Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Budapest 23 Qualifying standards updated

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Budapest 23 Qualifying standards updated

    https://world-track.org/2022/07/worl...000m-marathon/
    Have not seen this posted, but I might have missed it.

  • #2
    WA posted this today

    https://www.worldathletics.org/compe...ps-budapest-23

    note that field event Qs have been upped from 32 to 36

    Comment


    • #3
      The comments I’ve seen online so far note how difficult some of the field event marks are, including mLJ and mDisc along with the m10k. Basically, marks being less relevant and ranking more relevant.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gh View Post
        WA posted this today

        https://www.worldathletics.org/compe...ps-budapest-23

        note that field event Qs have been upped from 32 to 36
        Anyone else find it odd that they upped the main field events but left the multi's at only 24?

        Comment


        • #5
          The last section of the document refers to a "Competition Manipulation Watchlist". Reading that section makes it sound like qualifying marks can only be achieved at certain major events - that would be a huge change which suggests it is not what that section means.
          Any clarifications?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cigar95 View Post
            The last section of the document refers to a "Competition Manipulation Watchlist". Reading that section makes it sound like qualifying marks can only be achieved at certain major events - that would be a huge change which suggests it is not what that section means.
            Any clarifications?
            Some countries have a rather, ummmm, dubious history of submitting fantastical marks for qualifying purposes. These countries are now on a watchlist and only marks achieved in the level of competitions listed will be considered for acceptance.

            Say, for example, Narnia is on that watchlist. The only way their athletes can use marks achieved domestically in Narnia is for those marks to have been achieved at a competition that falls under that list of accepted comps.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by donley2 View Post

              Anyone else find it odd that they upped the main field events but left the multi's at only 24?
              I'd love more multi eventers being entered, but I imagine it becomes cumbersome to manage the field events with more than 24.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gh View Post
                WA posted this today: note that field event Qs have been upped from 32 to 36
                32 is a better number. 4 heats of 8, first four to 2 semi-finals, first four to one final. No third places eliminate in heats or semis.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You know what I don’t see on the list of approved meets: NCAAs. Which we know has been an issue for rankings, not recognizing marks at all is another thing. So, basically WA will pretend that Abby Steiners’s 21.77 idn’t happen?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by donley2 View Post

                    Anyone else find it odd that they upped the main field events but left the multi's at only 24?
                    No, for two important reasons:

                    1. The field events in recent years have seen notable increases in depth globally, with an expanded set of countries turning out world class performers; such increases in depth have not been seen in the multis.

                    2. Field events have a final with a reduced set of athletes; the multis don't have that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dupontred View Post
                      You know what I don’t see on the list of approved meets: NCAAs. Which we know has been an issue for rankings, not recognizing marks at all is another thing. So, basically WA will pretend that Abby Steiners’s 21.77 idn’t happen?
                      i THINK that list of "approved meets" you're looking at is under the header of "Competition Manipulation Watchlist" which applies to nations which it is thought have been making stuff up. The US is not on the list.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dupontred View Post
                        You know what I don’t see on the list of approved meets: NCAAs. Which we know has been an issue for rankings, not recognizing marks at all is another thing. So, basically WA will pretend that Abby Steiners’s 21.77 idn’t happen?
                        With the qualifying period having started July 31st, they're acting like her 21.77 didn't happen and the entire world championships didn't happen (except for 10k/20k/multis with a Jan 31 start date).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gh View Post

                          i THINK that list of "approved meets" you're looking at is under the header of "Competition Manipulation Watchlist" which applies to nations which it is thought have been making stuff up. The US is not on the list.
                          Ah yes, I think that makes more sense. That being said, if marks from that country are suspicious, I would think marks from that country's National Championships might also be suspect.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

                            With the qualifying period having started July 31st, they're acting like her 21.77 didn't happen and the entire world championships didn't happen (except for 10k/20k/multis with a Jan 31 start date).
                            no, the 21.77 is part of her ranking score (click on her name for details:



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gh View Post

                              no, the 21.77 is part of her ranking score (click on her name for details:

                              https://www.worldathletics.org/world...mitByCountry=0
                              It's part of her current ranking, but when they recompute the rankings almost a year from now, will it become too old to be included in her rankings? (of course, in her particular case it's likely moot, but there may be other athletes who could benefit if their 2022 NCAA performances count)
                              Last edited by 18.99s; 08-19-2022, 08:40 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X