Dutch high jump champion can’t get over size of worlds
On our Forum Monday, Weia Reinboud wrote: “I am curious of opinions about the world championships. My personal opinion is that they have grown too big — in Riccione nearly 9,000 competitors each doing about 2 events. There were three stadia, far away from each other. Although there were many buses specially for us, you could not attend the competition of all your friends. The main stadium was a bad choice because the field was a plastic soccer field, no throws allowed.â€
Weia continued:
I have competed in three world championships now and two Europeans. I prefer all competitions being held in one stadium: one run, at least two jumps and two throws busy at the same time, all days. In Gateshead sometimes even 5 jumps were held at the same time! In Riccione only one.
It is friendly to the less talented athletes to let them all compete, but I would not mind when entrance limits were set, limiting the number of competitors to say 4,000.
Agree? Disagree?
Several folks posted interesting replies.
Time for a poll here, though!
11 Responses
People dont want to talk about limits, but how many places will be able to accomodate 10,000 plus people competing in several events? This is counterproductive. It creates a more and more hectic competition, which naturally comes with more and more problems. As a result, we are never satisfied with the organizers. I know, large part of the masters are the flower power generation and this is suppose to be the big get together, but there is nothing wrong with a semi elite competition. If you just want to see friends, you can still come as a tourist.
Very few active competitors are going to spend the time and money to go watch at a “elite” or “semi-elite” world masters track meet. I am not sure how one might determine “elite” or “semi-elite”. The largest number of competitors came from the marathon, x-c events, race walks, and the younger male competitors in the sprints.
The problems in Riccione came from a variety of sources – staging the events in venues quite some distance apart, two of these venues were a considerable distance from the main stadium. The final schedule was posted just weeks prior to the meet, I am not sure just how one would be able to arrange a hotel on short notice next door to the meet unless one is taking part in only one event. Those of us who took part in several events were competing in at least 2 of the venues.
Would it make much difference in the crowding of the buses and the inability to watch the jumps and field events to eliminate the x-c and the marathon? I don’t think so – since those events usually are held at the beginning and the end of the meet.
Perhaps the race walks could be cut off too! But aside from the 5k on the track (and always at the most distant track) the race walkers are not in the stadiums “taking up space” on the track. Perhaps one should cut off at the older age groups – just eliminate everyone over 64 – that will cut down on the numbers a little! Seriously – the problem with the numbers – look at the schedule for the 100, 200, 400, and the numbers of younger men. It was amazing – how do you cut down on that without seriously eroding interest in masters track.
The problem that Weia talks about, in my opinion, came from the distance between the 3 venues, poor bus service, and stupid scheduling – 2-3 hour break in the middle of the day, the deliberate scheduling of longer distances in the boonies – and the location of the venues – not to mention the choice of the so-called main stadium with astro turf – and scheduling of the field events in places where no one could watch. 4000, 3000, 9000 – does not matter – one could not watch the jumps – or the throws – and reducing the numbers would not have changed that. And the lack of warm-up facilities- inexcusable.
Having the marathon finish on the track while the 4 x 100 relays were taking place – beyond belief. And putting the steeplechase out in Masano (45min to an hour away – if one is lucky) and during the 4 x 100 relays – just stunning.
Of the 8 WAVA/WMA meets that I have attended – I give Riccione an A for effort and a D for execution.
The Hong Kong team had no problems with the distances and the buses in Riccione. We knew in advance that most on the team would be doing the distance events, we knew as early as San Sebastian that the distance events were in Misano and San Giovanni, so we specifically asked for a hotel in Misano and it worked out fine.
That said, I have long advocated moving the cross country, the marathon and the road walks to a separate non-stadia championships. That was tried in Auckland and it nearly bankrupted the New Zealand association, but I think in a more accessible venue it would work well. There will be XC and a 10K walk in Clermont Ferrand. I think the 20K walk and marathon could move to the winter meet as well, and that would greatly relieve the pressure on the stadia championships. I know, though, having proposed this before, that many in the WMA are against it, apparently because they are intent on apeing the Olympic Games and IAAF championships.
The Japanese are organizing a meet exclusively for the over-60s in November. This is another way to go, but the Japanese are not holding all the events. It will be interesting to see how their meet goes. I understand they have many entries from places like Mongolia that don’t usually attend WMA meets.
Quick Silver must have insider information re the LOC in Riccione – really you knew two years in advance that the distance events would be in Misano! Maybe I am just plain dumb and out of touch – I did not know that – but had I known that – I doubt I would have opted for Misano for a hotel. But that is beside the point – the bus service was poor because the drivers took long breaks between runs, on some occasions at the end of the day’s events there were an inadequate number of buses for the departing athletes and spectators, and in the case of the Misano and San Giovanni – there were no hotels close to the track – most of the athletes and spectators needed to take the bus to return to where ever they were staying. The organizers should have known that and even if they had not figured it out, they should have figured it out after the stadium in San Giovanni was closed up and locked with some athletes still there and without transportation very early on in the meet.
As for holding the x-c and marathon at the “Indoor Meet”- hum – did you go to the meet in Linz? The x-c course was covered in icy snow -and for many folks March is not x-c season, and going to an indoor meet – means – running indoors. I am not sure why they have an x-c event nor a half-marathon with it – unless it is to pump up the numbers and bring in enough money to cover expenses.
I think that the NZ experiment speaks for itself – nearly bankrupted the association – I bet that will make meet organizers just rush out to try it and see if that happens to them.
