Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

iaaf rankings

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

  • philipo
    started a topic iaaf rankings

    iaaf rankings

    what is the view of posters about the proposed 2019 rankings system for the WC in Doha?

  • Henry
    replied
    Have they declared the particulars? Not seen that yet, must go off and google...























    http://historicarmouries.com.au/
    Last edited by Henry; 31-12-18, 11:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • larkim
    replied
    I'm ever the optimist! The points on offer for winning the world cross are equivalent to running a 10000m in world record time I think, so for one good XC runner that will be a big haul of points. Having said that, I think the real issue for all events won't be at the top end of the qualifications, it will be about the bottom end, where finishing inside the top 10 in the World Cross probably won't be quite as good "VFM" as getting into a decent quality field race on the track and having a strong run.

    Leave a comment:


  • frankie cahill
    replied
    You make a good point Larkim regarding the cross pollination. I'm not entirely convinced, but it is a positive way of looking at it. Certainly I hadn't considered that it might have the effect of encouring more runners into cross country, but my fears about decent non Diamond League events remains, & the sport should be building these events up

    Leave a comment:


  • larkim
    replied
    Originally posted by frankie cahill View Post
    Oh and the idea of using 10k road times and cross country performances is one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard. There are many, many runners who are specialists in road running and natural mudders who have no real aptitude or inclination towards track running, Gemma Steel and, to a lesser degree, Fionulla McCormack to name just two. Bring back respect for the 10000m track race instead. Highbury has shown how great and popular an event it can be with a little imagination. That's it, rant over
    I disagree with this completely. Integrating XC and 10k road running into the track qualification system allows specialists in those areas to score big points and potentially get qualification for track championships where they can add something different to the races. At the minute it's fast time or bust for qualification.

    I do agree that more 10000m racing on the track, leveraging what Highbury does, is absolutely a positive thing, but adding XC particularly to the mix might cross pollenate both XC and 10000m with runners that otherwise concentrate on one side of the sport rather than the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • treadwater1
    replied
    One of advantages of the new system is that it should in theory create more fair lineups at Diamond League level, so far much of criticism from the feds has been that DL invites go to a select few with well connected agents. If a little known athlete puts in an exceptional performance early season the IAAF would be duty bound to get them a place or risk further criticism. It might mean the IAAF having more influence on who gets lanes at events, but perhaps it’s a price worth paying to improve the quality of the DL

    i think it will also force the questionable athletes from the Russia’s, Ukraine’s and Turkey’s of this world to play ball and turn up to meets in Western Europe. They will be reliant on building up a series of good performances rather than relying on one stand out which gets the Q mark at their national championships

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckySpikes
    replied
    Originally posted by frankie cahill View Post
    ... That's it, rant over
    Shame. I like a good rant!

    I think you're right to wonder about the effects on meetings like the Morton Games & Cork City Sports and the many good smaller meetings around Europe, the USA etc where good performances are (legitimately) achieved against good competition. It feels like the proposed rankings system has downgraded them with the possible result that they will no longer be as attractive to some athletes.

    I too share your frustration that British Athletics does not make an effort to establish more of these kind of meetings (Loughborough LEAP barely qualifies as an international meeting). However, it seems they're only interested in the big bucks that are generated by Diamond Leagues & Athletics World Cups and sadly the proposed rankings system, as it stands, would appear to further reduce the incentive to develop smaller international meetings.

    Completely agree too about saving the 10,000m. We had great races this year at Highgate and at the Euros but it's not enough, hence my question for Paula Radcliffe in the thread created by the Backstraight Boys. Hopefully it gets asked. I would hope she has some lobbying influence in her role at the IAAF and can help make this happen.
    Last edited by LuckySpikes; 28-11-18, 09:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • frankie cahill
    replied
    Oh and the idea of using 10k road times and cross country performances is one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard. There are many, many runners who are specialists in road running and natural mudders who have no real aptitude or inclination towards track running, Gemma Steel and, to a lesser degree, Fionulla McCormack to name just two. Bring back respect for the 10000m track race instead. Highbury has shown how great and popular an event it can be with a little imagination. That's it, rant over

