Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how about first 3 don't go from the Olympic Trials?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by malmo
    Originally posted by az2004

    usa is a meritocracy...

    performance on the day of choice is what counts...

    other wise, corruption or favortism becomes the rule..

    is this russia or america??
    AMEN.
    USA, USA, USA, USA !!!!
    Russia or America ??? --- please, you can do better than that.
    So, is the day of choice the Olympic Games or the Olympic Trials,
    and is there any possibility of a discrepancy between the two? I
    would hope intelligent dialogue is a possibility --- after all, this isn't
    the Election

    Comment


    • #32
      Evolve or die
      Take good care of yourself.

      Comment


      • #33
        so, we have this special rule in place at eugene 2008..

        1500 meters...webb is NOT top 3...

        does he belong on the team???

        that's a tough choice for the decision makers...

        and now take the 800 mens..

        no robinson...so who goes to beijing...

        i think there are real murky areas here...

        in any event where usa has great depth....lets say it's 2012, and it's the 100 meters...

        gay comes in 4th...losing to demps, holliday, and some emerging sprinter..

        all run sub 9.9 do you want gay on the team...

        personally, let the results stand....none of this subjective stuff...

        corruption and bias ruin everything...

        look at politics..

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by az2004
          personally, let the results stand....none of this subjective stuff...
          Preselecting a reigning world champ who has demonstrated recent fitness with an A standard performance within a specified date range does not involve subjectivity, if that rule is established long in advance. "First 3" is not the only objective method of selection.

          And even if you want to stick to the "First 3" rule, there are other changes that can work alongside that, like giving the world champ a bye into the final.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by sprintblox
            Preselecting a reigning world champ who has demonstrated recent fitness with an A standard performance within a specified date range does not involve subjectivity, if that rule is established long in advance.
            AMEN!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by jb
              Originally posted by malmo
              I disagree strongly. Personal bests at the Olympic level are rare. If logan thinks that those figures (10.6% of men and 16.9%) are "low low" then it's incumbent upon him to say what the numbers should be, and how he determined those numbers?
              Some numbers from Beijing -
              Sprints - 48 finalists, 14 PRs (29.2%)
              Middle Distances - 40 finalists, 4 PRs (10.0%)
              Long Distances - 305 finalists, 26 PRs (8.5%)
              Long Distances (excluding marathons) - 129 finalists, 19 PRs (15.1%)
              Hurdles - 32 finalists, 5 PRs (15.6%)
              Jumps - 100 finaists, 12 PRs (12.0%)
              Throws - 99 finalists, 11 PRs (11.1%)
              Multis - 83 finalists, 12 PRs (14.4%)
              Walks - 158 finalists, 27 PRs (17.1%)

              Total - 865 finalists, 111 PRs (12.8%)
              Total (excluding road events) - 531 finalists, 77 PRs (14.5%)
              IIRC, Doug Logan was looking at seasonal bests, not PR's. And he was certainly considering non-finalists as well as finalists.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by az2004

                performance on the day of choice is what counts...

                other wise, corruption or favortism becomes the rule..

                is this russia or america??
                You do remember what happened in the men's high jump this season, right?

                Regarding Lewis' inclusion; I think it's a clever move by Logan. What better way is there to silence the nation's most recognizable athlete and one of the sports most vociferous critics, than to bring him into the fold?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by marknhj
                  You do remember what happened in the men's high jump this season, right?
                  great point marco !

                  silnov must be all the ammunition one ever needs in future when discussing/justifying 2 past the post & selector's pick as a preferred method :

                  didn't perform well at his trials for whatever reason & wasn't meant to go, but selectors' in their wisdom realised he is a great athlete & capable of a medal

                  got a preferential selection over 3rd at trials & rewards the faith shown in him with

                  GOLD !!!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by az2004
                    1500 meters...webb is NOT top 3...

                    does he belong on the team???

                    that's a tough choice for the decision makers...
                    If the criteria is that world champions know they are preselected for the team, if they can demonstrate fitness, then it is clear that Webb would not figure in such a selection procedure. Lagat would be preselected though.

