2009 Lahti world meet defies rules, lists 200m hurdles
The entry books for the 2009 WMA world masters championships in Lahti, Finland, were available at Spokane nationals last week, and the newly posted Lahti Web site confirms what I read: Be prepared for a qualifying standard of sorts. Starting heights have been listed for the high jump and pole vault. They aren’t onerous, but they’ll weed out the nonserious jumpers. But I also note something really strange: Creation of a new hurdles event. In the “scheduling notes” section, we learn: “W70+ will now run the 200 Hurdles (.686), not the 300 Hurdles.” That’s news to me — and World Masters Athletics, which has approved no such event. Bizarre. How about a standing long jump and softball throw, too?
21 Responses
Is this a snide comment about the senior games? They do have some odd events
I like the idea of listed starting heights for the pole vault and high jump. As you said Ken, it will weed out the non-serious jumpers. Now, if we can use that same idea with all the other events.
I still have this vivid memory of running at my first outdoor nationals and lining up next to a guy who HAD NEVER RUN HURDLES BEFORE.
Championship meets, especially the Worlds, should only have championship-caliber participants.
I know many of you are going to throw out the argument that you don’t want to turn anyone away, etc. But, the very fact that we do not have qualifying standards at out National Championships is the primary reason why USATF doesn’t give us any support when going to World Meets. I have had high-ranking executives tell me personally that they view our championships as “glorified all-comers meets”.
So, hooray for the pole vault and high jump standards!
I for one would not be opposed to seeing the long hurdles drop to 200M for M70 and over, especially having witnessed many competitors even in the M60’s have trouble getting cleanly past hurdles number 6 & 7.
Interesting point by Dexter. The two sports with which I have had the most experience nationally and regionally are track and field and golf. One thing these sports have in common is that they love qualifying. You qualify to be in national or world competitions, and once you get there you qualify again (in preliminary rounds) to make the finals.
What’s my point? The masters nationals are a major exception to the norm, and the fact that the worlds have no qualifying standards can legitimately be seen as even more exceptional. BTW, I just checked out the starting heights for M45 and W45 in the high jump. They are 1.50 meters/4 feet, 11 inches for men and 1.20 meters/3 feet, 11 1/4 inches for women. I’ll discuss only the men. Unless you have “hops” like Michael Jordan (and could simply run straight at the bar and hurdle it) you would have to know how to high jump to clear 4 feet, 11 inches. On the other hand, at Spokane earlier this month, 9 of the 10 men in the M45 high jump went 4 feet, 11 inches or higher. I conclude that this is a fair, actually somewhat generous, opening height for the worlds.
My main point, however, is how exceptional masters track is. Even the much-maligned Senior Games/Senior Olympics have qualifying. The most exciting track meet in the US, the Olympics Trials, is all about qualifying. In fact, the biggest thrill in the lives of some athletes is to qualify for the Olympic Trials.
Masters track has chosen a different path — anyone can go. That has its advantages, but one might also consider its disadvantages.
I am against it but qualifying standards could make sense if the idea is to reduce total entries at these World Championships to manageable proportions. But the high jump and pole vault are not the problem as far as total entries are concerned. Any news on a wider application of entry standards to other events?
FR: David E. Ortman (M55) Seattle, WA
1. What do you mean that our National Masters T&F Championship meets don’t have qualifying??? What do call the heats?? You qualify at the meet to make the finals. If you don’t qualify, you don’t run finals. You could, of course, require meeting the all-american standard in order to participate in the national meets. But what do you do with an event like the Pentathlon. Even our regional meet championships do not offer this event, so where would you need to go to post a mark?
Look at the small number of competitors in many of the women age groups in Spokane. It seems like we should encourage more athletes to attend.
2. As for the world meets, no one wants to run 400m hurdle prelims and semis on the same day, as they made us do in WAVA Buffalo in 1995, just to eliminate some first time hurdlers.
I could not locate the Lathi Finland 2009 website on either the masterswebsite, the USATF website or the WMA website (what’s up with that??).
If the idea is to have a set starting height or distance for the jumps and throws, fine. But if you have to qualify and then come back another day for finals, that is nuts.
3. Hurdles. There has been much talk about what to do with hurdles. As noted above, the W70 now run 200m hurdles. I would like to see the following adjustments made to encourage more hurdling:
Short Hurdles
* M30-39 – 110m 39″
* M40-49 – 100m 39″
* M50-54 – 100m 36″
* M55-59 – 100m 33″
Long Hurdles
* M30-49 400m 36″
* M50-59 300m 33″
* M60-69 300m 30″
* M70-79 200m 30″
4. I would like to propose the support and adoption of the following rule change:
“At National meets, if by the end of the declaration time for a final track event there are one or more empty lanes available, the next fastest qualifer, if prepared to run, may compete in the final. This does not apply to empty lanes caused by false starts, or by finalists withdrawing due to injury or other reasons after the close of the finals declaration.”
Isn’t it better to run a final with eight, instead of five or six?
Perspiring minds want to know.
