Qualifying standards for 2010 indoor worlds at Kamloops?
So Lahti worlds this summer is a little dear (as the Brits say)? Then c’mon up to Kamloops in 2010, as the Canadians might say. The Kamloops world indoor masters championships now has a website for your surfing pleasure. But one mystery pertains. On the Athletes page, we read: “Qualification for Entry. . . To be announced.” I’m betting that some clueless webmaster put that in to emulate some IAAF website. We all know, of course, that WMA has never had a qualifying standard or “qualification for entry” — except for being at least the minimum age and paying the entry fee. I suspect this reference will vanish as soon as it’s noticed by WMA. Heck, Kamloops wants as many entrants as possible — not a hurdle to entry. Otherwise, the site looks great and shows potential for answering all questions.
Here’s what I spy on the Kamloops site:
14 Responses
No qualifying standards? Well, with my bad right leg (must be arthritis) I can’t break 12:00 for the 1500, but maybe I’ll enter anyway.
On the other hand, it looks like my case will be covered by the following language: “When a competitor in the opinion of the judges is lacking the necessary skill, technique or fitness to participate safely in the event, they shall have the authority to require the athlete to discontinue an event …” In other words, I would run/jog 2 or 3 laps and they would toss me.
Speaking of standards, and here I think I’m borrowing a bit from former Cal-Berkeley standout Rod Jett, when you tell someone (friends, coworkers, potential sponsors) that you are going to the World Indoor Masters they will often express interest and excitement. When you tell them that anyone (and I do mean anyone) can compete they lose ALL interest.
Thus, another way to look at the Kamloops event is that is an all-comers meet for people from around the world. I wouldn’t mind seeing standards, but I think they should be realistic. Here is what I would propose as standards for a popular event, the 400:
M35 54.00
M40 56.50
M45 59.50
………..
M70 1:28.00
M75 1:40:00
M80 2:00.00
W35 1:01.00
W40 1:07.00
W45 1:15.00
………..
W70 1:55.00
W75 2:05.00
W80 2:20.00
Am I being elitist? I don’t know. I do know that masters T&F/athletics is very much the exception, not the rule. In other T&F championships there are qualifying standards, why not masters?
On the other hand, if you make it difficult you will get far fewer competitors. So why not have modest standards that signal to everyone that these are no longer all-comers meets, they are actually championships. That way there might be some more interest.
I agree with Pete Taylor, but brick walls hurt!
Peter, Peter, we have beaten this horse to death a thousand times -but I give you credit – you did not mention the National Senior Games and their “qualifying standards”. There standards -may work for some sports in that they eliminate weak teams and players-but for track and field, and the road races – they are a hoot. One has to turn up at a state games and take part in the event, finish in the first three- which in at least 2007 and again in 2009 – has risen to first 4 (lack of competitors probably) – and you qualify. Perhaps for the younger men (in the 50’s perhaps) – this might be a challenge – but for the women – gimme a break.
Ok – Kamploops may be an expensive all-comers meet – but so was Clermont-Ferrand, Linz, etc. And – where are all these wealthy all comers who are going to fly a considerable distance at a considerable expense to run in this international all-comers meet? The events that attract the locals and can make it look a bit like an all-comers meet – the x-c and the half-marathon. The same thing holds true for the summer WMA meets – tons of locals turn up to run the x-c races and the marathon. A handful may be seen in the track events. Most who come are pretty serious about the sport even if they do not look like nor perform like elite athletes.
Real couch potatoes are home on the couch with the beer and chips, not flying off to exotic locals such as Kamloops in the late winter to take part in a track meet.
A high-level WMA source tells me that my understanding is correct — that there won’t be any qualifying standards or “Qualification for entry” aside from age and entry fee.
The “Qualification for entry” reference has now disappeared from the page in question.
All is well.
Once again much to do about nothing!
Just trying to give the meet some cachet, Mary, and I think it needs it. Not many will give a meet respect if it allows anyone to compete. On the other hand, meets/events that demand qualifying, like the open nationals, the NCAAs, the Boston Marathon, the Penn Relays (for many events), etc., etc., are given respect. It goes way beyond the fact that they require qualifying, but it sure doesn’t hurt these meets in terms of their prestige. I might add that they don’t struggle to get entrants, as Kamloops probably will.
