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

Pablo Ortiz Iaaf wrote:

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

Pablo -Thank you for putting this out there for discussion and your willingness to listen.

Pablo Ortiz Iaaf wrote:

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!

Negative words without backing is what this site is all about. I have tried to generate debate about ranking marathoners but most seem to have their favourites only

Bad Wigins wrote:

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

Boo boo hoo wiggens you little girl. ??

As of Nov 2018 - Women

Marathon - Platinum Runners(10)

1.Mary Keitany

2.Tirunesh Dibaba

3.Brigid Kosgei

4.Vivian Cheruiyot

5.Ruti Aga

6.Ruth Chepngetich

7.Roza Dereje

8.Meskerem Assefa

9.Tadelech Bekele

10.Rose Chelimo

Half Marathon - Platinum Runners(10)

1.Joyciline Jepkosgei

2.Fancy Chemutai

3.Joan Melly

4.Netsanet Gudeta

5.Mary Keitany

6.Caroline Kipkirui

7.Ababel Yeshaneh

8.Edith Chelimo

9.Eunice Chumba

10.Brigid Kosgei

10,000m - Platinum Runners(10)

1.Almaz Ayana

2.Agnes Tirop

3.Tirunesh Dibaba

4.Alice Aprot

5.Senbere Teferi

6.Gelete Burka

7.Susan Krumins

8.Dera Dida

9.Molly Huddle

10.Emily Sisson

This would be the rankings at the moment for women's distance events. You can discuss freely.

Also, tomorrow i will come back to you with other rankings and also with an official e-mail where you can write your concerns and suggestions for the new ranking system!

If you want to use ranking to qualify for worlds AND motivate good performances, just use the current year's form chart. World championship final is the top 8 performers from January 1 to July 31. You'll have the very best making sure to lay down near-record times few others can match, and those further down the list will be trotting the globe racing their asses off to snag the last few spots.

Eliminate countries, the WC is not the olympics, it's not seen on billions of TV sets or a point of national pride for anybody. Just qualify the best runners. And please stop letting the winners parade around with their flags, including at Diamond League. It makes the sport look goofy.

Also eliminate Diamond League final in WC years. Nobody takes a sport seriously that has two parallel championships involving the same athletes. Use Diamond League meets to let the athletes chase a top 8 time.

This will also improve the WC by eliminating heats, which encourage slow, boring finals between tired athletes. Top 8 or go home, simple. No more automatic slots for previous champs; if they're not top 8 then obviously they won't win. There will be suspense all year long as #10 might suddenly move to #6, dropping the current #8 to #9. Fans will be interested in EVERY meet.

This qualification method is the worst I’ve ever read.

Let me guess... because you would have never made a team. Amirite?

The most useful thing you could do is present any significant changes in the rules for rankings from the rules currently appearing on the IAAF website.

https://worldrankings-staging.aws.iaaf.org/world-ranking-rules/overall-rankings

Evidently, with no announcement, a significant change from one year to two years has been made in the time frame for which performances will be included.

This is how the pertinent section of the rules currently reads

"6.3.3. Date of results and date correction

Only those Performance Scores can be considered for ranking, which were obtained by the athlete in the 1-year period prior to the date of the Ranking.

In order to put more emphasis on performances achieved closer to the date of the Rankings, there are certain amount of points deducted from Performance Scores older than 9 months at the date of the Rankings. Points deduction:

10th month prior to the date of the Rankings: -20 points deducted from the Performance Score

11th month prior to the date of the Rankings: -40 points deducted from the Performance Score

12th month prior to the date of the Rankings: -60 points deducted from the Performance Score

To avoid overweighting, competitions in the OW and DF Categories are only included until the last edition of the Rankings published before the following year's similar type of competition, regardless of the one-year rule. "

It would be most interesting to know how the new section 6.3.3. reads and any other changes to the rules now appearing on the IAAF website.

I want to put for a moment my attention on the ranking for track.

With the current system, which gives big difference of points depending on the level of the competition, we give too much advantage to the athletes already in the circuit.

For a strong young athletes, emerging in the season but without a top management and previous top results in the previous season, the opportunities to compete in a DL meeting are practically not existing, because (for 85%) the athletes in every events are the same, year after year.

For example, in the first DL meeting (Doha), the responsible for the athletes (Mrs Bettina Borner) can only look at the lists provided by the managers, where their athletes can show the personal curriculum, of course achieved in the past. This means that, for example, Countries where the main national activity is concentrated in June (like Kenya), can have athletes improving very quickly, but without earning points because can't compete in the international activity, not having points enough.

Also if we have to accept differences of points depending on the level of the competition (but sometimes the field in a DL is not deeper than the field in some specific meeting, look for example at Hengelo or Heusden, of course regarding middle distances), we need to find a better balance, and eventually to put some extra rule for becoming part of the ranking (for example, no athletes can be ranked if don't have at least 3 OOC tests, and after they are ranked in top 30 they need to have one test, not important if IC or OOC, every 2 months).

About the ranking of 10000m, I think there is some mistake : this is the ranking of 10 km on road, and, if can be ok to rank also 10000m on track for the 10 km on road, I don't think correct the opposit, since the activity of road runners specialists of 10 km doesn't include any real experience on track.

