World Cross-Country Provisional Entry Released

NetwerkErrer

Pdf file:

ht tps://iaafmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/competitioninfo/5cb18d89-62ad-49a3-982f-c0c9fabf351d.pdf

The link has to be fixed.

pconn062

https://iaafmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/competitioninfo/5cb18d89-62ad-49a3-982f-c0c9fabf351d.pdf

Zatopek

Very unlike Great Britain not sending full teams in the senior races. Things really aren't looking up for the future of the World XC. By the looks of things most countries aren't even sending full teams of 6.

pconn062

Zatopek wrote: »

Very unlike Great Britain not sending full teams in the senior races. Things really aren't looking up for the future of the World XC. By the looks of things most countries aren't even sending full teams of 6.

Quite a young team GB are sending as well. USA look like they have a good team, would love to see them do well in the team competition. They did great last time and I'm a big fan of Chris Derrick, would love to see him go well.

Zatopek

pconn062 wrote: »

Quite a young team GB are sending as well. USA look like they have a good team, would love to see them do well in the team competition. They did great last time and I'm a big fan of Chris Derrick, would love to see him go well.

The USA probably have the best chance of getting medals outside of the East African teams. They got silver 2 years ago with Chris Derrick in 10th. Surprised to see Ben True not making the team this year after coming 6th two years ago. It's gonna be some race either way, it always is! It's just a real pity it's not being supported as well as it used to be though. The fault lies with countries such as GB and Ireland for not sending full teams. They're really not contributing to the future success of the championship. I think it's unfair that a few people high up are denying athletes on what might be their only chance at running at a world championships.

average_runner

This comp should of happen in late Jan early feb

pconn062

average_runner wrote: »

This comp should of happen in late Jan early feb

Why?

average_runner

pconn062 wrote: »

Why?

Because most runners have moved on to track now.

6 months for a cross country season is a bit much. Even the UK think the same

Zatopek

average_runner wrote: »

Because most runners have moved on to track now.

6 months for a cross country season is a bit much. Even the UK think the same

I think February would be an ideal time for it however I still don't think it would make countries send full teams.

Remember that it's not the athletes that don't want to run, it's their governing bodies that choose not to send them.

Chivito550

World Cross has been in March as long as I can recall.

The reason numbers are low is because the event has become a closed shop. 6 Kenyans, 6 Ethiopians, along with a rake of them representing other countries. Why would you bother doing this just to come 16th or 17th? I don't blame anyone for skipping it. Cross country is only prep for track anyway, so Euro Cross can serve that purpose nicely.

I used to love World Cross, but like F1 it has lost its allure IMO.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

World Cross has been in March as long as I can recall.

The reason numbers are low is because the event has become a closed shop. 6 Kenyans, 6 Ethiopians, along with a rake of them representing other countries. Why would you bother doing this just to come 16th or 17th? I don't blame anyone for skipping it. Cross country is only prep for track anyway, so Euro Cross can serve that purpose nicely.

I used to love World Cross, but like F1 it has lost its allure IMO.

But you could say the same thing about 100, 200m 400m, marathon and even 800m male running in the Olympics. Black men are away ahead of the white men. But we still compete.

I would love to see a proper world championship, not based on country but based on the top of the crop.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

But you could say the same thing about 100, 200m 400m, marathon and even 800m male running in the Olympics. Black men are away ahead of the white men. But we still compete.

I would love to see a proper world championship, not based on country but based on the top of the crop.

White guys have won major medals over 400 and 800 quite often to be honest.

But it's besides the point. 1) The Olympics, followed by World Outdoors are the pinnacle of the sport and 2) There are only 3 per each country on the track as opposed to 6 in XC.

I appreciate that many peopl here love cross country, and I can see why. But the truth is, it is merely preparation for track. I can't imagine anybody putting their full focus on it, same with indoor. Fionnuala Britton said it herself, after her second triumph at Euro Cross, that she was under no illusions that it is all about the track in the end of the day.

