Here's the answer, we already know what is correct. The fundamental essence of athletics -- not just track and field -- is that the results are determined on the playing field, by the athletes themselves. Any other way is unfair.
What are your thoughts about the wild card system, which I believe allows an athlete to be entered in the World Athletics Championships as either a defending champ or the previous year’s Diamond league champ? Someone please correct me if I have that not quite right.
I never really thought about it. But I think that accommodating World or Olympic champs with Wild Card spots would be good for the sport. They wouldn't be taking away, they would be adding to.
Except that, in the 1992 U.S. Olympic Track Trials, he (Dan O'Brien) “no heighted” in the pole vault. This kept him off the U.S. Olympic team.
Dan took a risk by setting his opening height too high. He gambled to save energy and paid the price. He learned a valuable lesson and lowered his opening height from then on. It was his own fault -- he failed to perform under pressure.
Dan O'Brien didn't take a "safety". That's bad. That's arrogance. No soup for Dan.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Well, the Olympic Trials proved that Galen Rupp is not ready, nor would he be ready for Paris. That's the problem with Andy's system: bias on past performance. Older athletes like Rupp, D'Amato, and Hall are past their prime and can be hit or miss as we saw on Saturday. I do like the Japanese system: Trials for Top 2 selection and then a 3rd by committee. It's the best of both worlds... now, it doesn't solve the US only being able to send 2 men..
I too like the Japanese system but if we use Olympic medals as the measure of which works better ours wins. Since 1968, when our current system was created, US men have won four medals, one being gold, and Japan has won two medals, neither being gold. I do not know if Japan has used the same system since 1968 or not but whatever they've done in that time span has not given them more medals than what we have.
Japan has won numerous gold medals in the women's Olympic marathon.
I too like the Japanese system but if we use Olympic medals as the measure of which works better ours wins. Since 1968, when our current system was created, US men have won four medals, one being gold, and Japan has won two medals, neither being gold. I do not know if Japan has used the same system since 1968 or not but whatever they've done in that time span has not given them more medals than what we have.
Japan has won numerous gold medals in the women's Olympic marathon.
Not to mention, some of Kenya's Gold medalists lived and trained in Japan.
Isn't there a flaw in the trial for all events, and not just the marathon?
Think about the sprinter that is clearly superior to everyone else yet in the final is questionably DQ'd similar to how Devon Allen was in the 2022 World Championship final. It doesn't even need to be a questionable DQ. It could be a just DQ. That sprinter dominated the competition all year, has the fastest time in the world by a large margin, and false starts in the final. That is just one example, though there are others.
Conversely, the manner that many other countries choose teams, without trials, may be deemed to be too subjective. This leads to someone more deserving on the outside looking in.
The sprint DQ is about the only thing that I don't like about top 3 and i scenario (or a tripping in the final but the rules allow for a race re-run although it's never happened). But my solution for the sprints would be to move the guy/gal back like 2 meters if they false start - but only if they are ranked in the top 10 in thew world. It's like insurance.
This post was edited 36 minutes after it was posted.
First, Amby's committee would not have selected the bronze medalist for the women's marathon in Tokyo as she had never run a marathon before the trials. Second, let's stop acting like the US is some second tier track nation that needs to maximize its medal potential more than it already does. There are up years and down years, and the occasional upset, but the value of the suspense of the trials and the economic impact is far more valuable than preventing one Dan O'Brien.
The US trials and even the US championships is the top meet of the year in the world that isn't a diamond league or global championship. Why would USATF hurt this brand by just using a committee.
See the bold. End of story. I mean by Amby's logic my Ravens should have been placed in the Super Bowl!!!
This post was edited 35 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
typos
We already have the best system in place but would help to run the trials 9 months before the Games, not the current 6 months....more rest for the top three would help them in the Olympics.
I think that as long as we don't really have Americans as top contenders in the marathon, the current setup works decently well. However, if we had anyone who could consistently challenge for the podium or the win at majors, having a separate trials would be pretty rough since it prevents Americans from running a spring marathon. I think a better system would be something along the lines of top 2 at trials plus a discretionary pick. It would preserve the Trials for the most part and would also allow for our top talent to compete in the spring marathons.
Why would this matter? Their employers (sponsors) would much rather them run the Trials. Plus with super shoes, there is nothing preventing someone from running a marathon in February and then again in April.
Along those lines, Meb ran New York in November of 2015 and then made the Tirals on February 13th of 2016. That was without super shoes.
I too like the Japanese system but if we use Olympic medals as the measure of which works better ours wins. Since 1968, when our current system was created, US men have won four medals, one being gold, and Japan has won two medals, neither being gold. I do not know if Japan has used the same system since 1968 or not but whatever they've done in that time span has not given them more medals than what we have.
Japan has won numerous gold medals in the women's Olympic marathon.
Yes, but I'm just counting total medals. And there has never been as much depth in women's marathoning as there has been in men's. There's not as much history. I'm not sure how that affects results or even if it does.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Why not?
Amby, with all due respect your take is incredibly misguided. Honestly, shockingly so. The trials are essential. They keep people in the sport post collegiately. They bring fan interest due to being an incredibly exciting and high stakes event, they attract sponsor interest and money to the sport due to the prestige of the Olympic Trials.
Eliminating them would not only be a loss of one of the most exciting marathon events for US fans; it would gut sponsor money, it would gut talent interest in road racing. The loss of the trials would be a massive blow to the sport in the US, so people are understandably dismayed to see you advocating for such a blow.
