Marathon and walking standards on par with other T&F events? - Mod split thread

Pisco Sour

Pherekydes wrote: »

The OCI said they were only accepting 'A' standards and AAI put their tails between their legs and agreed.

Madness to think that we’ll have 3 athletes on what would be effectively described as C Standards going in the marathon (if compared to relative performances in other events) yet our brightest prospect in 25 years could be left at home. No common sense at all.

Not to take away from the marathon girls, they deserve to go. Just a way of showing how flawed this whole “A-Standards only” lark is, when the womens 1500m B-Standard is much more difficult than the Marathon A qualifier.

Dodge

last time out, they relented and sent 2 b standards. Including one in the marathon

woodchopper

04072511 wrote: »

Madness to think that we’ll have 3 athletes on what would be effectively described as C Standards going in the marathon (if compared to relative performances in other events) yet our brightest prospect in 25 years could be left at home. No common sense at all.

Not to take away from the marathon girls, they deserve to go. Just a way of showing how flawed this whole “A-Standards only” lark is, when the womens 1500m B-Standard is much more difficult than the Marathon A qualifier.

The Womens 1500 is not raced on the open roads of London however. Hence the reason why we have three female marathoners and three 50k walkers although one of them is very good anyway

SeanKenny

These people have achieved the Olympic A standard and the nameless faceless boards posters belittle it. That sickens me, to be honest. You will retort that you are entitled to your opinion. <snip>

The olympic standards were set a long time afo. Everybody knew what they were. Fair play to those who realised their dream and best of luck to them in London.

Pherekydes

SeanKenny wrote: »

These people have achieved the Olympic A standard and the nameless faceless boards posters belittle it. That sickens me, to be honest. You will retort that you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are mindless fools coming on here insulting people like Linda Byrne and Colin Griffin.

The olympic standards were set a long time afo. Everybody knew what they were. Fair play to those who realised their dream and best of luck to them in London.

I think the point being made is that the Marathon standards are much easier than the other events. People are constantly mentioning that 200+ Kenyans have the men's marathon standard, yet there will be less than 30 in most of the field events, or less than 70 in the track events. Yes, it's obvious that that there's more 'room' for road entries, but that doesn't change the fact that it's much tougher to qualify for a track or a field event.

The women's 'A' standard in the marathon is worth 1065 pts. The corresponding mark in the 1500m is 4:18.08, which was beaten by nine Irish women last year. Pointing this out, or pointing out that Ciara Mageean or Steven Colvert or some other future track or field star will miss out doesn't belittle the likes of Linda Byrne.

Dan man

SeanKenny wrote: »

These people have achieved the Olympic A standard and the nameless faceless boards posters belittle it. That sickens me, to be honest. You will retort that you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are mindless fools coming on here insulting people like Linda Byrne and Colin Griffin.

The olympic standards were set a long time afo. Everybody knew what they were. Fair play to those who realised their dream and best of luck to them in London.

I think you're not giving a fair impression of 0407....'s comments. From reading his posts over the last year or so he is very supportive of all Irish athletes. He is mainly pointing out that the standards on the track are much more difficult than the marathon standard. This cannot be denied but there is logic behind the standards as has already been discussed (marathon, walks can support larger numbers of participants).
He never said that the marathon qualifiers shouldn't be sent but rather that the OCI and AAI should recognise the achievements of the B standard qualifiers on the track (that's my reading of his comments anyway).
I think his use of the term C standard in relation to those athletes is a bit unfortunate but you can understand his logic.

Pisco Sour

SeanKenny wrote: »

These people have achieved the Olympic A standard and the nameless faceless boards posters belittle it. That sickens me, to be honest. You will retort that you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are mindless fools coming on here insulting people like Linda Byrne and Colin Griffin.

The olympic standards were set a long time afo. Everybody knew what they were. Fair play to those who realised their dream and best of luck to them in London.

Christ!! :rolleyes:

Pisco Sour

Dan man wrote: »

I think you're not giving a fair impression of 0407....'s comments. From reading his posts over the last year or so he is very supportive of all Irish athletes. He is mainly pointing out that the standards on the track are much more difficult than the marathon standard. This cannot be denied but there is logic behind the standards as has already been discussed (marathon, walks can support larger numbers of participants).
He never said that the marathon qualifiers shouldn't be sent but rather that the OCI and AAI should recognise the achievements of the B standard qualifiers on the track (that's my reading of his comments anyway).
I think his use of the term C standard in relation to those athletes is a bit unfortunate but you can understand his logic.

