Shannon has made tremendous progress this year and had a great race to surpass the Olympic standard. I'm not sure what the debate is. Congratulations to her on a great track season!
Shannon has made tremendous progress this year and had a great race to surpass the Olympic standard. I'm not sure what the debate is. Congratulations to her on a great track season!
YMMV wrote:
Quite simply, if you make the standard for participation in the Olympics or World Champs, you are on the world stage, i.e. world class. It isn't that complicated.
Especially with today’s standards.
Jo72 wrote:
The suggestion to try steeple was a joke (admittedly lame). Mostly (see below).
Osika now seems #3 in the US 1500m and with younger ones like Hiltz, Purrier, Efraimson, Johnson etc. continuing to improve, it's not going to get easy for anyone to earn their spot.
Hiltz is only a year younger than Osika.
Efraimson's PB is almost 4 years old. How is she "improving"?
Perfection splits!
Decent rabbiting to 800.
Shannon hammered the last 700 like a boss. She is in sub-4:00 shape in a deep field.
Betlehem Desalegn is incredibly beautiful.
At 5:44 Anna Dibaba finishes with windmilling arms just like her sister (except for the part where she is 20 seconds slower.)
I am a yuge Osika fan now.
Thanks for finding this!
YMMV wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoI5k4G5xXgPerfection splits!
Decent rabbiting to 800.
Shannon hammered the last 700 like a boss. She is in sub-4:00 shape in a deep field.
Betlehem Desalegn is incredibly beautiful.
At 5:44 Anna Dibaba finishes with windmilling arms just like her sister (except for the part where she is 20 seconds slower.)
I am a yuge Osika fan now.
She seemed pretty in control that whole race, I agree she's got sub 4 potential. I think she's calling it a season at this point but next year should be a lot more interesting now.
YMMV wrote:
Quite simply, if you make the standard for participation in the Olympics or World Champs, you are on the world stage, i.e. world class. It isn't that complicated.
Sort of. Not really the Olympics, even 11.8 100m will get you in.
The story of the slowest athletes at the Rio Olympics, and why they compete.
www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2016/8/19/12467438/rio-olympics-2016-athletes-small-nations-richson-simeonYMMV wrote:
Quite simply, if you make the standard for participation in the Olympics or World Champs, you are on the world stage, i.e. world class. It isn't that complicated.
This makes sense, but I'm curious. What do we call runners like Rowbury and Simpson or Houlihan, who actually had a shot at winning top tier international races?
A big tent wrote:
YMMV wrote:
Quite simply, if you make the standard for participation in the Olympics or World Champs, you are on the world stage, i.e. world class. It isn't that complicated.
This makes sense, but I'm curious. What do we call runners like Rowbury and Simpson or Houlihan, who actually had a shot at winning top tier international races?
Call them top of the world?
I'd split the difference and say that world class is something like top 10-12 in marks or placements. Sure, often 6-12 might not really have a shot at the medals (this usually depends on many factors), but top 6 or medal contenders only seems to narrow and top 40-50 (roughly the goal numbers of most events for Olympics/WC) seems too wide, especially because there are only 3-4 per nation, so quite a few with the standard can not participate. As of today, top 13 in women's 1500m are sub 4, so this seems a nice cutoff for world class, Osika is #19, there are about 60 with the WC standard, so she is closer to the narrow World Class than most of the ones eligible to participate in the WC.
The difference between your "standard" and mine is that yours is arbitrary, mine is not. The chance that anyone from your hometown ever makes the world standard is essentially zero. If that isn't good enough for you, than aren't you a special flower with special standards thanks to the interwebs and your unique elite-level super-sayan imagination.
"World class" is a class of people, which in our sport means that, among other things, they can make a decent living at their craft.
Anyone who podiums is called a "world medalist". This isn't rocket science, folks.
How is the standard set as a qualifier for Olympics not arbitrary?
Some comittee could decide tomorrow to skip heats (like in 10k) and have only about 25 runners. So suddenly world class would be narrowed down to half as many as it used to be with 50 participants etc. Or the other way round, have twice as many and let fewer advance from the heats or whatever.
It's already arbitrary now because of such differences and rather different numbers of people who make the standard and also different goal numbers of participants for the events. The latter often dictated by practical reasons, therefore fewer in the decathlon than in the marathon etc.
