Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Jump Injustice at the Olympic Trials?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    I think that was fair, given the Covid circumstances.

    As I look at the 'Road To' final list. I see McPherson is listed as the 33rd person (one out of the quota), BUT . . . two people ahead of her were Americans she beat at the OT. I think that WA should have let USATF decline tose two spots, raising her to 31st, inside the quota. Simple as that.
    In a sense WA did allow for this situation but a decline of a "quota spot" had to be done by June 29th which is two days prior to the July 1st final ranking. The US could have turned down Butts-Townsend's quota selection with the anticipation that McPherson would move up one spot but there was no guaranty that another athlete wouldn't leap frog McPherson and leave the US with only 2 athletes in the HJ.

    Now you can argue that they should have done that, particularly since we now know the answer but had it worked against the US, there would be screaming about that as well.

    The opportunity to rank better if the standard couldn't be reached was there for all of the athletes.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

      WA let USATF decline those spots ... sort of. The deadline for countries to decline spots was June 29, but the final ranking list was published July 1. So USATF would have had to decline a spot based on expectations of how the rankings would shake out 2 days later, not based on the actual final rankings.
      Couldn't have said it better myself

      Comment


      • #33
        A big source of confusion is that there are really two sets of world rankings. There's the list we're most familiar with, where athletes are listed in the order of their rankings points.

        I and many others wrongly understood that an athlete who ranks in the top X on that list (where X is the field size for their event) would have achieved the equivalent of the auto-Q standard, and then national federations can select up to 3 athletes who have achieved either.

        But then there's another list, the "Road to Tokyo" list, where they merge in athletes with the auto-Q standard, while also adjusting for the 3 per country limit. Athletes with the standard take precedence over those who don't; each athlete with the standard (up to 3 per country) effectively bumps down the ranking of those who don't. That's how Inika McPherson is #27 on the simple list but #33 on the blended list, and the blended list is what is used to determine who is eligible to go to Tokyo.

        Theoretically, if there were 32 athletes with the standard (after considering 3 per country) in an event with field size 32, nobody could qualify via world rankings in that event, not even the #1 ranker (of course, in practice the #1 ranker is almost certain to have the standard anyway).

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
          As I look at the 'Road To' final list. I see McPherson is listed as the 33rd person (one out of the quota)
          Am I reading it right that McPherson was just one ranking point away from the 32nd ranked person?

          Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post
          The opportunity to rank better if the standard couldn't be reached was there for all of the athletes.
          Is my further understanding correct that the 32nd ranked jumper [Emily Borthwick-GB] benefitted by placing 3rd at the European Team Championship in May 21? I’m no expert on the WA ranking system, but at the risk of sounding provincial, it seems that Europe-based athletes have more ranking point opportunities than those based in North America.

          Comment


          • #35
            So to clarify the rules basically are, if you are in a weak event and unfortunately cant get the standard, top 3 at USAs doesn't matter. Get a high world ranking, put down an honest effort mark and you're good to go.

            Comment


            • #36
              Let me repeat what I said in my other comment here--

              Ty Butts (-Townsend) has NEVER HJ'ed 6-5.
              My FAST Annual of 2021 lists her PR as 6-4, which she's reached more than once, the last time being at the 2019 WC's, where she finished in 8th place!!

              So the initial post saying she's done 6-5 is WRONG!!

              And this year, according to the list in this site, her best so far was 6-2.25!

              So why was she put on the team?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by aaronk View Post
                Let me repeat what I said in my other comment here--

                Ty Butts (-Townsend) has NEVER HJ'ed 6-5.
                My FAST Annual of 2021 lists her PR as 6-4, which she's reached more than once, the last time being at the 2019 WC's, where she finished in 8th place!!

                So the initial post saying she's done 6-5 is WRONG!!

                And this year, according to the list in this site, her best so far was 6-2.25!

                So why was she put on the team?
                The OP misinterpreted the rules of making it on to the team thinking only people with the Olympic Standard can go. Butts-Townsend never jumped the Olympic standard (1.96) but she is on the team because her world ranking is high enough.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ATK View Post
                  So to clarify the rules basically are, if you are in a weak event and unfortunately cant get the standard, top 3 at USAs doesn't matter. Get a high world ranking, put down an honest effort mark and you're good to go.
                  This is correct.

                  Sha'Carri Richardson (some of you may have heard of her) got almost as many ranking points running 11.44 at Gateshead as running 10.86 at the OT because the DL meet has more value for a 2nd place finish than the USA OT for a 1st place finish.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by booond View Post

                    This is correct.

                    Sha'Carri Richardson (some of you may have heard of her) got almost as many ranking points running 11.44 at Gateshead as running 10.86 at the OT because the DL meet has more value for a 2nd place finish than the USA OT for a 1st place finish.
                    Are the points assigned to the meet, as a whole (irrespective of the quality of individual events)? I would assume so, because of the enormous work that would need to be done to tailor it by event.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by KevinR View Post

                      Are the points assigned to the meet, as a whole (irrespective of the quality of individual events)? I would assume so, because of the enormous work that would need to be done to tailor it by event.
                      As far as I can tell, yes, which is the true insanity or laziness of the ranking.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by booond View Post
                        As far as I can tell, yes, which is the true insanity or laziness of the ranking.
                        As discussed before, the whole process is Euro-centric, whether by design (yes!) or, as you say, sheer laziness.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by wamego relays champ View Post
                          Am I reading it right that McPherson was just one ranking point away from the 32nd ranked person?

                          Is my further understanding correct that the 32nd ranked jumper [Emily Borthwick-GB] benefitted by placing 3rd at the European Team Championship in May 21? I’m no expert on the WA ranking system, but at the risk of sounding provincial, it seems that Europe-based athletes have more ranking point opportunities than those based in North America.
                          I don't know if that is true or not but other posters have pointed out that the ranking system does seem to favor European based athletes at least in their opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                            As discussed before, the whole process is Euro-centric, whether by design (yes!) or, as you say, sheer laziness.
                            Track and field is Euro-centric as far as big meets are concerned. But, the OT is a diverse set of events from very strong - w400h - to weaker - mJav. The events should be ranked separately though that may not help Americans in weaker events.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              They should have started the world rankings but not implemented them for qualifying until around Paris 2024. It's not fleshed out as it should be and the pandemic upended travel opportunities for many athletes.

                              The fact a low level DL meet gets you more points than the largest national trials in the world makes no sense. And having the women's high jump and Women's 400mH getting the same amount of points in 2021 makes no sense

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ATK
                                And having the women's high jump and Women's 400mH getting the same amount of points in 2021 makes no sense
                                And why is that?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X