Personally if I was a distance runner with an eye on the coming track season I'd go for Euro Cross over World Cross easily. Would be more competitive, and it would be earlier in the training cycle.

The fact that World Cross has been switched to every 2 years, when at one point there was 2 events each year (long and short course) speaks volumes of its decline.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

White guys have won major medals over 400 and 800 quite often to be honest.

But it's besides the point. 1) The Olympics, followed by World Outdoors are the pinnacle of the sport and 2) There are only 3 per each country on the track as opposed to 6 in XC.

I appreciate that many peopl here love cross country, and I can see why. But the truth is, it is merely preparation for track. I can't imagine anybody putting their full focus on it, same with indoor. Fionnuala Britton said it herself, after her second triumph at Euro Cross, that she was under no illusions that it is all about the track in the end of the day.

Personally if I was a distance runner with an eye on the coming track season I'd go for Euro Cross over World Cross easily. Would be more competitive, and it would be earlier in the training cycle.

The fact that World Cross has been switched to every 2 years, when at one point there was 2 events each year (long and short course) speaks volumes of its decline.

I agree with you on what you said about cross country, but when was the last time a white man won gold in 100m, 200, 400m at the Olympics?

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

I agree with you on what you said about cross country, but when was the last time a white man won gold in 100m, 200, 400m at the Olympics?

Gold at the Olympics? What very specific high standard criteria you have there. Kevin Borlee and Cristophe Lemaitre both got bronze at the 2011 World Championships in the 400 and 200 respectively. That's just off the top of my head.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

I agree with you on what you said about cross country, but when was the last time a white man won gold in 100m, 200, 400m at the Olympics?

But to answer your question Jeremy Wariner won Olympic 400m gold in Athens.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Gold at the Olympics? What very specific high standard criteria you have there. Kevin Borlee and Cristophe Lemaitre both got bronze at the 2011 World Championships in the 400 and 200 respectively. That's just off the top of my head.

Yeah I have high standards, pity i never reach them

Chivito550

Good article here:

http://m.runnersworld.com/races/the-world-cross-country-conundrum

dna_leri

average_runner wrote: »

I agree with you on what you said about cross country, but when was the last time a white man won gold in 100m, 200, 400m at the Olympics?

The decline of World Cross Country has nothing to do with black or white skin or "with countries such as GB and Ireland for not sending full teams". Neither is "it all about track at the end of the day". The reality is that the really top athletes are not interested in XC.

Do you think Mo Farah considered going to Guiyang for more than one moment, or Shalane Flanagan, or Genzebe Dibaba? No they are thinking about Lisbon, Boston and Carlsbad. The money has moved to the road and the action has followed.

Moving World XC to January or February will not make a jot of a difference. The only hope of saving XC now is to make it a Winter Olympic Sport which could give it back some prestige but ironically its current decline means it is less likely to get included - the IOC have no interest in reviving it.

Chivito550

dna_leri wrote: »

The decline of World Cross Country has nothing to do with black or white skin or "with countries such as GB and Ireland for not sending full teams". Neither is "it all about track at the end of the day". The reality is that the really top athletes are not interested in XC.

Do you think Mo Farah considered going to Guiyang for more than one moment, or Shalane Flanagan, or Genzebe Dibaba? No they are thinking about Lisbon, Boston and Carlsbad. The money has moved to the road and the action has followed.

Moving World XC to January or February will not make a jot of a difference. The only hope of saving XC now is to make it a Winter Olympic Sport which could give it back some prestige but ironically its current decline means it is less likely to get included - the IOC have no interest in reviving it.

It would have to be on a snow covered course to get considered. Winter Olympics are for snow and ice based sports only, not merely for something that takes place in winter.

pconn062

Really good info page here:

http://www.letsrun.com/events/2015-iaaf-world-cross-country-championships/

Really curious to see how Chris Derrick and the US team in general get on, I'm a big fan of his and would love to see him get a medal which isn't out of the question.

