World Champs: expand from 3 max per Country? Pros/Cons?

[cacique]

ive always wanted to see a championships were you represent yourself rather than country so you could have the top 64 in the world all there for each event. i understand the floors with this and paying for travel, accomodation and so on.

imagine the 200 final

crawford
dix
gay
bolt
spearmon
merritt
martina
x man
rodney martin

tha'ts assuming they are all at top shape at the same time. and as x-man demonstrated, that's not always the case.

just because the US might be dominant in the top lists, it doesn't mean they'll all perform well at the championships or peak at the same time. if the 110m finals were held with 8 US entrants, not all would make the final.

[Gleason]

Who cares about places 5 - 9? IF the Berlin final is Bolt, Gay, Crawford and Spearmon I'm "grateful for the plateful" as my late father used to say. Besides, Dix is injured and Martin is running poorly.

[LSR]

ive always wanted to see a championships were you represent yourself rather than country so you could have the top 64 in the world all there for each event. i understand the floors with this and paying for travel, accomodation and so on.

imagine the 200 final

crawford
dix
gay
bolt
spearmon
merritt
martina
x man
rodney martin

[Gleason]

One consolative alternative would be the IAAF, FANS, ATHLETES & SPONSORS putting more merit to the World Athletic Finals which if had greater accolades and prize money would spark the interests of the WORLD'S BESTS. If this event were as populated with the world's best with its competitive format on paper suggests, we would have had a more comprehensive way of pitting the bests of the bests and then all interests including 110 and gh might be better feted.

Last season for example, Brian Dzingai was in the final of the 200m (WAF) for men. Is he in the top 8 best 200m male sprinters?

He was #5 in the 2008 T&FN World Ranking. Gay and "X-Man" missed 2008 OG due to injury, Martin (19.99) was the fourth from the U.S. while Merritt won the OG 400.

[Paul Henry]

Last season for example, Brian Dzingai was in the final of the 200m (WAF) for men. Is he in the top 8 best 200m male sprinters?

Depends on your point of view: he was also in the Olympic final. Does that make him one of the eight best, or is it a sign of a system that doesn't quite work to get the eight best into a final?

That's the thing!! As I said; on Paper the WAF takes into account the best for the season based on accumulation of points during the season, where points are secured based on position at IAAF Calender events. so a presence in the olympics final alone would not qualify one for it.

Olypmics also would be outside of it given the fact that one could argue (ie. 110) that not all the bests in the were lined up from the heats.

[toyracer]

Last season for example, Brian Dzingai was in the final of the 200m (WAF) for men. Is he in the top 8 best 200m male sprinters?

Depends on your point of view: he was also in the Olympic final. Does that make him one of the eight best, or is it a sign of a system that doesn't quite work to get the eight best into a final?

[cacique]

a. I said most, but maybe not
b. how is it fundamentally different to allow 5 but not 10?
c. the OG and the WC are whatever we say they are. The rules of eligibility have changed over the years.
When I see a running final of 8, or a field event final of 12, I'd like to think it's the 8 or 12 best that day, not the 8 or 12 best, depending on nationality. That simply is not 'fair', and T&F, moreso than most sports DOES try to be 'fair'.

b. because it wouldn't be necessarily practical as many have pointed out.

sure, i understand you want to see the world's best 8 or 12 athletes in the olympic or world champs at event. but i think with the system we have, we get to see quite a few, and most of the elite anyway.

now do you feel sorry for the 7th or 8th best gymmast in china or russia that doesn't get to represent their country at the olympics? or germany's or italy's 5th best fencer that doesn't get to compete in the individual event? same for swimming, wrestling (i think it's limited to 1 per country!), judo, etc. etc.

one of the things that these limits do is, athletes start migrating to other countries.

[Paul Henry]

The next thing is that the current 3 max rule could always be seen as fair since, the matter of number of persons from any respective country will be independent of size population and economics resources to a large extent. Hence the palying is basically leveled.

eg. If Tonga (like the example) could yield 20 decathletes 15 of which amassed 8100 points. the same would apply. Hence the WC forces the bests of the best to come through.

Further the GL now DL will serve to compensate for any personal oppertunities lost at a shot at the WC starts.

[Paul Henry]

One consolative alternative would be the IAAF, FANS, ATHLETES & SPONSORS putting more merit to the World Athletic Finals which if had greater accolades and prize money would spark the interests of the WORLD'S BESTS. If this event were as populated with the world's best with its competitive format on paper suggests, we would have had a more comprehensive way of pitting the bests of the bests and then all interests including 110 and gh might be better feted.

Last season for example, Brian Dzingai was in the final of the 200m (WAF) for men. Is he in the top 8 best 200m male sprinters?