On top of that, there is very little indication the trials do not select the best Olympic team and much more suggesting that a committee chosen team would get it wrong.
That's a great point. If you get rid of the Trials, then shoe sponsors will only sponsor the Cole Hockers/Kesslers of the World.
People say track isn't popular. That's not true. Track is popular when the results matter. Think about it. State HS meets - popular. NCAA meet - popular. Trials/Olympics - popular.
That's a great point. If you get rid of the Trials, then shoe sponsors will only sponsor the Cole Hockers/Kesslers of the World.
People say track isn't popular. That's not true. Track is popular when the results matter. Think about it. State HS meets - popular. NCAA meet - popular. Trials/Olympics - popular.
High school track has one of the highest rates of participation in the USA.
Amby, with all due respect your take is incredibly misguided. Honestly, shockingly so. The trials are essential. They keep people in the sport post collegiately. They bring fan interest due to being an incredibly exciting and high stakes event, they attract sponsor interest and money to the sport due to the prestige of the Olympic Trials.
Eliminating them would not only be a loss of one of the most exciting marathon events for US fans; it would gut sponsor money, it would gut talent interest in road racing. The loss of the trials would be a massive blow to the sport in the US, so people are understandably dismayed to see you advocating for such a blow.
On top of that, there is very little indication the trials do not select the best Olympic team and much more suggesting that a committee chosen team would get it wrong.
That's a great point. If you get rid of the Trials, then shoe sponsors will only sponsor the Cole Hockers/Kesslers of the World.
People say track isn't popular. That's not true. Track is popular when the results matter. Think about it. State HS meets - popular. NCAA meet - popular. Trials/Olympics - popular.
You say track is popular when the results matter. What does that even mean? The results matter to who? Please give examples of track meets where the results do not matter. I suppose at some level none of them matter, or they all matter, or they matter in varying degrees to various people at various times.
That's a great point. If you get rid of the Trials, then shoe sponsors will only sponsor the Cole Hockers/Kesslers of the World.
People say track isn't popular. That's not true. Track is popular when the results matter. Think about it. State HS meets - popular. NCAA meet - popular. Trials/Olympics - popular.
You say track is popular when the results matter. What does that even mean? The results matter to who? Please give examples of track meets where the results do not matter. I suppose at some level none of them matter, or they all matter, or they matter in varying degrees to various people at various times.
Go to any college regulat season meet or BU. The time/standard matter but no one really cares if they get 3rd vs fourth.
I"d argue basically every meet in the world save the Trials/Worlds/Euros/CGs are meets where the results don't really matter. You're basically watching practice.
You say track is popular when the results matter. What does that even mean? The results matter to who? Please give examples of track meets where the results do not matter. I suppose at some level none of them matter, or they all matter, or they matter in varying degrees to various people at various times.
Go to any college regulat season meet or BU. The time/standard matter but no one really cares if they get 3rd vs fourth.
I"d argue basically every meet in the world save the Trials/Worlds/Euros/CGs are meets where the results don't really matter. You're basically watching practice.
Yes there is some truth to what you say. Of course if your product is popular enough practice is apparently in some demand to watch: Hence the popularity of the Hard Knocks shows featuring NFL training camps. But of course athletics doesn't generally command that sort of fanaticism.
Japan has a smaller population than the US does but that population generally is much more interested in the marathon than the general US population is. One consequence of that is that more good Japanese runners run marathons than do good US runners and they generally do it at a much earlier age. Yes, they usually do outperform us in the event most of the time.
But their success at winning medals in Olympic marathons is pretty much the same as ours. You have to wonder why if they outperform our marathoners nearly all the time outside the Olympics they get pretty much the same Olympic results we do. I really don't know why that is but it could be that their selection system is not as good as ours is at getting their best people into the Olympics. That's only speculation. As I said earlier, I do like their system but I can't look at Olympic results and see any reason to think we should adopt theirs. In fact, since 1968 the US has outperformed every other non African country in terms of Olympic marathon medals won. We have four medals in the men's marathon, two non African countries have won three, and no other non African country has won more than two.
As I said that is easy to explain. They are better than the US but still aren’t good enough to really be medal contenders most years. Look at the 2022/2023 performance list with 3 per country. Japan at 20, 27, and 31 is much better than the US at 59, 63, and 74. But think of what the odds of those 2:05:30 guys beating a half dozen people with prs 2 min faster, another half dozen 60s faster, and another dozen either 30s faster or slower. It happens but not on a regular basis.
in the end looking at medal count isn’t going to prove anything. The sample size is too small and the confounding factors are huge.
Again this is a total nonissue given our talent level. If we had some 2:02 guy missing the games, there would be something to whine about. Other than maybe al sal I. 1984, Hall in 2012 or meb in 2008, there just aren’t many people you go I wonder what they would have done. Maybe KK but was a huge question mark after the injuries and it isn’t like he ran well in 2008.
Mr. Burfoot, did you type additional posts? I will limit my opinions assuming you only posted once.
Looking at 2022 and 2023 data, Molly Seidel may have been added to Olympic team, maybe also Emma Bates. Going by 2022 & 2023 data, Ms. Fiona O'Keeffe would not be on 2024 Olympic team.
Going by 18 months of data, Marathoners who race well in (35 to 40) degree temp. will too often be selected. Going by historical data, older runners will be selected more often than younger runners. Issue: Younger runners, 800m and up tend to race closer to peak ability in heat than older runners. Olympic Marathon is usually raced in (65 to 75) degree temp. No change. Current system is best.
