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

  • #46
    ok lets not start confusing ourselves here. If you are picking someone it is subjective by nature lol. For anyone to argue otherwise is to redefine the english language.

    We are the US and it is VERY difficult to shake the three past the post in the sprints. Adding a bye is not changing that rule because that has nothing to do with USATF, that is all IOC.
    In the distance races we could do it. Khadevis should have been selected. Webb nay.

    By the way it should be known that we do have the discretion to choose a team.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Smoke
      ok lets not start confusing ourselves here. If you are picking someone it is subjective by nature lol. For anyone to argue otherwise is to redefine the english language.
      ??!!
      Giving criteria for selection is not 'picking someone'. If you fulfill the criteria, you are not selected, you are qualified. By your own semantics, 3-past-the-post is also 'picking'. You pick the 3 past the post.

      Comment


      • #48
        If losing a few of our top athletes to a tough qualifying process (i.e. our current Olympic Trials system) is the price we have to pay for having the greatest meet in the world (The Trials), then that's a price I think we should be willing to pay.

        Yes, there are many examples of top US athletes who fell victim to our qualifying system, but someone with more time than me (cop out!) could probably come up with an equally impressive list of athletes who would not have been on the team had there been a selection system in place, but who went on to medal or win at the Trials.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dl
          If losing a few of our top athletes to a tough qualifying process (i.e. our current Olympic Trials system) is the price we have to pay for having the greatest meet in the world (The Trials), then that's a price I think we should be willing to pay.
          That's a terrible reason to leave it alone - the OT is a great meet, so leave it alone. It will still be a great meet!
          Originally posted by dl
          Yes, there are many examples of top US athletes who fell victim to our qualifying system, but someone with more time than me (cop out!) could probably come up with an equally impressive list of athletes who would not have been on the team had there been a selection system in place, but who went on to medal or win at the Trials.
          You can play that game either way, so shouldn't we concentrate on finding the BEST way? Can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs, so let's explore the options. The good news is that we CAN put Humpty together again, if we don't like the new-recipe omelet!! (Humpty - egg - omelet, get it?! )

          Comment


          • #50
            [quote="malmo"] More importantly, if he feels the "success" of an Olympics is determined by an arbitrary metric, then if the Olympic Team fails to reach that mark, does that mean he tenders his resignation?

            Doug Logan needs to learn more about the sport, and our place in the larger global picture, before he set unreasonable standards for success. The world is changing, and the rest of the world will continue to encroach on our medal count in the future, whether we like it or not. Resources and participation are spreading around the globe. The talent pool is expanding. It's a very natural process. [quote]

            This is exactly the same problem that GBR are failing to recognise - and heads have indeed rolled because people fail to realise that being a big country doesn't correlate to winning a lot of medals now, for a large number of reasons. I think we lie 3rd or 4th overall in the all-time OG medal table, but are nowhere near that these days - countries that have specialised in one area (JAM in sprints, Kenya / Ethiopia in distance etc) have started changing the face of our sport - and will continue to do so.

            Yes, USA lost medals they would have hoped for, but think - on the whole - everyone performed - place-wise - to where most people would have expected (including the relays... :wink: )

            Comment


            • #51
              Marlow that was silly. If the criteria set is to define how to CHOOSE the third member or the three then it is subjective. Taking the first three is objective, they ran they crossed the line and it is over. No one going to the board room to choose a member. I have to believe you were just arguing to argue.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Smoke
                Marlow that was silly. If the criteria set is to define how to CHOOSE the third member or the three then it is subjective. Taking the first three is objective, they ran they crossed the line and it is over. No one going to the board room to choose a member. I have to believe you were just arguing to argue.
                If the third member is chosen by objective criteria (albeit different from the how the first two are chosen), then how is that subjective? By your statement EVERYTHING is subjective, because someone arbitrarily decided how to choose the team, e.g., 3 past the post. The decision to pick a team that way is also subjective by your standards.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I've been biting my tongue the past 24 hours, so I'll just chime in with a minor observation.
                  Once the decision is in the hands of a committee, regardless how objectively are the criteria designed, a great deal of subjectivity enters in the process. I've sat on many committees in my life, there is no doubt about that.
                  "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                  by Thomas Henry Huxley