Hard to believe it's on this weekend, you would never know with the lack of coverage.

NetwerkErrer

Some cracking racing this morning. Bed is calling, here's the results.

Junior Women 6k

1. Giday(Eth)19:48
2. Dida(Eth)19:49
3. Woldu(Eth)19:53

Team results:

1. Ethopia 11
2. Kenya 33
3. Bahrain 52

Junior Men 8k

1. Haji(Eth) 23:42
2. Korir(Ken)23:47
3. Ngeno(Ken)23:54

Team results:

1. Kenya 19
2. Ethopia 33
3. Eritrea 52

Senior Women 8k

1. Tirop(Ken) 26:01
2. Teferi(Eth) 26:06
3. Gudeta(Eth)26:11

Team results:

1. Ethiopia 17
2. Kenya 19
3. Uganda 101


Senior Men 12k

1. Kipsang/Kamworer(Ken) 34:52
2. Karoki/Muntiri(Ken) 35:00
3. Edris(Eth) 35:06


Team results:

1. Ethiopia 20 (wins on higher placed 4th man)
2. Kenya 20
3. Bahrain 54

http://www.iaaf.org/competitions/iaaf-world-cross-country-championships/iaaf-world-cross-country-championships-2015-5540/results/women/junior-race/final/result

Chivito550

Bahrain, a hotbed for cross country running....

And then people wonder why nobody cares about this anymore.

Itziger

Was it not Steel saying the other day that they were closing the gap on the East Africans. Over 2 minutes behind winner in an 8k race. Wow! We're as far if not further behind 'em than ever it would seem.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Bahrain, a hotbed for cross country running....

And then people wonder why nobody cares about this anymore.

Just invite the top 100 runners and Feck this country crap. I want to see the best of the best racing. Sending runners who are a lot slower to big events is a waste.

Instead of countries, have top 32 100m sprinters etc. Let's making running about the best and not sub standard athletes from some countries

NetwerkErrer

average_runner wrote: »

Just invite the top 100 runners and Feck this country crap. I want to see the best of the best racing. Sending runners who are a lot slower to big events is a waste.

Instead of countries, have top 32 100m sprinters etc. Let's making running about the best and not sub standard athletes from some countries

98% East African, 2% rest of the World. That would completely kill it.

average_runner

NetwerkErrer wrote: »

98% East African, 2% rest of the World. That would completely kill it.

Africans aren't dominating all disciplines.

For Olympics just have top 32 of each discipline.

NetwerkErrer

average_runner wrote: »

Africans aren't dominating all disciplines.

For Olympics just have top 32 of each discipline.

Who is going to watch that outside of hardcore athletics fans. Athletics needs TV money, Sponsorship and funding which all comes from public interest. If someone from a persons country is competing, more people in that country will take interest.

Not to mention, you would kill the only tiny bit of light for people from countries who are not competing at that level to keep pushing for that goal. It would destroy athletics.

average_runner

NetwerkErrer wrote: »

Who is going to watch that outside of hardcore athletics fans. Athletics needs TV money, Sponsorship and funding which all comes from public interest. If someone from a persons country is competing, more people in that country will take interest.

Not to mention, you would kill the only tiny bit of light for people from countries who are not competing to keep pushing for that goal. It would destroy athletics.

How many people outside the hard core watch the heats?

Highest viewing figures are for the finals.

NetwerkErrer

average_runner wrote: »

How many people outside the hard core watch the heats?

Highest viewing figures are for the finals.

But how many would watch a final if every final was made up of just two countries.

average_runner

NetwerkErrer wrote: »

But how many would watch a final if every final was made up of just two countries.

100m isn't watched because of what countries are in it.

NetwerkErrer

average_runner wrote: »

100m isn't watched because of what countries are in it.