Which is my proposal ? Since the event of 10000m practically disappeared from the track, but shows still a lot of interest when there are SPECIFIC meetings looking at the distance (for example, the European Challenge, of in Japan the competition at the end of November of at the beginning of December, when there are from 6 to 10 races of 10000m with a lot of Kenyans and Ethiopians, in 2016 also Derrick and Bumbalough competed there), why not to organize a specific CHALLENGE, like already we have for hammer throwing and multiple events ?

I'm sure it could be possible to find 4-5 Countries interested to organize top 10000m ONLY, with a good investment of money. For example, in Nederland, UK, Japan, US, maybe Spain or Portugal.

We need new ideas, but not to transform Athletics in something else (for examples, the rule used in European Cup for throws and jumps, where the winner of discus has a performance of 65m and the number 4 of 68....).

Agreed! Getting rid of heats is an awful idea (and it's not the reason why finals are slow. That so much is at stake is the reason).

Yes! We need to save the 10,000m. It's a great event but has sadly been dying a slow death in recent years.

By the way, it was the Continental Cup not the European Cup where the "winner" of the Discus had a performance lower than the second placer.

Thank you Renato for your input! We appreciate your suggestions and i'll pass them forward. I wanted to add that we already plan on that, the higher you are on the list, more tests in and out of competition you'll have to pass. Up to 5 per year for Gold athletes and up to 10 for Platinum athletes. Also, for 10,000m rankings we plan to use the 10k events and cross country as 10,000m are rare, that's true, however with a lesser impact on these rankings than a proper 10,000m race.

Pablo, ignore the blanket harsh dismissals, because they provide no evidence. However, without knowing more about how the rankings are going to be used or how they were constructed, it is difficult to evaluate them. A two year window is absolutely fine. Farah, by the way, is slated to run some track races and the World Championship next year, and he certainly proved this year he had the fitness to run 27 or better once again with low 59/2:05. I would say that it is quite possible that the rules for determining what race counts in what category may lead to some unintended consequences, such as for example, some up and coming runners (like the Kenyans who burst on the scene with super fast times but no previous results) might be excluded from the top races and some races might end up being uncompetitive if they can have just one platinum runner--who does he compete against? Only lower level runners. Why not have at least 2 to make that competitiveness more likely? Thanks for your work!

Will the ranking system be used for the qualification process for Tokyo 2020?

The selection window for the marathon and 10,000m opens on January 1st. Athletes planning their spring marathon need to know this ASAP.

Will the IAAF decide this at the December meeting where the Doha selection standards are being approved?

Pablo, I agree with Renato that a problem in the Diamond League is the presence of the usual suspects every time and little chance for newer athletes to get that opportunity. The opportunity is particularly key in the middle distances because it is much easier to run a fast time with pacers and better athletes, but your typical, say, 3:34-35 athletes at the 1500m seem unable to get into any of these races and be brought down to 3:31-32. But look at some runners who did get the opportunity:

Centro and Jakob Ingebrigtsen had run 3:35 at best last year, got accepted to Monaco and ran 3:32 and 3:31, respectively.

You so often seem to get fields full of guys who ran fast years ago and still get a 3:31-32 at some point in the year but emerging talent is squelched. At least with a 2 year window, you have the shot of not getting guys like a Silas Kiplagat long past his prime every single meet.

First, races won't become uncompetitive because if they want a certain level they have to bring top class athletes. Example : A platinum race must bring at LEAST 1 platinum runner, 2 gold, 3 silver, 4 bronze. A gold race at LEAST 1 gold runner, 2 silver, 3 bronze, etc. Same goes for races who want to UPGRADE their rankings, before upgrading ( the year before ) they have to invite athletes for the level they are requesting to upgrade.

Also, given the 2-year window there will only be in-form runners. Yes, there will be the case with fast emerging talents not being able to get into top races just like that, however have 2-3 world class performances at smaller meets and get to a silver ranking, they will definitely raise some eyebrows from the organisers of big competitions. So within a short period they will definitely make it if they are good enough.

It will take longer than they would wish but this way we promote consistency and also this period of time means they will have to pass more test both ic and oc, so there will be also be less suspicion surrounding them.

I forgot to say, top races will definitely not be uncompetitive as a platinum race must bring at least a platinum runner. This means they can bring 2,3 or even all the platinum runners if they want and afford them. We only say what is minimum to keep the label.

Also i really hope it will be decided as soon as possible, hopefully next month, but many seem to agree with the rankings and to give it a green light.

For all your suggestions and complaints regarding the rankings, you can write them at

worldrankings@iaaf.org

!

What? If the new system is approved for Tokyo 2020 this means there won't be any olympic trials anymore?? Top 3 will be selected straightaway?? It would be ridiculous..

noFway! wrote:

What? If the new system is approved for Tokyo 2020 this means there won't be any olympic trials anymore?? Top 3 will be selected straightaway?? It would be ridiculous..

No, you'll still have your Olympic Trials. But, instead of asking "have the top 3 each got the qualifying standard mark?" the question will be "are the top 3 each in the top 32/48 (whatever the quota is for the event) on the World Rankings once you've taken into account the 3-per-country rule?"