Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World Champ fields

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: World Champ fields

    Great idea, lets cut out the (the already waning) interest in watching most track events for 90% of the world to satisfy ideologies regarding fairness.

    I for one don't need to see the USA #7 or #8 in the 200 or the Kenyan #9 in the steeple or 10,000. I see enough of that during the year already. I would rather watch some participants from other countries even if they are a slight notch below some of the above and have a truly worldwide event than the alternative.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: World Champ fields

      Originally posted by donley2
      We have been down this road multiple times and I am with both of you. But I remember GH or someone in the know saying something radical like top 8 would require a complete restructuring of how the IAAF is set up. Power would have to be concentrated with the nations that actually produce the most top athletes and no one thought that was likely to happen.
      Top 16 would be good, many of them would be there anyway. And I too remember that this discussion always ends with 'it will never happen because the small countries dominate the voting at the IAAF and they want their athletes to have the best possible chance of progressing through the rounds'. gh has mentioned a few times that for a small country an athlete in the semi-final is like a win.

      Top 16 in the 100m from 2009.
      9.58 Usain Bolt (Jamaica)
      9.69 Tyson Gay (US)
      9.82 Asafa Powell (Jamaica)
      9.89 Doc Patton (US)
      9.91 Daniel Bailey (Antigua), Nesta Carter (Jamaica)
      9.93 Richard Thompson (Trinidad), Ivory Williams (US)
      9.94 Mike Rodgers (US)
      9.97 Churandy Martina (Netherlands Antilles)
      9.99 Lerone Clarke (Jamaica)
      10.00 Marc Burns (Trinidad), Dwain Chambers (Great Britain), Walter Dix (US), Trindon Holliday (US), Travis Padgett (US)
      How many extra athletes are we talking about? Possibly five extra?

      Originally posted by LopenUupunut
      How would we determine the top 8/16? If we used SBs, we'd end up with lots of people going for high altitude in sprints/jumps, big winds in discus/javelin etc. and I'm not convinced we really want that. The only alternative I can see would be some completely arbitrary and almost certainly equally unfair system.
      Good point, I assume somthing objective could be worked out.

      I was thinking just go from the previous season's PR's (or adjusted PR's). For me, this has two advantages.

      1) Those athletes know they are preselected for the world champs prior to planning their winter/spring training. They can then peak for the WC's.

      2) It would add some spice to the end of season meets as athletes vie for one of the top 8/16 spots.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: World Champ fields

        fellas stop trying to poo poo things and you will stop looking foolish. I never said or implied lessening fields, I said qualify the top 16 for worlds and FILL the rest of the fields accordingly. In other words, we still will have fields of 48 or however many but we would also have the best of the best.
        This still ensures small country participation and goals. It raises the level of competition.
        To expand if we include the Diamond league and the IAAF changes, heaven forbid, we can encourage more racing from the top echelon. More head to heads because folks will want to ensure their spot, rather than leave it up to chance at nationals.
        Require that all must compete at their nationals in a honest effort rule. Guarantee the top three in nationals qualify as it currently is, that keeps the integrity of national meets.
        What would be the criteria? Thats just the thing, it is not what, but the fact there would be a criteria to qualify, meaning the season gains significance. Meaning the fans are in on the narrative of the season.
        I think 16 is a safe number because arguing number 16 or 17 is less controversial than arguing number8 or 9 or lesser.
        The point is, I want to see the quality at worlds. The Olympics is its own vehicle. Worlds should have us watching the best in the world go at it. 13.19 just took third at our trials. We have seen the history supporting this. I am just saying it is ineffective to have bronze medallists, i.e. the third best of our sport be unable to beat the 5th fastest in the event because that person was unable to compete at Worlds.
        I for one dont care if 8 Kenyans make the final of a 5000. That is on the rest of the world to step up and compete. That is the underlying point, and I assume the goal of having World champs.

        Comment

        Working...
        X