One race. It would destroy athletics. Take guys like Pollock and O lionard. What do you think they get funding for? For reaching major championships. They wouldn't get any funding under your system which means they wouldn't be able to train fully to reach their potential thus pushing the light farther away from young athletes which is the opposite of what athletics wants to do. You want as much depth as possible and there needs to be hope for that to happen.

average_runner

NetwerkErrer wrote: »

One race. It would destroy athletics. Take guys like Pollock and O lionard. What do you think they get funding for? For reaching major championships. They wouldn't get any funding under your system which means they wouldn't be able to train fully to reach their potential thus pushing the light farther away from young athletes which is the opposite of what athletics wants to do. You want as much depth as possible and there needs to be hope for that to happen.

I agree to a certain extent, but maybe funding should only go to the ones that:
- are medal contenders
- have potential ie reaching world finals etc.

Then u have the European championship for the lower level.

average_runner

Never said cut off potential, always encourage the youth, but there is at some stage where potential has been reached, that's when the cut comes

For example should we send a marathon runner that can't run sub 2:11. Even at that they probably Don't have a medal chance.

Maybe better putting that money into an athlete that is showing improvement, like English.

KielyUnusual

I've always thought the qualification system for the Olympics is a little unfair to be honest. I think a compromise between the the system suggested and the current system is the best way forward.

Its a ridiculous situation currently where sometimes the fourth best athlete in the world can't participate at the event that is the pinnacle of their sport because they are from a country where there happens to be three other competitors that are better (or the selection system of the governing body of their country deems them better).

I think if you have run a time that is in the top 10-20 times run (the number you select here would be a little arbitrary) in the year previous to the Olympics then you should qualify automatically. Beyond that you can send 2-3 from each country If they achieve the qualifying standard.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

How many people outside the hard core watch the heats?

Highest viewing figures are for the finals.

Average runner, you are following in the footsteps of the true AR greats, walshb and macresote (spelling?).

Utterly mad suggestions.

Chivito550

KielyUnusual wrote: »

I've always thought the qualification system for the Olympics is a little unfair to be honest. I think a compromise between the the system suggested and the current system is the best way forward.

Its a ridiculous situation currently where sometimes the fourth best athlete in the world can't participate at the event that is the pinnacle of their sport because they are from a country where there happens to be three other competitors that are better (or the selection system of the governing body of their country deems them better).

I think if you have run a time that is in the top 10-20 times run (the number you select here would be a little arbitrary) in the year previous to the Olympics then you should qualify automatically. Beyond that you can send 2-3 from each country If they achieve the qualifying standard.

Same in every sport. Should the USA field a B and C team in basketball? They'd probably get silver and bronze after all.

Boxing has just one per country.

KielyUnusual

Chivito550 wrote: »

Same in every sport. Should the USA field a B and C team in basketball? They'd probably get silver and bronze after all.

Boxing has just one per country.

Yea, it's the same or similar in other sports outside of running but is it the best way to go about things?

My contention is that there are athletes that have a genuine chance of medalling in an Olympic event that cannot compete because the rules don't allow them. It also brings in to consideration the selection criteria of the individual countries governing bodies for the given sport. Are the best athletes always the ones that are sent to the games/championships.

My opinion is that there could be a more transparent system that guarantees the very best athletes a place in the Olympics regardless of what country they are from while maintaining the diversity of the games also.

Sorry for bringing this so off topic . Must have a look at the highlights of the race at some stage and make some relevant comments

Chivito550

KielyUnusual wrote: »

Yea, it's the same or similar in other sports outside of running but is it the best way to go about things?

My contention is that there are athletes that have a genuine chance of medalling in an Olympic event that cannot compete because the rules don't allow them. It also brings in to consideration the selection criteria of the individual countries governing bodies for the given sport. Are the best athletes always the ones that are sent to the games/championships.

My opinion is that there could be a more transparent system that guarantees the very best athletes a place in the Olympics regardless of what country they are from while maintaining the diversity of the games also.