Thanks to the 2 of you. Means I dont have to go an explain myself

The use of the term C Standard was used as nothing more than a comparative tool to show why Mageean should be sent to London. The marathon A-Standards are significantly weaker than the 1500m B-Standards, hence why I used the term.

Not "insulting" Linda Byrne and Colin Griffin. FFS! :rolleyes:

SeanKenny

Well I believe that categorising them as "c" class athletes is insulting. Unfortunate choice of phrase or not. Colin Griffin was in the top 15 in the world cup. how many Irish athles would place that highly?
I'm not on a walking rant here as I don't have a great interest in the event but it does need pointing out.

Selective reference to the IAAF scoring tables is lame. The standards are there for all to see and target,the IAAF set the 1500m standard just the same as the marathon. The firls have the time in the bag for the marathon, fair play to them. They are deserving of the chance to compete. We don't send full teams to Euro Cross, we don't send B standards either to the Olympics. Would some people be happier if the marathon standard was out of reach so that its in line on the scoring tables?

How many times a year can a long jumper attempt the standard, or a 100m runner, or a 1500m runner? The answer in each case is a multiple of the marathon runners opportunity.

Woodchopper stated that we have three 50km walkers but "one of them is good anyway." That kind of comment is ridiculously out of line and shows no appreciation for the efforts involved in Olympic qualification.

040...... is largely supportive of Irish athletes, I have no issue with his previous posts but that one was off the mark. There is no "logic" there.

thirtyfoot

Sean K - most of the time, athletics is a stats based business. You can compare apples and oranges.

The sentiment is that the marathon standard is weaker. Are you trying to say the A Marathon standard is comparable to A's in say the 400 or 1500 or 10000 or Pole Vault? In the interest of debate, can you answer that question please without saying the IAAF set the standards etc etc. In pure comparing the standards in one event to another, are they comparable?

There is no selective reference to IAAF tables, we could list what 1065pts is across all events and it would show the point a lot clearer.

thirtyfoot

Also, I don't think anyone is saying the marathoners should not be sent, just that its not equitable when you see athletes in other events who won't go despite having statistically better performances. Its tough on those athletes.

woodchopper

SeanKenny wrote: »

Well I believe that categorising them as "c" class athletes is insulting. Unfortunate choice of phrase or not. Colin Griffin was in the top 15 in the world cup. how many Irish athles would place that highly?
I'm not on a walking rant here as I don't have a great interest in the event but it does need pointing out.

Selective reference to the IAAF scoring tables is lame. The standards are there for all to see and target,the IAAF set the 1500m standard just the same as the marathon. The firls have the time in the bag for the marathon, fair play to them. They are deserving of the chance to compete. We don't send full teams to Euro Cross, we don't send B standards either to the Olympics. Would some people be happier if the marathon standard was out of reach so that its in line on the scoring tables?

How many times a year can a long jumper attempt the standard, or a 100m runner, or a 1500m runner? The answer in each case is a multiple of the marathon runners opportunity.

Woodchopper stated that we have three 50km walkers but "one of them is good anyway." That kind of comment is ridiculously out of line and shows no appreciation for the efforts involved in Olympic qualification.

040...... is largely supportive of Irish athletes, I have no issue with his previous posts but that one was off the mark. There is no "logic" there.

Regardless of standards Rob would have qualified for the Olympics. But you cannot say the same for the rest. The point being the open roads of London allow for greater participation and thus weaker standards. Lets be honest 3.59 for a 50k is not comparable to a sub 13.20 5k. Im not for one moment saying that those qualified dont deserve to go. I afraid Sean Kenny has a hidden agenda as always.

SeanKenny

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Also, I don't think anyone is saying the marathoners should not be sent, just that its not equitable when you see athletes in other events who won't go despite having statistically better performances. Its tough on those athletes.

My problem is people categorising olympic qualifiers as C class athletes. Comparing apples with oranges as you put it is a futile exercise. It changes nothing - the standards were set, the girls met them, they are going to London, get on with it.

SeanKenny

woodchopper wrote: »

Regardless of standards Rob would have qualified for the Olympics. But you cannot say the same for the rest. The point being the open roads of London allow for greater participation and thus weaker standards. Lets be honest 3.59 for a 50k is not comparable to a sub 13.20 5k. Im not for one moment saying that those qualified dont deserve to go. I afraid Sean Kenny has a hidden agenda as always.

Brendan Boyce barely achieved the standard but Griffin was over five minutes inside the standard and placed 15th in the World Cup in very testing conditions.

