National Senior Games posts minimum standards for 2011
Folks at the National Senior Games have posted “minimum performance standards” for the 2011 National Senior Olympics in Houston. It’s part of a long PDF on rules. See it here. The track and field qualifying standards are reasonable, but aren’t for the Bermuda-shorts-and-sun-hat crowd. As far as my wild-ass speculation about the NSGA “absorbing” USATF, well, it’s still in the realm of possibility down the line. At the least, an affiliation with NSGA would afford us full-time professional marketing help (as opposed to part-time amateur promotion now). And our dues would be better spent — as opposed to mostly absorbed by the elite budget of USA Track & Field. So forgive my jumping the gun. You haven’t heard the last on NSGA and USATF masters.
Here are the marks you need for the 2011 National Senior Olympics.
17 Responses
I found this to be REALLY surprising, as it is out of character with the spirit of these games. So I read the rules changes.
Actually, the rules changes have made it EASIER for the less talented to participate in track and field in the national senior games.
In past years, to qualify, one had to finish first, second, or third in a state senior games to automatically qualify for the national senior games in any T&F event, OR meet one of these minimum standards. In many states, including mine in PA, participation is sparse, so almost everyone who participated could qualify–at least in the track events longer than 800.
Last year, the national senior games waived this requirement of being in the top three, and initially made it the top four. And then they waived even that and let everyone who participated in an event at the state level to qualify for the nationals.
The new rules codify the original lowering of the standards–permitting the first four in an event at the state games in odd-numbered years to qualify for the nationals, which are held in even-numbered years. If you are not in the top four in an event, THEN you may still qualify by meeting the standards for each event that are in this PDF.
In 2007, I participated in the Orono meet and in 2008, I participated in Spokane. In 2009, I decided to “try something completely different” and went out to Palo Alto for the national senior games.
Palo Alto was much more fun. Sure, I was somewhat annoyed to have to do the 5,000 and 10,000 on the roads rather than the track. And my two track events (800 and 1500) were rescheduled to the same days as these road races, which themselves were on back-to-back days. But overall, I found the competition to be quite good and the experience far superior. Lots of activities going on, and other sports to watch. Had my picture taken with Bruce Jenner minutes after competing in my heat of the 1500. The host city acted as if they knew we were there and put out a red carpet.
Not everyone is an elite athlete (and it is not as if one has to qualify for USATF nationals) and I really think our society is served well by the spirit of the senior games movement–which is more about participation, friendship and overall health/fitness and less on winning–although those of us who think winning and competition are important will find they will still have to work hard in order to medal at this level.
I probably will miss Sacramento in order to compete in the PA Senior Games that are being held the same weekend. And I haven’t decided about the national senior games, which are being held in Houston in August–which could possibly turn a national championship road race into a death march.
I do not see anything that suggests that one MUST meet the minimum qualifying standard. I have no doubt but that finishing 1-3 will be the main qualifying mark – and then – when not enough people sign up – they will lower it to 4th finishers as well.
And just for everyone’s information – Ken – you are wildly off the mark about NSG “absorbing” masters track – My mole tells me that “the agreement is for USATF Masters to run the NSGA meets. NSGA is getting the governing bodies of various sports to work with NSGA in putting on a quality games.”
Please note the language “work with NSG”. That is a very long way from taking over.
And add to that the vote was nearly unanimous to have the date for determining competition age 12/31 – one vote against. so – you NSG enthusiasts – keep in mind that you may actually be – for example 55 and in a new age group by the time of the NSG -maybe set a record – but you came in second or third in your race because the folks who beat you turn 55 after the meet but by Dec 31. How about them apples!
Where’s the “HAMMER THROW” standard?
I competed in the NSGA meet at Stanford. I had not competed in the State Games the year before, so I had a lot of trouble entering the meet. The NSGA graciously waived the rule and let me compete. I had a wonderful time and would like to compete in Houston but might not be able to compete in the State meet in Pasadena in June. Can I compete in Houston if I meet the minimum standard?
I think the standard is a good idea. They are difficult enough to keep total novices from competing, yet easy enough for active older athletes.
Good question, Tom. Sometimes it is nearly impossible to compete in a qualifying meet. In my case, I had to limp through 8 events with two stress fractures in order to qualify. It was still fun and I didn’t do any damage, but it would have been better for me not to have had that pressure.
The men’s standards are much tougher than the women’s…
the mens 50-54 DISCUS mark seems designed to force you to show up for a state qualifying meet, ’cause the posted minimum apparently is a long-time minimum, not “revised”- only 5 athletes in Wisconsin for USATF Nationals beat that 40.46m mark….
