Performance standards posted for 2007 world rankings
Statmeister Martin Gasselsberger of Austria has posted the performance standards he’ll use in building world rankings for the 2007 outdoor season, a world championship year. He says they are “subject to modifications.” They’re not easy. Apparently his aim is to create 50-deep lists in all events and age groups. But he needs your help. If your mark is under the standard (for running events) or over the standard (for jumps and throws), send him the mark yourself via this submit form. It’s similar to what Dave Clingan is doing with his Submission Form at mastersrankings.com (USATF members only). Now if only WMA recognized Martin’s work and put him on the payroll.
6 Responses
Finally! We should have had something like this YEARS ago. I’ve always said that it’s so incredibly easy to surpass our All-America marks that they no longer have any meaning.
Even these new world rankings standards appear to be a little “soft” but it’s a step in the right direction.
Now if we can only use the All_American standards as a prerequisite to running in the National Championships…
I certainly agree that it is a wonderful thing Martin has done and perplexing that it had not been done years ago. As for the All-American standards being soft, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. McCloud. Although I am not even in the same ballpark in regards to athletic performances as him, I do not think I am out of line to disagree. The A-A standards give the average/above-average guy something to shoot for. I would be curious to see some type of statistic detailing the number of A-A performances per event, per age-group. If that statistic is in the 10 or less range, then the standards are appropriate. I must also disagree with standards for the NCs as it would limit the field too much. I can imagine (only since my talent/training prohibits empathy) the multiple rounds and flights are annoying for elite masters, but it is also good ‘practice’ for those who are good enough to compete at the WCs. Respectfully submitted – rt.
It will be interesting to see how the world ranking system will work. As for the standards being soft, that probably is true but we should keep in mind that many Masters competitors don’t have the time and facilities to train at world class levels. Some sort of qualifying standards sounds good but keep in mind that tough standards will mean small fields. Personally, I would prefer to see more Masters entrants and if it means extra heats and bigger fields is that so bad?
Upon examining the tables for a few events, it appears that the basis for these “standards” is arbitrary at best. For example, generally speaking one would expect a smooth progression in the times for running events. However, for the older age groups this is not the case. In particular, the differences from age group to age group for the 200 are .8,.8,.9,1.1,1.2,1.0,2.5,5.0, and 2.5s. A similar problem occurs for the 800. First, the basis for these “standards” should be clearly stated (What are the statistics behind them ?). Second, the auxiliary information (i.e., the numbers in parentheses) should be explained (limits on the list size ?). In my opinion, setting an age-graded criterion based on the current (generally accepted) age-graded tables is a much better approach. In the past I created age- plus sex-corrected performance formulas, always with a clearly stated basis, which were ACCEPTED AS FAIR by all interested parties for more than 10 years. If anyone is going to impose standards, I suggest that this is a major criterion that MUST BE SATISFIED. I do not accept Grasselsberger’s tables as having well thought out basis, or as being fair to all interested parties. A lot more could be said. Please contact me at rck@vla.com if you are interested in more details.
FR: David E. Ortman (M53) Seattle, WA
Again, many, many thanks to Martin for his efforts on the world rankings. WMA should definately put him on the payroll. Regarding the “standards” I expect that Martin will go 50 deep in an event before we bottom out on the standards. The standards do seem familiar in an All-American way with some of the same quirks that have been mentioned. For me, in M50, a 58.0 400m is not a big deal. But a 2:12 800m is only a second off my alltime PR and I could never knock off a 4:35 1500m. Same thing with the hurdles. A 16.5 100mH continues to be a struggle. But a 68.0 400mH is a walk in the park. Similarly, I should be able to do a 5.30m Long Jump off of either foot, but even with three jumps a 11.00m Triple Jump is really a stretch. But the real point is to get a good top 50 list going for 2007. The standards cutoff is really to keep Martin from being swamped with marks from all over the planet.
Again, GREAT JOB Martin!!
Mike Egle of Glenview Il…M45..is much faster than alot of these gentleman I am seeing on your site. With all do RESPECT..where is he in this mix of talented athletes?? Sub 16 for the 5k sub 1:14 for the half-marathon..2 seconds away from breaking the worlds record in the masters two mile!!!
Leave a Reply