"Road to Oregon"

[Atticus]

A. But his Q was a 1:43.86 from late 2006.
B. my point is that the World Championships (and Olympics) aren't developmental meets as such.

A. I still think there have been medalists that did not meet the "A-Std'.
B. Donley's point remains - having been to the Big Show before helps immensely when they're old enough to do well.

[gm]

To invoke the Burden-of-Proof Fallacy - YOU are the stat guy, you name one!

edit - Oh, I see what you did there. Alfred Yego medaled in 2007 with a SB of 1:45.9 going in.

But his Q was a 1:43.86 from late 2006.

donley2 -- my point is that the World Championships (and Olympics) aren't developmental meets as such.

[donley2]

I am not even sure why this conversation is about having decent medal chances. Getting into a World Championships is a big deal and almost certainly can help with future championships having been to a big one before.

[Atticus]

Restricting it to "modern" championships, can you name anyone since, say, 2007 who didn't meet the qualifying mark for the Worlds and then medaled in the 800?

To invoke the Burden-of-Proof Fallacy - YOU are the stat guy, you name one!

edit - Oh, I see what you did there. Alfred Yego medaled in 2007 with a SB of 1:45.9 going in.

[gm]

I'll guess there have been 800 runners who were very competitive, but didn't run super-elite times, that have medaled.

Restricting it to "modern" championships, can you name anyone since, say, 2007 who didn't meet the qualifying mark for the Worlds and then medaled in the 800?

[Atticus]

At the World/Olympic level, if you don't meet the qualifying standard (Q mark) you are unlikely to figure in the medals.

I'll guess there have been 800 runners who were very competitive, but didn't run super-elite times, that have medaled.

[gm]

At the World/Olympic level, if you don't meet the qualifying standard (Q mark) you are unlikely to figure in the medals.

[Atticus]

The point is, why start the qualifying window from June 28th 2021?

The obvious answer is that marks from before that were qualifying for LAST year's Championships. T&F is definitely a game of 'what have you done for me lately?'.

[Wiederganger]

No it's not, because only so many will get the Q standard (I'm assuming you mean the Q time?) but it's those fighting for ranking spots that will have it tough. If we look at 2021, 37 women ran faster than 22.8 last year (removing multiple USA/JAM) which would leave 19 spots from the rankings.

The point is, why start the qualifying window from June 28th 2021? Why not include from June 1st? Or from May? Missing the whole of June, a key month of competitions, seems very short sighted. It now means athletes that perhaps would have wanted, say, a bigger training block, rather than competition, during May or June, in 2022, now have to compete to get ranking points. In addition, many nations have their NCs June 24th-26th, the last day for qualifying. And who knows whether some countries will be restricting entry, or having lockdowns. It's an unnecessarily short qualifying window.

[gm]

If you can't achieve the qualifying standard in the prescribed window, it's pretty much a moot point.

[Atticus]

I can't believe that elite coaches or athletes wouldn't understand the system that governs their 'job', but there may be a few.

[donley2]

One the things I think that is consistent (at least from the outside looking in) is that often it appears that many of the athletes don't have a clue about the details of these qualifying procedures. The fact that competing after June 28th last year may have indeed been important for lots of people seems to not be a well known fact. Many of these folks have coaches and agents who I would think might help inform them of these details. Maybe coaches don't think that is part of there job. In the end someone needs to be informed and ultimately the athlete is to one most affected and if nobody else is telling them they may need to educate themselves.

[Wiederganger]

If you click on the name of any of those athletes in the World Rankings quota it shows which performances make up their ranking. For the 200 you need 5 performances to get a ranking.

Indeed. Which is actually quite an ask. Let's look at the Dutch example:

Bisschops had an extensive season over 200m in 2021, with 5 races pre window, but 7 after. She currently has a ranking.

Klaver as mentioned above, only had 2 races in the Q window. So in 2022 she will either need to:
1) run faster than 22.80 QT (she has 22.83 from 21, with a PB of 22.66 from 20) or 2) get 3 races in before the cut off window at the end of June 22.

Now, Dutch champion Jamile Samuel may have a tougher task. She didn't have any races after June 28th last season (she had 3 pre June 28th, and then DNS in Tokyo) If she doesn't get the QT (she as a PB of 22.37 from 2018, the last time she ran faster than the QT of 22.8) she will need 5 x 200m races before June 26th cut-off. Luckily for her, the Dutch Champs 200m is on....June 26th, where she will have 2 races. But she will have to have at least 3 races before then, and ideally, more, in case she gets a niggle at the NCs. She doesn't want to be relying on 2 runs on the last day of the Q window. So she may have to find 5 races. It doesn't sound a lot, but getting into quality races is hard, especially if she wants to Q for the 100m too (only 1 race in the Q window) as she will need 4 races as she wont get the 11.15 QT. So, if she wants to Q for the 100 & 200m - perfectly reasonable for her. nationally, she needs 4 races at 100m & 5 at 200m in the months of May-June.

Van Hunenstijn, weaker than Samuel & Klaver in the 200m (but better than Bisschops....they all are) only needs 1 more 200m to Q in rankings, compared to Samuel & Klaver, as her races were later in 2021.

So, the Q window only starting from June 28th has been a bummer for some of these women.

[LuckySpikes]

I'm still trying to determine whether the rankings are accurate at the moment 🤔

I was initially looking at the w200m, and saw that Netherlands only currently have Schippers and Minke Bisschops qualifying. This despite, for example, Lieke Klaver having way more ranking points than Bisschops, and a higher position. Then a friend told me the qualifying window started June 28th...so 4 of Klaver's 6 races were all before then, so she only has 2 (currently) in the qualifying window. However, Schippers only has 3 in the qualifying window, and I thought you need 4? But maybe it is just 3. But then I realised that, of course, Schippers qualifies by entry standard, whereas Bisschops is qualified by world ranking position (and having the required number of races after June 28th - either 3 or 4, whatever it is!). Oh, it's fun!

Anyway, there will be lots of changes in those rankings in the next few months!

If you click on the name of any of those athletes in the World Rankings quota it shows which performances make up their ranking. For the 200 you need 5 performances to get a ranking.

[Wiederganger]

I'm still trying to determine whether the rankings are accurate at the moment 🤔

I was initially looking at the w200m, and saw that Netherlands only currently have Schippers and Minke Bisschops qualifying. This despite, for example, Lieke Klaver having way more ranking points than Bisschops, and a higher position. Then a friend told me the qualifying window started June 28th...so 4 of Klaver's 6 races were all before then, so she only has 2 (currently) in the qualifying window. However, Schippers only has 3 in the qualifying window, and I thought you need 4? But maybe it is just 3. But then I realised that, of course, Schippers qualifies by entry standard, whereas Bisschops is qualified by world ranking position (and having the required number of races after June 28th - either 3 or 4, whatever it is!). Oh, it's fun!

Anyway, there will be lots of changes in those rankings in the next few months!