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Pego
                    Once the decision is in the hands of a committee, regardless how objectively are the criteria designed, a great deal of subjectivity enters in the process. I've sat on many committees in my life, there is no doubt about that.
                    Who said anything about a committee? We have had some very arcane arbitrary selection criteria for a while now (see mHJ or mJT) and never once did a committee meet to choose the team. The criteria were applied and the qualifiers were announced.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      sit down for ~ 3'26 & everyone can come up with some sensible pre-selects criteria for OG ( much more important than WC & one i'm interested in )

                      here are mine :

                      - no pre-selects, obviously, 3rd placer goes

                      - lowest rung of pre-selection : reigning OG champ, providing they have an A qualifier beween start of year & a cut-off to be determined, so proving they have current excellent form - i'd go for maybe start of June ( the date needs most discussion ) - every reigning champ deserves some "preselected" chance of defending the title & this at least offers a possibilty of doing so, but it was 4y ago, so they get lowest rung

                      - higher rung - reigning WC - this trumps above as it shows more recent global dominance & off course they'd need an A qualifier within same dates to prove they had some semblance of last year's form

                      - highest rung - an American record within the time frame at a meet of some signifance - at least iaaf level 2 calibre, ensuring good competition & competent officiating - this preselection category takes precedent over previous 2, thus rewarding a fantastic performance

                      determing cut-off date is important as idea of preselect is to avoid having to peak/compete in trials & give the athlete ( who is supposedly best hope of gold ) the freedom to prepare for OG as they best see fit - too close to trials & it's pointless - they might as well just go to trials - too far from trials & window of opportunity of record setting may be considered too small

                      get a consensus on cut-off date & the rest is not too difficult to come up with

                      in summary : if the event has no American who is reigning OG or WC champ & no new record set between start of year - start June, there is no preselect, so preselection is only likely to figure in a small number of cases & everyone is well aware whether it will apply or not - obviously if no reigning American OG or WC champ, those preselection criteria don't exist & only possibility of an American record holder in timeframe can be the preselection criteria

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Smoke
                        Marlow that was silly. If the criteria set is to define how to CHOOSE the third member or the three then it is subjective. Taking the first three is objective, they ran they crossed the line and it is over. No one going to the board room to choose a member. I have to believe you were just arguing to argue.
                        You are either the world champion from last year or you aren't. How is that subjective? And why would any committee be needed to decide that, to any extent more than what already is done? Note that even the current rule isn't as simple as "first 3", as we saw in the high jump and javelin.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by sprintblox
                          Note that even the current rule isn't as simple as "first 3", as we saw in the high jump and javelin.
                          No, but it's as simple as the first 3 who are eligible to compete in Olympic Games (or the World Championships, as the case may be). That's not very complicated.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by tandfman
                            Originally posted by sprintblox
                            Note that even the current rule isn't as simple as "first 3", as we saw in the high jump and javelin.
                            No, but it's as simple as the first 3 who are eligible to compete in Olympic Games (or the World Championships, as the case may be). That's not very complicated.
                            Nieto was eligible.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Barto
                              Originally posted by tandfman
                              Originally posted by sprintblox
                              Note that even the current rule isn't as simple as "first 3", as we saw in the high jump and javelin.
                              No, but it's as simple as the first 3 who are eligible to compete in Olympic Games (or the World Championships, as the case may be). That's not very complicated.
                              Nieto was eligible.
                              No, he wasn't. He got the qualifier AFTER the deadline.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                ignoring smoke's point

                                i agreed with smoke that it is the events above 400m and the field events which produced the most failures at the olympic games. most of the athletes in events 400m and below performed up to form or better.

                                it is the field event-ers and the distance guys who couldn't make it out of rounds or who had sub-par performances if they did make it to the finals. this has been going on for some time.

                                the logic of the argument seem to be that we should only improve the things we're good at and not worry about the things we're miserable at.

                                i see the same thing in tennis too. the Williams sisters get criticized mercilessly, despite their 15 major titles. while all the other players who haven't won even one major are given a pass.

                                our selection system may not be without faults but i think it is better than any suggested alternative.

                                the Kenyan system seem to follow some of the suggestions on how to improve our system. as far as i can tell they have even more discontent about their system that we do.

                                fortunately for them they also produce far more and better athletes in running events above 400m. seemingly despite their selection system

                                but their field events suck almost as bad as ours. i think field events are a special circumstance so i won't try to analyze it here.

                                the burning question is why with the greatest and best supply of 400m runners in the world we still cannot produce a more competitive crop of 800, 1500, 5k and 10k runner?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X