    Leave a comment:


  • frankie cahill
    replied
    Ah, I've just discovered that this won't effect national competions. Should have read that let'srun thread before posting! Someone on there makes the excellent point that this seems to be a solution looking for a problem. The current qualification system is just fine, and has nothing to do with why Birmingham, London and Rome are struggling to attract spectators. The night of the pbs at highbury has shown how new ideas can be hugely succesful without reinventing the wheel. The usatf road running circuit is another ( how I wish there was a european equivilant!). No less than the great Renato Canova has pointed out the closed shop nature of the Diamond League on that thread. We face many problems in our sport, but how to qualify is not one of them. Stop putting on bloated events in white elephant super stadiums with no atmosphere for a start. How about Morton Games standard events at Gateshead, Cwmbran and Scotsoun? The Italians would be better off scrapping their Diamond Lague event entirely and concentrate on buliding up Rietti and Padova meets instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • frankie cahill
    replied
    I've long been of the opinion that there need to be more decent 2nd or 3rd division level meets . The diamond league seems to have had a very negative impact on Britain. Outside of the sterling development work done by the BMC there seems to be no kind of international meets in this country, and nothing at all in Wales and Scotland. What effect would this ranking system have on meets like the Cork City Sports and the Morton Games? The opportunities for Irish athletes, for example, to compete on the Diamond League are virtually non-existant, but some very good times have been run in Dublin these last few years. What impact will this have on distance running in general? In the Diamond League these events are dominated by agency groups of east Africans, which is another issue I have with the diamond League. The distance events feel sometimes like they are being dominated by boxing style cartels, where an unknown teenager, who in many cases has disappeared from the sport entirely within a few years, can get a lane in spite of only having ran a few local races back in his or her country. The opportunities for American and European distance runners to get into these races is very limited, and next to non existent for Japanese runners. Surely this would also have the knock on effect of rendering national competitons irrelevant. What will it do to the exciting American first past the post system?

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckySpikes
    replied
    Pablo Ortiz from the IAAF started this thread on LetsRun - http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_re...thread=9118653
    It starts off talking about what the rankings will mean for road racing but then the discussion broadens out to all events.

    It emerges further on in the thread (3 pages so far) that the IAAF is changing the window for rankings performances from 1 year to 2 years for all events, with performances older than 1 year being degraded gradually (the window for longer distances & combined events was previously proposed to be 18 months).

    There is an email address where you can send feedback, suggestions and complaints about the proposed system - [email protected]

    Leave a comment:


  • Laps
    replied
    [QUOTE=LuckySpikes;n235]I'm not doing anything glibly. Does it not stand to reason that some athletes will have more opportunities to compete in high-level meetings (e.g., World Challenge meetings) because of finances/geography etc than some other athletes of a similar level? I gave an example of an Indian athlete earlier - I hope you'd agree it's not an an unrealistic scenario that could be repeated in many locations (e.g., Africa has lost its only World Challenge meeting in Dakar). It's all very well saying athletes will need to compete "more frequently and effectively" but how would such an athlete just magic money out of the air to get to these meetings that have more points on offer?
    QUOTE]

    They would do what all sportspeople from poor countries with inadequate competition and poor facilities, including themselves, do now.

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckySpikes
    replied
    I'm not doing anything glibly. Does it not stand to reason that some athletes will have more opportunities to compete in high-level meetings (e.g., World Challenge meetings) because of finances/geography etc than some other athletes of a similar level? I gave an example of an Indian athlete earlier - I hope you'd agree it's not an an unrealistic scenario that could be repeated in many locations (e.g., Africa has lost its only World Challenge meeting in Dakar). It's all very well saying athletes will need to compete "more frequently and effectively" but how would such an athlete just magic money out of the air to get to these meetings that have more points on offer?

    What I haven't seen yet is a list of athletes from say the last 2 World Championships who didn't deserve to be there because they had one outlying performance inside the standard but weren't consistent (ignoring any athletes who were there as the one athlete for a country with no athletes meeting any of the standards). If that list was extensive I might be a little more convinced by the need for the new qualification system.

