Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rio 2016 Olympic Qualifying standards approved

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Dodge wrote: »
    Eamon Fitzgerald.


    [off topic]
    List of all Irish 4th placers in the Olympics
    https://statsthatarepointless.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/the-worst-finish-possible/

    Rob's name should thankfully come off that list soon.


  • #53
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    the qualifying standards have been revised...


  • #54
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    changed times (male) -
    800m - Qualifying Standard - 1:45.80 1.46

    1500m - Qualifying Standard - 3:36.00 3:36.20

    Marathon - Qualifying Standard - 2:17:00 2:19:00


    3000m S/C - Qualifying Standard - 8:28.00 8:30.00


    Triple Jump - Qualifying Standard - 16.90 16.85

    Discus - Qualifying Standard - 66.00 65.00

    Hammer - Qualifying Standard - 78.00 77.00


    50km Race Walk - Qualifying Standard - 4:03.00 4:06:00


  • #55
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    RayCun wrote: »
    the qualifying standards have been revised...

    wow, they have softened things up big time there. Marathon qualifying times ae now 2:45 and 2:19 :eek:
    Have any of the other amendments brought in any more Irish Qualifiers? Mageean in the 1500?


  • #56
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Changed standards (women) :


    400m - Qualifying Standard - 52.00 52.2

    800m - Qualifying Standard - 2:01.00 2:01.50

    1500m - Qualifying Standard - 4:06.00 4:07.00

    5000m - Qualifying Standard - 15:20.00 15:24.00

    Marathon - Qualifying Standard - 2:42.00 2:45.00

    High Jump - Qualifying Standard - 1.94 1.93

    Triple Jump - Qualifying Standard - 14.20 14.15

    Shot Putt - Qualifying Standard - 17.80 17.80


    20km Race Walk - Qualifying Standard - 1:35.00 1:36.00


  • #57
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Clearlier wrote: »
    That's a great idea Ray (albeit 20+ yrs too late for me :)). Obviously the Pole Vault has a particular challenge when it comes to equipment that makes this kind of group invaluable but are there similar groups for other field events?

    in the last couple of months a javelin group has been set up (coached by Bart)


  • #58
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Have any of the other amendments brought in any more Irish Qualifiers? Mageean in the 1500?

    Cathal Dennehy says yes, Mageean ran 4:06:49


  • #59
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    RayCun wrote: »
    changed times (male) -
    800m - Qualifying Standard - 1:45.80 1.46

    1500m - Qualifying Standard - 3:36.00 3:36.20

    Marathon - Qualifying Standard - 2:17:00 2:19:00


    3000m S/C - Qualifying Standard - 8:28.00 8:30.00


    Triple Jump - Qualifying Standard - 16.90 16.85

    Discus - Qualifying Standard - 66.00 65.00

    Hammer - Qualifying Standard - 78.00 77.00


    50km Race Walk - Qualifying Standard - 4:03.00 4:06:00

    FYP


  • #60
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    RayCun wrote: »
    Cathal Dennehy says yes, Mageean ran 4:06:49
    Thanks good she was pushing the 4:06 at the end of the season and i think ran 4.06:4x twice


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    and Ciara Everard has run 2:01.21 this year, which is now inside the standard


  • #62
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Agree with adjusting some of the track and field standards, but so unnecessary to change the marathon and walk standards. They were soft enough as they were.


  • #63
    average_runner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,858 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Agree with adjusting some of the track and field standards, but so unnecessary to change the marathon and walk standards. They were soft enough as they were.


    But the Russians are out, so we need more entrants!!!


  • #64
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    average_runner wrote: »
    But the Russians are out, so we need more entrants!!!

    Ah here now! We lose 3 runners, so that justifies a 2 minute weakening of the standard? Any standard that has as much as 7-8 Irish people qualifying is ridiculously weak let's be honest.


  • #65
    average_runner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,858 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Ah here now! We lose 3 runners, so that justifies a 2 minute weakening of the standard? Any standard that has as much as 7-8 Irish people qualifying is ridiculously weak let's be honest.


    How about Team Andorra could be out also!!!!


  • #66
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Personally I think it cheapens the accomplishment of becoming an Olympian when standards are made so weak. Meanwhile a long jumper still has to achieve 8.15m to qualify, a distance which would have claimed bronze in London.