Sorry for bringing this so off topic . Must have a look at the highlights of the race at some stage and make some relevant comments

But there's more to athletics than the Olympics. National Championships around the world will get devalued if this approach was followed. There'd be far less hype about US, Jamaican, Kenyan, GB championships etc. and imagine the Irish nationals 3 weeks before an Olympics with about 2 athletes in attendance who will be going to the Games. Talk about a morbid event devoid of hope and excitement.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

But there's more to athletics than the Olympics. National Championships around the world will get devalued if this approach was followed. There'd be far less hype about US, Jamaican, Kenyan, GB championships etc. and imagine the Irish nationals 3 weeks before an Olympics with about 2 athletes in attendance who will be going to the Games. Talk about a morbid event devoid of hope and excitement.

In fairness most the excitement of the Olympics is seeing the best runners. Majority of people that watch the Olympics don't care about the heats as top ones coast thru.

We had a female marathon runner in the Olympics one year that said she was happy to of got around. If someone said that here about race there be war.

We also should raise our qualifying times to at least match making a final standard and not a heat.

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

In fairness most the excitement of the Olympics is seeing the best runners. Majority of people that watch the Olympics don't care about the heats as top ones coast thru.

We had a female marathon runner in the Olympics one year that said she was happy to of got around. If someone said that here about race there be war.

We also should raise our qualifying times to at least match making a final standard and not a heat.

Not going to bite. Better luck next time.

Zatopek

average_runner wrote: »

We also should raise our qualifying times to at least match making a final standard and not a heat.

You're having a laugh right? It's people with your attitude who work with the AAI that are destroying athletics in Ireland. What would you propose happen if every country took that approach? There'd still have to be heats. Can't understand this whole attitude that if your not going to make a major final you shouldn't be sent to run. Ireland already has higher standards than those set out by the IAAF so anyone who achieves these standards are serious contenders.

Zatopek

average_runner wrote: »

I agree to a certain extent, but maybe funding should only go to the ones that:
- are medal contenders
- have potential ie reaching world finals etc.

Then u have the European championship for the lower level.

Also BS. How do you expect people to get to that level in the first place?

average_runner

Zatopek wrote: »

You're having a laugh right? It's people with your attitude who work with the AAI that are destroying athletics in Ireland. What would you propose happen if every country took that approach? There'd still have to be heats. Can't understand this whole attitude that if your not going to make a major final you shouldn't be sent to run. Ireland oalready has higher standards than those set out by the IAAF so anyone who achieves these standards are serious contenders.

Our marathon time for Rio is 2:18, great Britain 2:14. And they are a way better organization than ours.

We might have one serious contender

average_runner

Zatopek wrote: »

Also BS. How do you expect people to get to that level in the first place?

Same way you do most things in life, by working ur way up thru the rankings.

NetwerkErrer

average_runner wrote: »

Our marathon time for Rio is 2:18, great Britain 2:14. And they are a way better organization than ours.

We might have one serious contender

Btw, Ireland A standard for Moscow in 2013 was faster than GB's. 2:13 was set as the A standard, 2:17 as B standard.

The reason GB can set a higher Q standard in the first place is because they have a well funded program and a population nearly 20 times more than Ireland. There's more athletes in that quality range because of quantity which allows the standard to be raised. If like you say, cut the funding from athletes who haven't reached that level YET but could with a couple of years training, you stop the progression before it gets started by cutting funding and raising the standard.

I don't what your game has been for the last month but I'm not playing along anymore.

Over and out o here!

Zatopek

average_runner wrote: »

Our marathon time for Rio is 2:18, great Britain 2:14. And they are a way better organization than ours.

We might have one serious contender

Is it? The standard set by the AAI is 2:15:30 for the World Champs, I'd be very surprised if they made it easier for the Olympics. The IAAF set a standard of 2:18 but AAI made it harder.

