at higher levels of competition but the points differentials at present are such that the level of meeting has far too much weight at the expense of athletes actually being rewarded fairly for the mark they set.

Please significantly reduce the Placing Points available for the higher level meetings so that there are not such wide disparities that disadvantage some athletes.

Is there a contact person/ email address at the IAAF where fans can submit their thoughts on the proposed system?

Thanks.

Thanks for your input! I understand your point and in some circumstances it's true. However i don't have the power to decide this, i will pass some of your concerns to others and hopefully it will be as fair as possible.

I encourage this type of feedback rather than negative words without backing, thanks!