But I will be interested to learn just how many Japanese over 60 athletes participate in that meet next month – and in what events. There were hugh numbers at the WAVA meet in Japan in the early 90’s – most of the Japanese athletes took part in the marathon. As for many athletes coming from Mongolia to the one in Japan – sure – it is a much less expensive trip from Mongolia to Japan than from Mongolia to western Europe. As long as the meets are held in Europe – there will be few from countries a far distance from Europe. As long as the indoor meets are in Europe – there will be few from outside Europe.
If you eliminate the x-c and marathon from the WMA meet in Riccione – what is the total of competitors? Take away the race walkers – and you get what? I am not in favor of doing either – I usually run the x-c as well as track events – many of the distance runners do that – so – maybe eliminate everything longer than 5k – would that get the numbers down to a reasonable level?
That plus 1 or 2 venues close together with viewable field and jumps at the main stadium and good shuttle service – plus a large infusion of cash from a wealthy patron – and you can have a nice little meet where you can see everyone compete, find your friends, and have a nice cosy time.
We can all yearn for the smaller meets – my first one was in Eugene in 1989, it was marvelous – the dorms near the track, the food in the cafeteria, being able to meet so many athletes from around the world, the second stadium a short bus ride away. It will never be there again as the meets are too big. We can not go backward – only forward. So – how to manage meets that are growing in size – without eliminating events that draw large number of competitors who tend to come from the nation where the meet is held or live close enough to drive there, making it financially possible for them to participate. These are the folks who help pay for the large expenses of the meet.
I doubt that WMA wants to try the New Zealand experiment – it has sufficient financial problems now.
One of the problems with high jump and pole vault competition is that the competition takes too long because the performance of jumpers is so different. This works Ok for the weakest jumpers, but the best jumpers have to wait hours for their turn.
There is almost no point of warming up if you have to wait two hours to begin your competition. I believe that the starting hight should be published before the athletes before the registration begins.
The starting hight for an individual event can be determined based on the last world championship. We are not taking about strict limits, we are talking eliminating the competitors that have truly negative effect on the entire competition.
Maybe you could enter one competition irregardless of the limit, but if you want to enter more than one – you have to meet the limit.
BTW. semi-elite = a competition with some limits.
Here is an example of a problem from Linz high jump M55. As you can see the beginning hight was set 2ft below the eventual winning hight. It took more than a half an hour for the last two competitors to realize that the beginning hight is set about a foot too high for them. This was probably the first time in their life that they high jumped. Why, did they decided to compete in the World Championship – I do not know.
1,24 1,30 1,36 1,42 1,48 1,54 1,57 1,60 1,63
1,66 1,69 1,72
1 Grishaev Alexsander RUS 1,72 m
– – – – – – – XO O
O XO XO
2 Jamrich Milan USA 1,69 m
– – – – – O O – O
O XO XXX
3 Novak Jurij SLO 1,60 m
– – – – O O O XO XXX
4 Van Impe Frank BEL 1,54 m
– – O O O O XXX
5 Kadiyala Venkateswara IND 1,48 m
– O O XXO O XXX
6 Pelka Julian POL 1,48 m
– – – XO XO XXX
7 Schumacher Bernd GER 1,48 m
– – O O XXO XXX
8 Prampolini Natale ITA 1,42 m
– – – O XXX
9 Leopold Alfred GER 1,42 m
– – O XO XXX
Lanka Samba Siva Rao IND NM
XXX
Pilla Ganapathi Rao IND NM
XXX
The idea about starting heights makes sense even though I am not a vertical jumper. The idea of anyone entering one event, but needing to hit a qualifying standard to enter more than one also makes sense – satisfies the ‘hippies’ and the ‘elitists’.
It may be that qualifying standards become necessary but, I wonder how the organizers feel about adding even more paperwork to their job [to verify qualifying marks].
I suspect that a primary selling points in getting cities to put on the Worlds and Nationals is that a large number of people will come and spend time both at the meet and visiting their city.
I can see a city getting excited about 10,000 competitors plus a few thousand more spouses/family who will visit. Will they be as enthuastic if we make the Worlds an elite only meet with half or less the number of competitors?
I think that a field of 5000 people plus families is still attractive for many cities. A qualifying standards would significantly speed up the competition as frequently the very weakest need a disproportionally long tome to finish an event. It would also eliminate the embarrassing performances. In my mind, if you have to literaly climb over the hurdless instead of jumping, you have no place to compete at the World Championship. World Championship is not the appropriate place to try some event for the first time in your life. There is no need to enter 5-10 events just because you are there.
Mary,
I think I agree with everything you have said in this thread. Of course no one knew with any certainty which stadium in Riccione was going to host which event. This was in doubt for several events even a month before the Championships. No one can say they “knew” as long as two years beforehand.
There is a thread running parallel to this on the Forum at present. My view there, FWIW, is that Riccione didn’t prove any sort of case for qualifying standards to be imposed. It showed the necessity to question the inclusion of some “non-stadia” events in Championships that were prominently branded “stadia”, and for any organising committee to get its act together on facilities, locations and timetables far better than our friends in Riccione managed to do for most of the time.
Riccione: Agree with the A for effort, D for execution rating. San Sebastian for me was an A+ on both. A small resort town like Riccione was not equiped to handle an event on the scale of the WMA champs. Porto Allegre could have been a disaster (though an interesting one). My 10 cents; it boils down to the site. There are clearly a limited number of cities that can pull it off. Another issue is the timing; many world class masters could not attend Riccione given the timing in September
Leave a Reply