Jo72 wrote:
How is the standard set as a qualifier for Olympics not arbitrary?
Some comittee could decide tomorrow to skip heats (like in 10k) and have only about 25 runners. So suddenly world class would be narrowed down to half as many as it used to be with 50 participants etc. Or the other way round, have twice as many and let fewer advance from the heats or whatever.
It's already arbitrary now because of such differences and rather different numbers of people who make the standard and also different goal numbers of participants for the events. The latter often dictated by practical reasons, therefore fewer in the decathlon than in the marathon etc.
"could...if..but..what if...instead...what I think is...but..actually...but"
We'll make sure to check in with you anytime we have a question about standards in the future, Captain Overthink.
Jo72 wrote:
I'd split the difference and say that world class is something like top 10-12 in marks or placements. Sure, often 6-12 might not really have a shot at the medals (this usually depends on many factors), but top 6 or medal contenders only seems to narrow and top 40-50 (roughly the goal numbers of most events for Olympics/WC) seems too wide, especially because there are only 3-4 per nation, so quite a few with the standard can not participate. As of today, top 13 in women's 1500m are sub 4, so this seems a nice cutoff for world class, Osika is #19, there are about 60 with the WC standard, so she is closer to the narrow World Class than most of the ones eligible to participate in the WC.
Thanks for your usual insightful and thoughtful answer.
Mr Superbrightguy,
If you want to call #60 in the world who barely made the standard but has virtually no chance for advancing to the semifinals in Worlds or Olympics and would not win nationals in many countries, "world class", be my guest.
But top 12 is as precise as top 50, not more vague, simply a narrower understanding of World class. If someone speaks of a world class 1500m runner, I think of Dibaba or Muir, not of Marusa Mismas.
YMMV wraote:
"World class" is a class of people, which in our sport means that, among other things, they can make a decent living at their craft.
Jenny Simpson was in college when she made the US Olympic team in the steeple-chase, and when she ran 3:59.90 at Pre. Was she making "a decent living" at track? Or was she not "world class"?
Jo72 wrote:
If someone speaks of a world class 1500m runner, I think of Dibaba or Muir, not of Marusa Mismas.
Of course you do. That's because you are "a special flower with special standards thanks to the interwebs and your unique elite-level super-sayan imagination."
Some of the posters here remind me of the physicist Wolfgang Pauli. He used to say that some arguments are so bad they are "not even wrong." Other arguments are "so confused that one can not tell whether it is nonsense or not."
I have questions wrote:
YMMV wraote:
"World class" is a class of people, which in our sport means that, among other things, they can make a decent living at their craft.
Jenny Simpson was in college when she made the US Olympic team in the steeple-chase, and when she ran 3:59.90 at Pre. Was she making "a decent living" at track? Or was she not "world class"?
I'll let our mom explain to you how that whole "scholarship" thing works...I realize it means you have to go upstairs.
YMMV wrote:
I have questions wrote:
Jenny Simpson was in college when she made the US Olympic team in the steeple-chase, and when she ran 3:59.90 at Pre. Was she making "a decent living" at track? Or was she not "world class"?
I'll let our mom explain to you how that whole "scholarship" thing works...I realize it means you have to go upstairs.
I see your posts all over on this board. You are a jerk.
YMMV wrote:
Quite simply, if you make the standard for participation in the Olympics or World Champs, you are on the world stage, i.e. world class. It isn't that complicated.
+1
Clear-eyed Osika fan wrote:
fadsfdssdf wrote:
She's already world class, she just ran 4:01. If you don't understand that 4:01 is great you need to learn more about our sport.
It all depends on what you mean by world class. When I hear world class, I think of someone who is competitive in the top international races, someone who finishes in the top 3 in a DL/WC/OG race.
By that definition, a PB of 4:01 is not world class. No American with a PB over 4:01 has finished top three in a DL/WC/OG race. And all of the Americans who've run under 4:01 in the last decade have.
You must have a different definition.
World class basically means that you are capable of getting into and competing againt world class athletes. The next step up are the elite athletes who are expected to compete for DL and global championship medals. 4:01x is definitely world class, however, perhaps not elite or a medal contender becasue they can run 4:01 off of a 4:10 pace at the 800m.