Yes they have a much better system but they also have a population 13 times the size of Ireland meaning a greater depth of top athletes. I think 2:15 is a suitable time, however we probably only have one athlete currently capable or running it.

average_runner wrote: »

Same way you do most things in life, by working ur way up thru the rankings.

I agree to the extent of getting to the level of being capable of qualifying for major championships but the whole point of funding would be to help them bridge the gap from being a mid pack runner to a serious medal contender. Look at John Travers for example, he got to the final of the Euro Indoors and never received funding. They didn't bother giving him any funding this year either (yet they gave Ciaran O Lionaird €20000), they're certainly not making it easy for him to reach the next level.

average_runner

Zatopek wrote: »

Is it? The standard set by the AAI is 2:15:30 for the World Champs, I'd be very surprised if they made it easier for the Olympics. The IAAF set a standard of 2:18 but AAI made it harder.

Yes they have a much better system but they also have a population 13 times the size of Ireland meaning a greater depth of top athletes. I think 2:15 is a suitable time, however we probably only have one athlete currently capable or running it.


I agree to the extent of getting to the level of being capable of qualifying for major championships but the whole point of funding would be to help them bridge the gap from being a mid pack runner to a serious medal contender. Look at John Travers for example, he got to the final of the Euro Indoors and never received funding. They didn't bother giving him any funding this year either (yet they gave Ciaran O Lionaird €20000), they're certainly not making it easy for him to reach the next level.

Yep the standard is 2:18, heard it from a runner who is going for it.

I agree travers situation is a disgrace, I would of done it vice versa

KielyUnusual

Chivito550 wrote: »

But there's more to athletics than the Olympics. National Championships around the world will get devalued if this approach was followed. There'd be far less hype about US, Jamaican, Kenyan, GB championships etc. and imagine the Irish nationals 3 weeks before an Olympics with about 2 athletes in attendance who will be going to the Games. Talk about a morbid event devoid of hope and excitement.

I'm not proposing that we remove the current system, I'm just suggesting that it be amended to facilitate the top athletes in the individual events.

For example in any race run on the track, you have the athletes that ran the top 10 legal times in the event qualifiyng automatically regardless of the country quota. You can then have the remainder of the field made up of athletes that achieve the qualifiyng time with a limit of three per country. This would mean that the top ten in the world are guaranteed a place and there will also be a good selection of athletes from around the world. The only impact it would have on the current system for Irish athletes per say is that the qualifying time might be marginally more demanding. I assume this is set with a predicted size of the field of athletes in mind.

Zatopek

average_runner wrote: »

Yep the standard is 2:18, heard it from a runner who is going for it.

I agree travers situation is a disgrace, I would of done it vice versa

Interesting to hear that now. I do think that's a bit too soft but I think it's more up to the Irish Olympic Committee rather that Athletics Ireland?

Yeah John's situation was a disgrace. Euro Outdoors last year, Euro Indoors this year and some serious PBs along with it. Ciaran has hardly race since the Euro Indoors 2 years ago.

Chivito550

Zatopek wrote: »

Interesting to hear that now. I do think that's a bit too soft but I think it's more up to the Irish Olympic Committee rather that Athletics Ireland?

Yeah John's situation was a disgrace. Euro Outdoors last year, Euro Indoors this year and some serious PBs along with it. Ciaran has hardly race since the Euro Indoors 2 years ago.

To be fair, COL made a Euro Final last year and made mince meat of Travers at Nationals.

johnruns

Zatopek wrote: »

Interesting to hear that now. I do think that's a bit too soft but I think it's more up to the Irish Olympic Committee rather that Athletics Ireland?

Yeah John's situation was a disgrace. Euro Outdoors last year, Euro Indoors this year and some serious PBs along with it. Ciaran has hardly race since the Euro Indoors 2 years ago.

Maybe it is a bit soft but heard there is a serious amount of athletes in Dublin(don't know of other counties) thinking of going for it so maybe the competition for places will improve the times and standard:)