I agree that 3.59 is softer than 13.20 or 3.34 but it is what it is. And Woodchopper, where I have shown a hidden agenda before? Let me see you back up your nonsense please.

ecoli

I think SeanKenny made a very good point which has gone largely unnoticed

The amount of attempts to hit qualification standard in the marathon/walks is probably taking into account on top of the fact that you can safely have larger field in the road events

Also the fact of non uniform courses (unlike a track race/event) means that race choice becomes paramount in qualification attempts which may also limit opportunities to attempt qualification

If you look at the Ethiopian and Kenyan teams you can see this is apparent with the choice of Dubai being one which has basically ensured most of the Ethiopian team while the choice of Boston effectively ruined G Mutai and T Kebede chances at selection (different circumstances obviously but point still holds up with regard chasing standards)

Yes they may be weaker but there are other factors which are considered which have a bearing because they make it harder to achieve the times (despite not being fully comparable from a stats point solely).

SeanKenny

woodchopper wrote: »

Snip

Typical Woodchopper comment. <Snip>

Nothing to substantiate the bleating!!

Dan man

ecoli wrote: »

I think SeanKenny made a very good point which has gone largely unnoticed

The amount of attempts to hit qualification standard in the marathon/walks is probably taking into account on top of the fact that you can safely have larger field in the road events

Also the fact of non uniform courses (unlike a track race/event) means that race choice becomes paramount in qualification attempts which may also limit opportunities to attempt qualification

If you look at the Ethiopian and Kenyan teams you can see this is apparent with the choice of Dubai being one which has basically ensured most of the Ethiopian team while the choice of Boston effectively ruined G Mutai and T Kebede chances at selection (different circumstances obviously but point still holds up with regard chasing standards)

Yes they may be weaker but there are other factors which are considered which have a bearing because they make it harder to achieve the times (despite not being fully comparable from a stats point solely).

I actually think the main reason the standard is weaker in the marathon is plainly down to the fact that numbers are largely irrelevant unlike with track races.
By the way I would never take anything away from any of our qualifiers, I salute them all as I always have and surely always will. But the point is accurate, those with the B-standard on the track are being dealt an injustice by not being selected at those tough standards when you take all standards (not just in athletics) into consideration. In no other sports (apart from swimming) does this happen. No matter how late or by how slim a margin they achieve qualification, they are guaranteed selection.

Pherekydes

SeanKenny wrote: »

It changes nothing - the standards were set, the girls met them, they are going to London, get on with it.

Everyone is delighted we have three representatives in the Olympic marathon for women.

Not many are delighted that 'B' standard athletes, like Jason Smyth and Ciara Mageean, might miss out.

Maybe they will get the standards, but the point remains that we will have some very talented, and possible future major championship medallists, sitting at home in August when they could be getting valuable experience (and don't give the spiel about the Olympics not being the place to get experience-it comes around once every four years), due to the intransigence of the OCI.

It is the AAI's job to select athletes for international competitions; it is the OCI's job to look after them.

thirtyfoot

SeanKenny wrote: »

My problem is people categorising olympic qualifiers as C class athletes. Comparing apples with oranges as you put it is a futile exercise. It changes nothing - the standards were set, the girls met them, they are going to London, get on with it.

<Snip>

So do you think the Marathon A standard is comparable to the track and field B standard? Yes or no.

thirtyfoot

Pherekydes wrote: »

It is the AAI's job to select athletes for international competitions; it is the OCI's job to look after them.

The OCI perform the role of travel agent and outfitter.

SeanKenny

thirtyfoot wrote: »

<Snip>
So do you think the Marathon A standard is comparable to the track and field B standard? Yes or no.

<snip> the track and field B standard in what event? all of them? one of them? You don't make sense man? Clarify please.:D

Pisco Sour

ecoli wrote: »

I think SeanKenny made a very good point which has gone largely unnoticed

The amount of attempts to hit qualification standard in the marathon/walks is probably taking into account on top of the fact that you can safely have larger field in the road events

I dont believe this to be relevant. You can get as many attempts at the target as you like but in the end of the day if the athlete isn't capable of hitting it then they wont. Cuddihy aside, the rest of our 400 girls are in the 53 range, which is about the same standard as a 2:36 marathon. It doesnt matter how many chances this season Marian, Claire, Michelle get they will not be running the 51.55 A qualifier. However, athletes of equal standing to them are qualifying in the marathon, because the standard is softer. Maybe that argument might stand up for somebody right on the cusp on qualifying (Gillick for example) but not for athletes a fair bit below that. The fact of the matter is that there are athletes every bit as good as Byrne, Hutchinson, Jennings who will not be within an asses roar of an individual sport at the Games.