    Can't see how this is good for 5000m and 10000m distance running on the track. Why would an athlete bother trying to achieve sub 28, when a sub 2:19 could be enough, particularly if from a country with not much depth. Just another reason for somebody to migrate to the marathon rather than stick with track. Can't blame athletes for doing this. Same happened with the women's steeplechase. A few women in Ireland realised the standard was muck in comparison to other events, and took the initiative to take up that event.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,534 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Personally I think it cheapens the accomplishment of becoming an Olympian when standards are made so weak. Meanwhile a long jumper still has to achieve 8.15m to qualify, a distance which would have claimed bronze in London.

    Can't see how this is good for 5000m and 10000m distance running on the track. Why would an athlete bother trying to achieve sub 28, when a sub 2:19 could be enough, particularly if from a country with not much depth. Just another reason for somebody to migrate to the marathon rather than stick with track. Can't blame athletes for doing this. Same happened with the women's steeplechase. A few women in Ireland realised the standard was muck in comparison to other events, and took the initiative to take up that event.
    True - but there's still a big difference between getting the qualifying time and actually getting sent to the Olympics. If you are someone who is capable of running sub 28, you're not going to be someone who is interested in easy options.


  • #68
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Krusty_Clown wrote: »
    True - but there's still a big difference between getting the qualifying time and actually getting sent to the Olympics. If you are someone who is capable of running sub 28, you're not going to be someone who is interested in easy options.

    But if you are running 28:40, and are from a country with no more than 3 guys capable of running sub 2:19, you'd be inclined to pick the easy option to qualify for an Olympics.


  • #69
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    But if you are running 28:40, and are from a country with no more than 3 guys capable of running sub 2:19, you'd be inclined to pick the easy option to qualify for an Olympics.

    It's not going to make much difference. The qualifying standard may be 2:19 for men, but if you're Irish you still need to run 2:17. The slowest Irish woman marathon runner sent will have run 2:3x, not 2:41 or 2:44.

    At the margin there might be a few people who can't make the 10,000 time but can make the marathon time AND don't have three faster marathon runners ahead of them, but not many (and not for long).


  • #70
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    RayCun wrote: »
    It's not going to make much difference. The qualifying standard may be 2:19 for men, but if you're Irish you still need to run 2:17. The slowest Irish woman marathon runner sent will have run 2:3x, not 2:41 or 2:44.

    At the margin there might be a few people who can't make the 10,000 time but can make the marathon time AND don't have three faster marathon runners ahead of them, but not many (and not for long).

    Won't make any difference to us this time (in 2012 it would have though) but it might make a difference in weaker nations (not that we are a marathon powerhouse or anything).

    Whatever the scale of the difference, I see no reason to loosen the marathon standards. 2:45 for a woman is crazy. It equates to a 2:09 800m runner!


  • #71
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Personally I think it cheapens the accomplishment of becoming an Olympian when standards are made so weak. Meanwhile a long jumper still has to achieve 8.15m to qualify, a distance which would have claimed bronze in London.

    And this is not a good comparison.
    the A standard for the 2012 long jump was 8.2m
    Over 30 athletes made that standard in qualifying. Only one athlete jumped that distance at the Olympics


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    RayCun wrote: »
    And this is not a good comparison.
    the A standard for the 2012 long jump was 8.2m
    Over 30 athletes made that standard in qualifying. Only one athlete jumped that distance at the Olympics

    True. Horizontal jumps and throws are different in that you just have to land one good distance all year, which is very easy to then not replicate in competition. Vertical jumps not so much though. I still think the level required to qualify for field events in Rio is particularly high though.

    Great news for Ciara Mageean anyway. No need for her to go chasing times now, and she can focus on getting ready to be competitive in terms of actual racing, and hopefully challenge for a place in the final, a level which somebody of her ability will hopefully be striving towards.


  • #73
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Won't make any difference to us this time (in 2012 it would have though) but it might make a difference in weaker nations (not that we are a marathon powerhouse or anything).

    But what is the difference that it will make? Will it mean that runners abandon the track? Or will it mean that some countries send one or two more people to the Olympics?
    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Whatever the scale of the difference, I see no reason to loosen the marathon standards. 2:45 for a woman is crazy. It equates to a 2:09 800m runner!

    Add more 800 runners and you need more heats. Lower the qualifying standard in the jumps and you need more time for the qualifying round at the games. add a few extra marathon runners to the start line- no problem.


  • #74
    KielyUnusual
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭KielyUnusual


    RayCun wrote: »
    It's not going to make much difference. The qualifying standard may be 2:19 for men, but if you're Irish you still need to run 2:17. The slowest Irish woman marathon runner sent will have run 2:3x, not 2:41 or 2:44.