Hi Dave,
english.wma2009.org
Gary Snyder
USATF Masters T&F Chair
garysnyder@att.net
I’m with Dave on this- until there is actually a problem by having to hold too many heats of an event, etc. we should leave it open to encourage as many competitors as possible.
In the steeple, there were 2 of us in M30-34 and 1 in M35-39. Given that the steeple is a unique event but there are several like that.
I heard several comments in Spokane about masters track decreasing in participation and popularity. Doing anything to make that more of a reality would be a big mistake IMO.
Uh Dave,
I think we’re talking apples and oranges. “Qualifying” means that you have to achieve a standard BEFORE you enter the meet. Yes, you run in heats to “qualify” for a final. But, the difference is – in an Open Outdoor National championship or Olympic trial, EVERYONE running in those heats have “qualified” by running a standard.
My original point was, I am almost embarassed at the fact that someone next to me in the finals for a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, for example, can be any old Joe who decided to enter the meet and run. And, as I said before, I have been told by USATF officials, that the reason we don’t get any more support than we do currently, is because our championship events are little more than all-comers meets.
I think that establishing standards…even if it’s our current All-American Standard, would help in establishing a little credibility with the American public and within USA Track & Field…
Finally, I don’t want to get onto a soap box about changing the heights and distances of hurdles. But, hurdling is a rhythmic event. Those distances and heights are there for a purpose. If you cannot compete in the hurdles because they are too high or you can’t run 3 steps between hurdles, then you should change events. I know that sounds harsh but, changing the fundamentals of hurdling when the problem relates to skill is not the solution. If that’s the case, let’s shorten the 400 to the 300 so I can run it without getting tired!
FR: David E. Ortman (M55) Seattle, WA
I appreciate Dexter’s distinction between qualifying before a meet and qualifying at a meet. However, if you look at the National Senior Games qualifying marks, at least for the jumps and sprints they are very low. The throws are more of a challenge. My point was which would be more impressive to a “corporate sponsor? A National Senior Games with low qualifying standards to get to the meet, or a National T&F Championships where the qualifying takes place at the meet?
As for the hurdles, consider the following:
Shot put, discus, javelin, Hammer, 400m Hurdles and 3K steeplechase all have implements and heights up to M49 (and M59 for 3kSC) that are the same as open/college athletes.
The 110m Hurdles already makes an adjustment at M30-49 by a hurdle height of 39″, not the 42” open/college height. It is precisely because hurdling is a “three-step” process that some adjustment is needed as you move through older age groups (such as the current change from 110m to 100m at age 50).
Just as at M50 the throwing implements basically drop to high school levels, it makes sense for M50 long hurdles to drop to 300m since this is what high school hurdlers run. It’s not so much about the distance, as it is trying to keep good hurdling form going for 400m at age 59!
Problem with using the All-American Standard is that in my heat of the steeple, field would have gone from 16 to 5 using entries that met that standard.
And, I keep hearing that masters track is pathetic in terms of turnout for those of us in our 30’s. You ask us to meet the standard (which seems somewhat arbitrary by the way) and an already weak # of entrants goes from 3 to none in my event.
I just think masters track is at a point where the more the merrier and turning people away by using a standard to actually attend the meet could be the nail in the coffin in terms of building the sport for the future.
Right on the nail, mellow johnny.
Regarding the 200 Meter hurdles . . . they are only being discussed (by our international friends) for W70+ and not for the men.
-Jeff Davison
Boy, do hurdle specs ever come up for discussion here a lot! I expect Jeff Brower to jump, excuse me, hurdle in soon.
Personally, I’ve got one more year left to compete at 400m for the long hurdles, and I’m looking forward to it. At 60 I’ll have to leave them behind and that’s soon enough for me. Incidentally, David, many states do run the 400m hurdles in high school, but frankly what high schoolers do has little bearing on what our specs ought to be. BTW, David, congrats on your IH (and other) victories in Spokane.
Bill Pontius
1. As for this notion of “qualifying” through heats at the nationals, the great majority of running/walking/hurdling competitors at Spokane did NOT run a heat. Instead, they went straight to the final. In the 1500, 5000, 10,000, 5000 racewalk, 10,000 racewalk, and steeplechase, everyone went straight to the final. Even in the 800 and 400, most competitors went straight to the final (in the 400, only M45, M50, and M60 had trials – all other men and all women went straight to the final. In the 800, only M45 and M50 had trials.)
2. The larger question is: “Why is masters track sruggling with its outdoor championships while its ‘rival’, the U.S. Senior Games, is breaking the bank?” Next year I expect 5000 competitors for the Senior Games in the track and field events, all of whom will have gone through a qualifying process, while I am expecting Clermont, Florida, to have about 850 people for our nationals, none of whom will have made it through a qualifying process. We need to take a clear, dispassionate look at this situation, perhaps setting aside for a moment our preconceptions about what makes a meet attractive and what makes it unappealing. Those who went to Spokane (including me) found it to be a nice meet, but our nationals are clearly not seen as a “must” event for most U.S. T&F athletes aged 30 to 100+. In brief, they would rather stay home. The question is “why do they feel this way?”