Nobody is saying that the marathon girls dont deserve to go, but that it is simply not fair to leave somebody on a strong B-Standard at home, when athletes who have achieved a softer standard are sent. It is inconsistent and not equitable IMO.

dna_leri

04072511 wrote: »

.

Nobody is saying that the marathon girls dont deserve to go, but that it is simply not fair to leave somebody on a strong B-Standard at home, when athletes who have achieved a softer standard are sent. It is inconsistent and not equitable IMO.

Yes, the A standard in the marathon is easier but we all agree those selected should go.
But just because standards are lower in the marathon and walks for a good reason, does not make it unfair on others who do not meet the A standard in track and field.
Making it equitable is not the objective, if it was then the easiest way to do that would be to raise the A standard in the road events and none of us are actually looking for that.
The problem if there is one is that OCI will not send B standards even if they are developing athletes. That is the point we should be debating not comparing road events with T&F.

stiffmyster

How are the standard low in the walks????

dna_leri

stiffmyster wrote: »

How are the standard low in the walks????

They are not low, they are very high, most of us could not even run that fast, happy now?

stiffmyster

Take your knickers off will ya. You said that the walk standards are low and i was just wondering why you would say that.... do you have anything to back up your the comment. If you don't then you opinions are not valid

dna_leri

stiffmyster wrote: »

Take your knickers off will ya. You said that the walk standards are low and i was just wondering why you would say that.... do you have anything to back up your the comment. If you don't then you opinions are not valid

Show me the quote where I said that.

stiffmyster

"But just because standards are lower in the marathon and walks for a good reason"

I'm not trying to have an argument. I'm just wondering what info do you have to say that it is weaker? I don't race walk myself but the event doesn't get the justice it deserves of some people on this forum

dna_leri

stiffmyster wrote: »

"But just because standards are lower in the marathon and walks for a good reason"

I'm not trying to have an argument. I'm just wondering what info do you have to say that it is weaker? I don't race walk myself but the event doesn't get the justice it deserves of some people on this forum

IAAF pts are lower for the walks A standard than T&F events - see yesterday's posts. AFAIK No one on this thread has denigrated the walkers or the marathoners. THe point being made is that T&F athletes with B-standards will not be selected. Welcome to boards.

thirtyfoot

SeanKenny wrote: »

<snip> the track and field B standard in what event? all of them? one of them? You don't make sense man? Clarify please.:D

Lets look at the ones discussed here, say the 400 and 1500.

Is the women's 400 and 1500 B Standard comparable to the Women's Marathon B standard?

400 - 52.35 (1120)
1500 - 4:08.90 (1135)
Mar - 2:37 (1065)

The 400 and 1500 Bs are equivalent to a 2:29-2:31 marathon, per the IAAF.

Dan man

I think these discussions are best left to another thread...this thread is for discussing the outdoor season 2012 and posting results and schedules for meets.

G-Money

Perhaps slightly off topic, but is it fair that the IAAF Olympic Marathon A standard for women is over 20 minutes slower than the women's WR, whereas the Mens A standard is approximately 13 minutes slower than the current WR.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/document/statistics/standards/05/97/61/20110415082248_httppostedfile_entrystandards_london2012_24135.pdf

Pherekydes

There isn't a lot of difference between the two: the men's marathon is worth 1074 pts and the women's is worth 1065 pts (the same as a 2:15:32).

Dodge

Percentage wise its not too different.

More men competed in Beijing that women so the 'fairness' argument doesn't really stack up IMO

Pisco Sour

Sound lads :rolleyes::D The thread being split from the Outdoor Season posts now makes it look like I started the thread to try diminish the Marathon and Racewalks, when the reality is that we were talking about Ciara Mageean being sent on a B-Standard and I was merely using the Marathon (never actually mentioned walks) as a way of showing why somebody on a strong B-Standard deserves to be sent just as much as somebody on a marathon A-Standard.

Just want to clear my name here so people dont think I'm trying to insult our 4 great marathon runners who will be competing in London.

Pisco Sour

Pherekydes wrote: »

There isn't a lot of difference between the two: the men's marathon is worth 1074 pts and the women's is worth 1065 pts (the same as a 2:15:32).

It says on the first or second page of the tables that the men's and women's performances shouldn't be compared using these tables as they are 2 completely different sets of tables. They have split the tables into men and women for a reason. If you compared the they have a 59 second 400 for a man equal to a 77 or something for a woman, and that clearly isn't remotely true. They are too different sets of tables based on 2 different sets of data so shouldn't be compared.

Not sure if that answers the original question though.