M5-54 javelin is decent, the “minimum” would only have been 9th at Wisconsin….and shotput is very low, 11.43m, which any 50-54 showing up at a National event should be able to exceed.
What about the other events- how are the standards- easy or tough?
Good to see some people liking, or at least on the fence, about the qualifying standard used in the NSGA. Would be nice to see it used in USATF Masters championships on a trial basis.
The Hammer Throws specs are the same place as the Hurdle specs–non-existent. NSG doesn’t have either. Seniors are too frail to do hurdles or throw hammer (but they can pole vault) see it all makes sense.
The limitation of qualifying on one particular day completely prevented me from considering competing last year. 2009 I was marginally healthy, but I would have had to qualify in 2008. I made it to the meet, but spent most of the meet sitting in a chair playing meet announcer because that was all I could do. Qualifying for a meet 14 or more months in advance of the big meet makes almost as much sense as having to register for a meet a month in advance, so I guess USATF wins on that logic.
Actually the hammer IS contested at the NSG and in a growing number of state senior games; this has been true since the Louisville NSG in 2007. Because it is still only in a minority of state games, many use an alternate means of qualifying by having certified results from a USATF sanctioned meet. The omission of the HT from this list makes one wonder, however, if they are skipping the event in Houston after including it the last two times. I’ll have to look into that.
Just checked the NSGA Rule Book for 2011. The Hammer and Triple Jump are still included, but are what they call “limited events” along with the Pole Vault. What they mean by this is that the event is contested in a limited number of state games and so qualification can be through an alternate means. In the case of the HT and TJ you need to submit verification of having competed in two USATF sanctioned competitions during 2010; for the PV you need to achieve the standard listed above in a USATF sanctioned competition.
Still no hurdles though.
No multis?
gd
The senior games (SG) in New Jersey are a terrible disappointment. I hope that the SG in other states are better than here.
In my first year of eligibility, I entered the NJSG. At the last minute, the meet was moved from one high-school track (which was being re-surfaced and not ready in time) to another that was in an adjacent town. The track on which we competed had a running surface that was blacktop. Not only that but the track had numerous cracks. Some cracks were big enough that weeds protruded from them and were quite visible. No lie. You just hoped that your lane assignment didn’t have too many “obstacles” that you had to negotiate. Moreover, it was hand-timed by high-school kids. The results weren’t posted on-line for at least several months. And even then, results from only a few events were given. All that for a 25-dollar entry fee.
I competed again the next year, attributing much of the nonsense from the previous year to the last-minute change in venue. Although the track was new, the other issues were more of the same. Once again, the timing was done by high-school kids with stopwatches. There were other logistical issues, too, that I won’t get into. I sent an e-mail to the person in charge to voice my concerns about meet organization/management. Never heard back. I sent a follow-up e-mail. Never heard back. (Note: That meet was held on Sep 13, 2008 and the results weren’t posted on-line until Jul 14, 2009 – a full 10 months later! – at around the same time the announcement was posted for the 2009 SG.)
In contrast, the meets in which I’ve competed that are run by the USATF-NJ have been very well organized/managed. The entry fee has been 17 bucks and you get about half of that back on arrival by way of a tote bag or mug. It’s always electronic timing and the results are usually posted on-line within a matter of days.
Here in New Jersey, the difference between the SG and USATF-NJ meets is night and day.
I have been reviewing the various reasons and responces re: to track I would like to adress the bowling . I have placed in the mixed and the doubles but not in the singles I want to go to Houston Tx in the summer but I only have a maybe on the doubles and therefor will not go. if I was also able to bowl in the singles it would be worth going.
This year (2011) was the first time I have EVER competed in Senior Games. An interesting experience because I was not a track person in high school or college; simply execised as an adult. Anyway, I competed in the 2011 Nevada Senior Games; winning 4 Gold medals in 4 events. After reading the many comments I guess I’m a novice athletically,as I have not been doing this for a number of years; like many others who have been competing.I think the men’s standards are obtainable goals (at least for me) for my age group; 55-59, because I’m 57 until April. I’m motivated right now to compete in SEVERAL State Senior Games in the upcoming year; hoping to improve. This stuff is “cool” to me. Thanks for the opportunity to have some Senior fun!
Oops!..Sorry, I want to add that the track and field venue was held at UNLV and was really good; a “fast track”, weather was cooperative. Posting of event outcomes took about 2 weeks, staff was cooperative during the entire event. Looking forward to competing in California, Utah, Arizona and Texas.
So if the minimum performance standards have been lowered since 2011; how come when you post performance times that the site does not recognize the performce time (that is if met or exceeded)?
Leave a Reply