                    Even if the criteria was relaxed and included those that had "broken an AR in the pre Olympic year" as an objective criteria for preselection, I assume the one available slot for preselection in the 1500 would still go to Lagat. Reigning world champ trumps an AR.

                    One aspect about such a system is that only a few events will have an athlete that qualifies for preselection. The criteria needs to be so high that preselection occurs for exceptional cases only.

                    The goal should be that the US's exceptional athletes do not have to peak for the trials too. Pretty simple concept and it can be objective, so no one has to worry about smoke filled rooms. That is a strawman.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Daisy
                      Lagat would be preselected though.
                      Reigning world champ trumps an AR.
                      The criteria needs to be so high that preselection occurs for exceptional cases only.
                      The goal should be that the US's exceptional athletes do not have to peak for the trials too.
                      Yes, yes, sorta, and yes

                      Just pulling a number out of . . . uh . . . the air, I'd say about 25-33% of the events could have clear pre-selecteds. It should be more than reigning OG/WC champions. Let's look at some other criteria:

                      a. Medalist from the most recent global champs.
                      b. Having won the last two USATFs.

                      There may be others. They cannot be just mark-related; they must be competition-related.

                      They should NOT be committee-selected. They MUST fulfill certain objective criteria. When you hit the criteria, you're in - WITH 'demonstrated fitness' which MAY be mark-related ( A-qual mark, I'd guess, within a certain window, probably not to exceed 4 months).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        There may be others. They cannot be just mark-related; they must be competition-related
                        Taffy

                        What happens if you get some kid, who comes out of nowhere breaks the WR ( say in HJ or LJ or TJ - events with no American preselects ) but gets minor injury/illness at trials & finishes say 6th, but wll be 100% fit for OG/WC ?

                        Does no competitive record but the WR get ya a preselect :?: :!:

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Just pulling a number out of . . . uh . . . the air, I'd say about 25-33% of the events could have clear pre-selecteds. It should be more than reigning OG/WC champions. Let's look at some other criteria:

                          a. Medalist from the most recent global champs.
                          b. Having won the last two USATFs.

                          There may be others. They cannot be just mark-related; they must be competition-related.
                          I presume you still only want a maximum of ONE athlete to be preselected per event? So if you have multiple criteria like what you listed above, you'd pick only the one athlete who achieved the highest priority performance on the list of criteria?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by sprintblox
                            I presume you still only want a maximum of ONE athlete to be preselected per event? So if you have multiple criteria like what you listed above, you'd pick only the one athlete who achieved the highest priority performance on the list of criteria?
                            Zackly. There can be only 1 pre-select per event. Higher medal trumps lower; Medalist trumps USATF winner.

                            To Eldy: sadly, yes. I am THE Marks Snob, but marks are meaningless without scalps to go with them.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              To Eldy: sadly, yes. I am THE Marks Snob, but marks are meaningless without scalps to go with them.
                              If he'd set it in a GP like New York, Oslo, Rome, etc, you don't call that "competition"?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by eldrick
                                If he'd set it in a GP like New York, Oslo, Rome, etc, you don't call that "competition"?
                                The problem with GP meets is that many times the 'good' guys are training through them, in order to peak at the Games. Reputations can only be made when the stakes are the biggest, like previous global meets or USATF (If a USA HTer has won the USATF the last two years, even though s/he has no chance to medal at the global meet, s/he should go as 'our' champion. Even over a guy with the A). Now that last problem is something that would have to be ironed out. What if there are 3 'A's, but one is not the current USATF champ (highly unlikely, but possible) ? There's a sticky wicket.

                                There are lots of 'what-if' scenarios that can arise every year, but I am totally convinced we should try SOMETHING different in 2009 or 2011, just to see how it plays out. If it doesn't satisfy us, we've always got the old way to fall back on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X