[Marlow]

speak for yourself, marlow.
i think there can be 10 kenyans in the men's steeplechase at a meet in europe for example, or some other championship. but in terms of the world champs or olympics, they have to have a limit of some kind, otherwise it wouldn't be the world champs or the olympics. i think 3 might be too restrictive, and the IAAF has moved to add a 4th from a world champion's country. maybe 4 or 5, as noted before, might be a good compromise.

a. I said most, but maybe not
b. how is it fundamentally different to allow 5 but not 10?
c. the OG and the WC are whatever we say they are. The rules of eligibility have changed over the years.

When I see a running final of 8, or a field event final of 12, I'd like to think it's the 8 or 12 best that day, not the 8 or 12 best, depending on nationality. That simply is not 'fair', and T&F, moreso than most sports DOES try to be 'fair'.

[cacique]

let me ask you this: how would you feel if there were 10 kenyans in the men's steeplechase? how interesting would that be? or 5 russian women in the 1,500 or long jump?

Most (real) fans would LOVE it, because they would be seeing the world's best going at it.

speak for yourself, marlow.

i think there can be 10 kenyans in the men's steeplechase at a meet in europe for example, or some other championship. but in terms of the world champs or olympics, they have to have a limit of some kind, otherwise it wouldn't be the world champs or the olympics. i think 3 might be too restrictive, and the IAAF has moved to add a 4th from a world champion's country. maybe 4 or 5, as noted before, might be a good compromise.

in any event, it's better than swimming and other sports that are limited to 2.

[sprintblox]

How many $ will you contribute to sponsor this meet?

I meant there would be no per-country limit other than the total number of athletes per event. So if there are 32 sprinters going to be contesting the 100m, all can be from the same country if they are in the top 32 of whatever ranking system is used to select the 32.

[Gleason]

[quote="sprintblox"
For the even-numbered years between Olympics, in an earlier thread I proposed another type of championship where the athletes only represent themselves (and their sponsors), with a different qualifying system with no per-country limit whatsoever.[/quote]
How many $ will you contribute to sponsor this meet?

[AthleticsInBritain]

I'm backing rasb here. Sheer practicality demands a limit and 3 is as good a number as any. There are many other countries that struggle to fill 3 for 4 or 5 events never mind all. It may seem hard on countries that at that period of time, have a dominance in one or two events.

It's only on very rare occasions that I've wished a certain athlete was at a champs - like Bryan Clay this year or Sanya Richards in the 400m in Osaka. If memory serves Paul Kipsiele Koech missed out on selection for the 3k 'chase one year when he was the world's fastest. A 1-2-3 sweep is only truly exciting for the country that achieves it.

Variety is indeed the spice of life and I'd rather open up the opportunity for as many people to compete - even if this means at the expense of the three or four countries that would actually benefit from this - the USA, Russia, Ethiopia and Kenya.

I think Britain, along with the USA and Jamaica is among the few countries to have up to 8 people with the A time in the 100m. The fact that only 3 of them can be selected makes the trials race in July so much more exciting and meaningful.

[rasb]

Top 3 per Country is just fine. And I even think the bye system sucked some of the energy out of the US Trials. Keep the Trials in each Country meaningful and exciting, and enjoy watching the best 3 from each Country do battle at the Worlds --- that works for me...

The list of countries in the world that have anything approaching our trials can be counted on less than one hand. In my (totally out there I admit) view of the world there would be no trials. You hit a certain mark (top 15 or 20 in the world lets say) and you are in the meet.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here --- I'm just offering my perspective on a sport that has been my life blood, as a fan, coach, administrator, meet director and promoter, for over 40 years.
Each country has some sort of selection process, whether that looks like the USA Trials or not is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the fact that in each country that is trying to select a Team to Worlds (or Olympics), there are hundreds/thousands of athletes striving to make that team. That is really important, and the more simple "we" keep that process, the better.
Each country can send up to 3 ---- hmmmm, I think kids all over the World know about trying win a medal by finishing in the top 3...Pretty simple...
That's Point One.
Point Two is that, for the very few of us who really understand and care about things such as World Rankings, there are hundreds of Millions of others who enjoy the spectacle of seeing the best from their Country compete against the rest of the World. Needless to say, those "others" include TV executives, sponsors, fans, potential future athletes, media, etc., etc., etc.... I can say, with some degree of certainty, that these people do not want to see finals filled with athletes from 1 or 2 countries. In fact, it would turn them off...
Final Point is that sometimes we (as in those few of us who really are passionate about the sport) become our own worst enemies when it comes to developing and growing the sport for the future. I have been at Several World Championships, and enjoyed the competition immensely, and never once have left wondering how the 4th best in any event, from any Nation, would have fared. Never crossed my mind, and I'm one of the inner circle...