Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2009 World Championships Qualifying Standards

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • az2004
    replied
    aren't the qual times selected at a point to fill out the existing number of rounds expected for any event...??

    so basically using any previous year, or series of years, you can deduce the data point which does so..

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Henry
    replied
    Looking at the A times for the m100m and the Mens m400m, 10.21 and 45.55 respectively. It really shows me that we as track fans have become pretty spoilt when we get disappointed after 9.9 low or 44.8* winning performances. Looking at that qualifacation table, it suggests that athletes running 10.2s and 45 lows are average athletes with average performances hence those clocking 9.9 lows or 44. high would be good athletes fringing on great performances.

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Originally posted by sprintblox
    Originally posted by 26mi235
    Originally posted by sprintblox
    Originally posted by Smoke
    Are they serious with the 110 standard at 13.55? On the eyeball test that is slow and all inclusive.

    Seriously, I think they should just allow the top 8 Americans and then fill the field accordingly after that. Half tongue in cheek

    13.55 is slow on this level. While ensuring participation, which is alwys important, it does very little in affecting the final 8 or even the top 16 that will qualify for the semi finals.

    As of right now the 110 field is already filled.
    13.55 isn't all that slow. 13.51 made the semis in Beijing.

    13.43 made the final. Many athletes PR at the Olympics, so it wouldn't be anything big for a 13.55 guy to do a 13.4 PR and make the final.
    This comparison with marks that make the final in a distance race is 'inapt'. Tactical races will not set speed standards. All of those guys that made the Final had marks in the low 13s and high 12s and some high-12s did not make it, I think.
    Distance races? Since when did the 110 hurdles become a distance race??!

    You're thinking of 13 minutes and the 5000?
    Yep, read too quickly in a spare moment before leaving. Sprints/Hurdles and races with strategic aspects can be quite different, but that was not what the post was about. ops:

    Leave a comment:


  • sprintblox
    replied
    Originally posted by 26mi235
    Originally posted by sprintblox
    Originally posted by Smoke
    Are they serious with the 110 standard at 13.55? On the eyeball test that is slow and all inclusive.

    Seriously, I think they should just allow the top 8 Americans and then fill the field accordingly after that. Half tongue in cheek

    13.55 is slow on this level. While ensuring participation, which is alwys important, it does very little in affecting the final 8 or even the top 16 that will qualify for the semi finals.

    As of right now the 110 field is already filled.
    13.55 isn't all that slow. 13.51 made the semis in Beijing.

    13.43 made the final. Many athletes PR at the Olympics, so it wouldn't be anything big for a 13.55 guy to do a 13.4 PR and make the final.
    This comparison with marks that make the final in a distance race is 'inapt'. Tactical races will not set speed standards. All of those guys that made the Final had marks in the low 13s and high 12s and some high-12s did not make it, I think.
    Distance races? Since when did the 110 hurdles become a distance race??!

    You're thinking of 13 minutes and the 5000?

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Originally posted by sprintblox
    Originally posted by Smoke
    Are they serious with the 110 standard at 13.55? On the eyeball test that is slow and all inclusive.

    Seriously, I think they should just allow the top 8 Americans and then fill the field accordingly after that. Half tongue in cheek

    13.55 is slow on this level. While ensuring participation, which is alwys important, it does very little in affecting the final 8 or even the top 16 that will qualify for the semi finals.

    As of right now the 110 field is already filled.
    13.55 isn't all that slow. 13.51 made the semis in Beijing.

    13.43 made the final. Many athletes PR at the Olympics, so it wouldn't be anything big for a 13.55 guy to do a 13.4 PR and make the final.
    This comparison with marks that make the final in a distance race is 'inapt'. Tactical races will not set speed standards. All of those guys that made the Final had marks in the low 13s and high 12s and some high-12s did not make it, I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • nevetsllim
    replied
    Originally posted by AthleticsInBritain
    The women's 'chase standards have jumped up considerably with 5 seconds coming off the A standard and 7 off the B.
    Yes, 9:46 as the A standard last year was a joke, when you had approximately 60 women contesting three heats as it gets dangerous - just ask Veronica Nyaruai!

    9:40 is more of a benchmark for world-class steeplechasing.

    Although some of the horizontal jumps have rather ambitious standards.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Smoke
    ....
    Seriously, I think they should just allow the top 8 Americans and then fill the field accordingly after that. Half tongue in cheek....

    That's called the WAF.

    Leave a comment:


  • sprintblox
    replied
    Originally posted by Smoke
    Are they serious with the 110 standard at 13.55? On the eyeball test that is slow and all inclusive.

    Seriously, I think they should just allow the top 8 Americans and then fill the field accordingly after that. Half tongue in cheek

    13.55 is slow on this level. While ensuring participation, which is alwys important, it does very little in affecting the final 8 or even the top 16 that will qualify for the semi finals.

    As of right now the 110 field is already filled.
    13.55 isn't all that slow. 13.51 made the semis in Beijing.

    13.43 made the final. Many athletes PR at the Olympics, so it wouldn't be anything big for a 13.55 guy to do a 13.4 PR and make the final.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    Are they serious with the 110 standard at 13.55? On the eyeball test that is slow and all inclusive.

    Seriously, I think they should just allow the top 8 Americans and then fill the field accordingly after that. Half tongue in cheek

    13.55 is slow on this level. While ensuring participation, which is alwys important, it does very little in affecting the final 8 or even the top 16 that will qualify for the semi finals.

    As of right now the 110 field is already filled.

    Leave a comment:


  • AthleticsInBritain
    replied
    The women's 'chase standards have jumped up considerably with 5 seconds coming off the A standard and 7 off the B.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alan Shank
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    At least they had the good sense to tighten some of the standards somewhat, so we won't have the same ludicrous fields we had in Beijing. (hopefully)
    On the other hand, these A standards are going to make it tough for the Ami women to field a full team:

    Triple Jump 14.20m (46-7)
    Hammer Throw 70.00m (229-8)
    Javelin Throw 61.00m (200-1)
    This leaves me in a state of indifference bordering on the supernatural! >:-)
    Cheers,
    Alan Shank

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    At least they had the good sense to tighten some of the standards somewhat, so we won't have the same ludicrous fields we had in Beijing. (hopefully)
    On the other hand, these A standards are going to make it tough for the Ami women to field a full team:

    Triple Jump 14.20m (46-7)
    Hammer Throw 70.00m (229-8)
    Javelin Throw 61.00m (200-1)

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    At least they had the good sense to tighten some of the standards somewhat, so we won't have the same ludicrous fields we had in Beijing. (hopefully)

    Like women's hept from 6000/5800 to 6100/5900

    Leave a comment:


  • dl
    started a topic 2009 World Championships Qualifying Standards

    2009 World Championships Qualifying Standards

    Sorry if this has already been posted/discussed, but here is a link to next year's World Champs standards.

    Unless I'm mistaken, they'll be using the 2 "A's" and a "B" protocol again, as they did in 2007.

    http://iaaf.org/statistics/standards/newsid=47761.html
Working...
X