FR: David E. Ortman (M55) Seattle, WA
To respond briefly to Peter Taylor’s thoughtful post above, in a large chunk of middle America there is no USAT&F. Especially in the mid-west, the only track & field for masters are the state Senior Games, which are often run with stop watches (and report sprint times to the hundredths!) and no wind gauges. For example, in South Dakota virtually no one knows about the national masters T&F meet, but they all know about the National Summer Senior Games in San Francisco in 2009.
In addition, most of the states have a State Senior Games, whereas, USAT&F has just a few annual Regional Masters Championship meets that include multiple-states and often long distance to attend.
Perhaps, USAT&F should move to have State Master Championship meets.
On the other hand, the National Summer Senior Games is only held every two (odd-numer) years. So one might think that in even number years our USAT&F national meet would see an increase in attendance. Apparently not.
Whatever masters athletes think about the USAT&F national meet (no previous qualifying) vs. the National Summer Senior Games (with qualifying), both still only award three medals per age group. Seemingly, your chances on medaling don’t improve by setting your sights on the National Summer Senior Games. But somehow (and without any hurdle races) it does attract more participants. It is puzzling.
Nat’l Senior Games is well off for me but is the rumor true that they have no steeplechase?
Actually, it wouldn’t be so terrible if they had minimum standards for all events not just field events. That would cut the time span down from 2 weeks to maybe 10 days or 1 week. The expenses involved for an extended period are a hardship for many talented athletes who would perform well but simply can’t afford two weeks away in a far-off land.
No steeplechase, Mellow Johnny, but the Sr Games represent the “hot stock” as far as track and field for “older folks” is concerned. Masters T&F (as measured by outdoor nationals), as I have tried to indicate elsewhere, is the stock you wish you hadn’t bought 20 years ago (and then held on to it). Way back in 1989, when the meet was in San Diego, we rang up 1450 entrants. Eleven years later (2000, Eugene) we had 1503. This year (Spokane), I doubt we had more than 995, but I have yet to see a final number.
And yet there is a ton of interest in masters track. This year, for example, the entries were staggering for the Penn Relays, and yet all you could run there was the 100 dash, the 4 x 100, or the 4 x 400 (and there was no 100 for women, as that event was dropped years ago for lack of interest).
Next year, the worlds (Finland) should draw a huge number, masters entries for Penn Relays will again be enormous, and they will be almost overrun with entrants at the National Senior Games at Stanford Univ (elsewhere I predicted 5000).
The masters indoors (Landover, Maryland) should draw extremely well. Smaller masters meets will be poorly attended if recent trends hold.
Make sense out of all of this if you can, Mellow Johnny. As noted, with a stock (masters outdoor nationals) that is falling in value (only ONE national outdoors in the past EIGHT managed to break the 1250 barrier), one needs to throw all preconceptions aside and figure out something new. Maybe masters track should merge with Apple; what do I know?
The NSG does not have hurdles, no steeplechase, no running event longer than a 1500m on the track. It does have all the jumps and throws. And it has race walking and 5k and 10 k road races. As for “qualifying” – while some may wax lyrical about having qualifying standards- look at them and then look at the results from 2007. You will see numerous competitors who ran, jumped, and threw at speeds, distances etc far below these standards. In Louisville – I was in a 1500m “race” with a woman who literally walked around the track. She “qualified” by turning up at her state senior games and completed the 1500m on the track there. I suspect she walked or “ran” just as slowly – but had no competition – so she “qualified”. Some of the “race walkers” were strolling. And you can find some pretty unskilled jumpers and throwers as well. The state games in my part of the country tend to encourage folks to “try” new events. It is darn hard to find coaches for the jumps and throws never mind a place to practice. I know competitors who throw only when they go to a meet.
The NSG is noted for its attitude that participation is the goal – or to quote Nike -“just do it’. There are some fine athletes who participate in NSG track and field, and there are plenty of folks who are “just doing it”. The “just doing it” folks are not the folks who will turn up at the National Masters Track and Field Meets. The NSG is a fun festival for the physically active – ranging in abilities from super stars to novices – and they are proud of that.
From what I hear from some participants in tne USATF National Masters meets – the “just doing it” folks should stay home – well almost all of them stay home- unless live in the neighborhood. The same is true for the most part at the WMA meets too – very few just doing it folks – except in the X-C and Marathon – and are from the home country or live close by. Some of those who compete in the state senior games think that the National Masters meets are only for “serious” competitors and they do not consider themselves all that “serious”.
Entry standards should serve a goal. The worlds in my opinion should last at most a week and when the number of participants is too high to put them all in one week, then come up with standards in the events with the most time consuming heats and qualifiing rounds. I even think the worlds should find place in one stadium, and when two or more are needed entry standards are the solution.
According hurdles and throws I have not changed my mind: lowering hurdle height is OK but changing distances I dislike. As I dislike lowering the weight in the throws, I even hate the 400 gram javelin I have to pick up in 2010…
Leave a Reply