    At the margin there might be a few people who can't make the 10,000 time but can make the marathon time AND don't have three faster marathon runners ahead of them, but not many (and not for long).

    I wouldn't describe it as at the margins. The discrepancy between the 10k time and the marathon time is huge. 28 minutes would be equivalent to about a 2.11 marathon (according to McMillan). This will obviously drive people towards training for the marathon over the 10,000m. Its doubtful any of the Irish guys would make the 10,000m time. Pollock is the only one any way close and his 62 half time would suggest he has a lot more to give in the full in any case.

    In the larger scheme of things, it probably makes no difference. The marathon can have a larger field because its run on the roads so I think its good to give athletes (still of an extremely high calibre) an opportunity to run in the Olympics. Just a pity not to see any Irish guys go for the 5000/10000.


  • #75
    KielyUnusual
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭KielyUnusual


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    True. Horizontal jumps and throws are different in that you just have to land one good distance all year, which is very easy to then not replicate in competition. Vertical jumps not so much though. I still think the level required to qualify for field events in Rio is particularly high though.

    Great news for Ciara Mageean anyway. No need for her to go chasing times now, and she can focus on getting ready to be competitive in terms of actual racing, and hopefully challenge for a place in the final, a level which somebody of her ability will hopefully be striving towards.

    Agree that this is the best news to come out of it. She can focus her season around the Olympics rather than trying to peak earlier in the season to secure the qualifying time and then peak again for the Olympics itself.


  • #76
    Chivito550
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    RayCun wrote: »
    But what is the difference that it will make? Will it mean that runners abandon the track? Or will it mean that some countries send one or two more people to the Olympics?



    Add more 800 runners and you need more heats. Lower the qualifying standard in the jumps and you need more time for the qualifying round at the games. add a few extra marathon runners to the start line- no problem.

    I understand that. But the problem is that when one standard is seen as easier than others, then athletes will migrate towards that distance, and give up on the other distances. We have seen it here in Ireland with the women's steeplechase, and it will no doubt happen in other countries with the marathon. The disproportionately soft marathon time, coupled with the disproportionately difficult 10000m standard will possibly result in the next generation going straight to the marathon in some countries.

    Overall I don't think it's a good thing. And in any case, just because the road can facilitate more participants, doesn't mean they should be going OTT with it. They really should try to keep the number at no more than 60-70 to try keep the prestige element of qualifying for the Olympics.


  • #77
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    but it's self-correcting, to an extent. The more runners tilt towards the marathon, the more they run into the limit of only-three-per-country.

    I don't see the point of lowering the standard, because there were plenty of qualifiers at the previous standard (and would have been plenty at a higher standard too), but I think there are more important factors pushing people away from track 10k to marathons.


  • #78
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Personally I think it cheapens the accomplishment of becoming an Olympian when standards are made so weak. Meanwhile a long jumper still has to achieve 8.15m to qualify, a distance which would have claimed bronze in London.

    Can't see how this is good for 5000m and 10000m distance running on the track. Why would an athlete bother trying to achieve sub 28, when a sub 2:19 could be enough, particularly if from a country with not much depth. Just another reason for somebody to migrate to the marathon rather than stick with track. Can't blame athletes for doing this. Same happened with the women's steeplechase. A few women in Ireland realised the standard was muck in comparison to other events, and took the initiative to take up that event.
    Just think what it does for a club to have someone with an olympic standard, its great for kids starting out to see club runners doing well. Can only be good for the sport in the long run and improve standards.


  • #79
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    RayCun wrote: »
    Changed standards (women) :


    400m - Qualifying Standard - 52.00 52.2

    800m - Qualifying Standard - 2:01.00 2:01.50

    1500m - Qualifying Standard - 4:06.00 4:07.00

    5000m - Qualifying Standard - 15:20.00 15:24.00

    Marathon - Qualifying Standard - 2:42.00 2:45.00

    High Jump - Qualifying Standard - 1.94 1.93

    Triple Jump - Qualifying Standard - 14.20 14.15

    Shot Putt - Qualifying Standard - 17.80 17.80


    20km Race Walk - Qualifying Standard - 1:35.00 1:36.00
    What did cullan run for 5k last year must have been close enough to that time?


  • #80
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    shels4ever wrote: »
    What did cullan run for 5k last year must have been close enough to that time?

    15:26, 2 secs off.


  • #81
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    pconn062 wrote: »
    15:26, 2 secs off.

    Cheers that's what i though, 2 seconds a lot easier then 6 :)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement