Road To Budapest

[donley2]

The qualifying pages for Budapest 23 are now up and operational at World Athletics.

https://worldathletics.org/stats-zone/road-to/7138987

[Atticus]

The qualifying pages for Budapest 23 are now up and operational at World Athletics.

Hey WA, if you're reading this (ha!), please fix the filter* so that the parameters do not clear themselves after each search (as you do with the yearly leader lists).

* specifically the one that chooses 'country'. Thanks.

[Wiederganger]

I think it's a bit crap that the qualifying period for Budapest starts after the Worlds at Eugene finished. From 31st July makes sense in a typical season, but the Worlds were so early because of the delay, they could have amended the Q period from 31st June to accommodate performances set at the Worlds.

[gh]

I think it's a bit crap that the qualifying period for Budapest starts after the Worlds at Eugene finished. From 31st July makes sense in a typical season, but the Worlds were so early because of the delay, they could have amended the Q period from 31st June to accommodate performances set at the Worlds.

anything to give their rankings more relevance

[Atticus]

There's an argument to be made that the qual period should begin Oct 1 2022 (S Hemi season), so that you can't qualify on LAST season's form. I would prefer one shows fitness in the current season.

[gm]

I would prefer one shows fitness in the current season.

Agree. No need to give a longer qualifying period.

[Wiederganger]

There's an argument to be made that the qual period should begin Oct 1 2022 (S Hemi season), so that you can't qualify on LAST season's form. I would prefer one shows fitness in the current season.

Hmm, yes and no. I think only using the current year is quite a brutal approach. Athlete's get injured, and the comeback trail can be slow. I'm sure there are many athletes in the past that have massively improved in the last few weeks before a championship, when the Q window closes, and have effectively got their Q from the previous season. And then there's the multievents, when an athlete may not even compete in a hept/dec in the same year before a Champs.

Rankings do give more scope now, but I think back to athletes like Christine Ohuruogu who often started the season relatively slow, only improving in chunks rights before, or during, a Champs. She would still get through on rankings in todays rules, but to not count her performances from 12 months prior seems harsh.

What I do think should happen, though, is in-season bests (SBs) should be used for heat draws, not Q times from prior seasons. Let an athlete get to the Champs with a performance set in the last 12 months, but always use this seasons best for drawing heats. If no SB, then they use last years.

[Trickstat]

Hmm, yes and no. I think only using the current year is quite a brutal approach. Athlete's get injured, and the comeback trail can be slow. I'm sure there are many athletes in the past that have massively improved in the last few weeks before a championship, when the Q window closes, and have effectively got their Q from the previous season. And then there's the multievents, when an athlete may not even compete in a hept/dec in the same year before a Champs.

Rankings do give more scope now, but I think back to athletes like Christine Ohuruogu who often started the season relatively slow, only improving in chunks rights before, or during, a Champs. She would still get through on rankings in todays rules, but to not count her performances from 12 months prior seems harsh.

What I do think should happen, though, is in-season bests (SBs) should be used for heat draws, not Q times from prior seasons. Let an athlete get to the Champs with a performance set in the last 12 months, but always use this seasons best for drawing heats. If no SB, then they use last years.

Heat draws do use SBs rather than the best performance from the qualifying period.

I do think only allowing performances from that year could mean that a real medal contender could miss out in things like the multi-events or 10000m.

[Merner521]

Hmm, yes and no. I think only using the current year is quite a brutal approach. Athlete's get injured, and the comeback trail can be slow. I'm sure there are many athletes in the past that have massively improved in the last few weeks before a championship, when the Q window closes, and have effectively got their Q from the previous season. And then there's the multievents, when an athlete may not even compete in a hept/dec in the same year before a Champs.

Rankings do give more scope now, but I think back to athletes like Christine Ohuruogu who often started the season relatively slow, only improving in chunks rights before, or during, a Champs. She would still get through on rankings in todays rules, but to not count her performances from 12 months prior seems harsh.

What I do think should happen, though, is in-season bests (SBs) should be used for heat draws, not Q times from prior seasons. Let an athlete get to the Champs with a performance set in the last 12 months, but always use this seasons best for drawing heats. If no SB, then they use last years.

Very good points peaking and about combined events (I'd add marathon to the combined events argument as well). Also worth pointing out that these championships are not always every year!

In general, I think qualifying standards are too high, especially since we know conditions and competitiveness of events can influence results greatly depending on the event. I'd love to see more auto-Qs for winning competitions (like they have for DL Final, WC defending champ, and area champions) - expand that to include some additional regional "qualifying" meets. The rankings system does a lot to mitigate the tough Q standards, but those are quite unfair in that they mostly reward the already super-elite who have access to DL meets where emerging athletes do not.

Lastly, and this is pretty minor, having the standards JUST above a round number is a bit annoying. Taking the example of my favorite event, PV: 4.71 for women and 5.81 for men. Come on! jumping 80 should be good enough to get an athlete into the meet.

[gh]

....
Lastly, and this is pretty minor, having the standards JUST above a round number is a bit annoying. Taking the example of my favorite event, PV: 4.71 for women and 5.81 for men. Come on! jumping 80 should be good enough to get an athlete into the meet.

in theory, this is a problem that will solve itself simply because meets with any sense will set up the progressions to include 4.71 and 5.81

[donley2]

I have been staring at these lists a little more closely the last couple weeks. It seems to me there are a lot of missing people on these lists that I haven't a clue why they are missing. I actually sent in a question in regards to Charity Griffith and the womens HJ to WA but so far crickets. Anyone have an inside contact?

[gh]

I....I actually sent in a question in regards to Charity Griffith and the womens HJ to WA but so far crickets. Anyone have an inside contact?

WAG: Griffith doesn't have 5 meets that WA recognizes.

[LuckySpikes]

WAG: Griffith doesn't have 5 meets that WA recognizes.

She does.She's ranked 63rd and you can see the results that make up her ranking when you click on her name at https://worldathletics.org/world-ran...mitByCountry=0

[gh]

no bd listed for Griffith; as I recall, that keeps the WA software from ranking you in the Road To compilation

[donley2]

no bd listed for Griffith; as I recall, that keeps the WA software from ranking you in the Road To compilation

Thank you. That actually makes sense. Austin West (Dec) and Maddie Harris were two of the other athletes that I noticed were missing and neither one of them have birth dates listed on their World Athletics profiles. Russell Robinson (TJ) is another one.