    As I said before, I believe the differentials in Placing Points between the top meetings and the smaller meetings (including some quality meetings in Europe) is way too big. If you halve those points differentials the system would become much fairer regarding qualifying for championships and also be a more effective way of ranking athletes by merit.
    Last edited by LuckySpikes; 13-11-18, 18:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • Laps
    replied
    Originally posted by LuckySpikes View Post

    I accept there are some performances that are outliers but in the grand scheme of things I don't think there's enough of them to justify bringing in a rankings system that could severely disadvantage a good number of athletes who are on the margin of qualifying for championships. In Kilty's case he didn't make team in that year anyway because British sprinting is so competitive, so sometimes these things have a way of "working themselves out".

    My issue is not with how the top 10 rankings will pan out (e.g., whether Sifan Hassan should be placed higher etc) but rather with how differences in opportunities will adversely affect some of those 20 or 30 athletes in each event who will be battling to make the top 48 or to stay in the top 48 to qualify for championships. Around that region the difference in ranking points is so small that just one opportunity to get in a Diamond League or World Challenge meeting could provide a big boost to your ranking at the expense of other athletes who don't have that chance because of geographical/financial or other reasons. I think this group of athletes who will be disadvantaged is larger than some people might think.

    Yes, I agree that you want to reward performance at the highest levels but, as it stands, the placing points awarded at the highest levels seem too high with the consequence that good performances (and consistency) at lower level meetings is not rewarded enough. The difference in placing points between the different levels could do with being halved I think.
    Hopefully the extended consultation period can iron that out.
    Lucky
    You glibly dismiss the argument in favour of the more reliable assessment of ability represented by the rankings - 5 results for most events, adjustment for conditions, preference for tougher competition in higher grade meetings - calling the several different types of unreliable form that there are, 'outliers'. Before glibly dismissing outliers. Then you pontificate on a group of athletes you believe will be disadvantaged without putting forward any evidence to back up that opinion. Well my opinion is that the lesser placings at Diamond League meetings will have little effect on rankings once the system has been in place for a while and that athletes will adjust to the need to compete more frequently and effectively to look after their ranking.

    Leave a comment:


  • philipo
    replied
    Originally posted by LuckySpikes View Post

    I accept there are some performances that are outliers but in the grand scheme of things I don't think there's enough of them to justify bringing in a rankings system that could severely disadvantage a good number of athletes who are on the margin of qualifying for championships. In Kilty's case he didn't make team in that year anyway because British sprinting is so competitive, so sometimes these things have a way of "working themselves out".

    My issue is not with how the top 10 rankings will pan out (e.g., whether Sifan Hassan should be placed higher etc) but rather with how differences in opportunities will adversely affect some of those 20 or 30 athletes in each event who will be battling to make the top 48 or to stay in the top 48 to qualify for championships. Around that region the difference in ranking points is so small that just one opportunity to get in a Diamond League or World Challenge meeting could provide a big boost to your ranking at the expense of other athletes who don't have that chance because of geographical/financial or other reasons. I think this group of athletes who will be disadvantaged is larger than some people might think.

    Yes, I agree that you want to reward performance at the highest levels but, as it stands, the placing points awarded at the highest levels seem too high with the consequence that good performances (and consistency) at lower level meetings is not rewarded enough. The difference in placing points between the different levels could do with being halved I think.
    Hopefully the extended consultation period can iron that out.
    I think some strong and valid points for and against the qualification Standards and Rankings systems have been addressed by both Laps and Lucky. No system is going to satisfy all and each method contains flaws which can and should be tweaked to improve matters.
    I agree with Lucky on the Placings points differentials being too excessive, but also think that Laps point about the consistency aspect of average of 5 is valid, but maybe average of 5 efforts is too high; perhaps 3 or 4 is enough.
    I reckon that there will be an improved qualifying system in place which will be largely accepted in the next few years.
    I would avoid comparisons with Tennis or Golf which do not consist of over 40 different events ; our sport attracts athletes from at least 30 countries and golf and tennis are still largely money driven middle class sports with contenders from a lesser number of places around the globe .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X