From a longer perspective, this is the 5th decade for masters T&F in North America. If we can’t at this point require that someone be able to do an event with reasonable proficiency before entering a “world” championship, then perhaps we should give up (or do something organizationally that will increase participation).
I have been reading this blog since my first master national meet in 2006. Anytime I see something submitted by Peter Taylor I take the time to read it at least twice. I have never met the man, but it is obvious from the admiration he has from scores of masters athletes and he genuine concern for the state of masters athletics that his words are worth some attention. Reasonable standards for the world and perhaps even national championships would give those meets some added credibility. Although family responsibilities, work committments, monetary concerns, and physical condition (in that order) will determine my participation at Kamloops, I would at least like to be able to say I qualified for the meet. I realize there are a myraid of other issues once qualification standards are set, but if I were deciding, then there would be qualifying standards.
I’m with you all the way Peter T!
Although given my current performance, I would get benched or put on camera duty. 🙂
I agree with Pete. For any national championship meet there should be some kind of qualification standards.
I think that Mary Harada should understand the qualification standards for the Senior Games before she comments on them. While it’s true that the top 3 competitors qualify for the National Games, but the qualifiaction standards allow for a non placing competitor to also enter the nationals, as long as they’ve met the standard. From what I can see the standards in most events are reasonable, that is, not easily attained. The last time I looked the National Senior Games were not lacking for participants. They outdraw the USATF Nationals by a 4-1 or 5-1 margin.
Other drawback for women competitors over the age of 60 would be the cancellation of their events if a qualifying standards were established. The fields are pretty slim now, but if reasonable standards were to be established, you’d be lucky to find 1-2 competitors per event.
While I’ve had my share of disagreements with Gary Howitt in the past (even to the point of fisticuffs on several occasions), I am in total agreement with the above posting.
Make the Nationals stand for something other than a glorified all comers meet.
Thank you, Dan Murdock. Would you like some more bedtime reading? If so, I’ll give it to you with a fictional tale set in 2011.
January 2011. Our hero, Rodney Taylor, a “middling” hurdler at Ursinus College (Collegeville, PA) some 25 years ago, now lives in New Hope, PA, where he is a small-time politico and part-time insurance broker. Now 46, Rodney was affectionately known as “Skeets” in his college days, even though his best time in the 110 hurdles was a modest 15.15 seconds.
February 2011. Having read about the World Masters T&F championships to be held in Sacramento during the summer, Rodney gets thoroughly pumped. Yes! He consults the Web and finds there have traditionally been no qualifying standards. Become a USATF member, enter, and run.
March 2011. Having trained for a month, Rodney enters his first masters event, a 60-m affair held, ironically enough, at Ursinus College’s beautiful new indoor facility. The hurdles are at 39 inches (he ran 42 inches in college), but for some reason they seem to be 48 inches at Ursinus (they are actually set at 39 but they seem SO HIGH). Rodney trails the field until the last hurdle, crashes into it, and falls. Officially, he is “NT” for the race.
April 2011. Rodney finds that, for the first time, the Worlds will have standards (remember, folks, this is fiction). The standard for M45 is 18.50 seconds, which to many people seems reasonable enough (Olympian Karl Smith ran 14.41 at Charlotte in M45 in 2006). Rodney is stunned. As an American citizen he is entitled to do anything he wants as far as masters T&F, is he not?
Rodney consults his wife (Gladys), who agrees with him. She suggests calling Sen. Arlen Specter, who says he will look into it. Is this a case of discrimination or not, muses Sen. Specter. It doesn’t seem to be at the same level as Plessy vs. Ferguson or Brown vs. Board of Education, but the issue is intriguing. Should a masters athlete from the US (or anywhere) have to do an event with reasonable proficiency before his entry is accepted, or is this a God-given right?
May 2011. Rodney sends in his entry and, honest man that he is, submits “NT” as his time for the hurdles and notes that, for the record, his only race was in the 60-m hurdles. He is rejected immediately, but a message is sent to him that if he had broken 10.90 seconds in that indoor race it would have counted as qualifying.
June 2011. Sen. Specter obtains an injunction that prohibits the World Masters from enforcing the standards. Rodney is exultant.
July 2011. The Worlds begin. Because the 110-m hurdles is really a specialty event, there are only 11 entrants in M45, with 6 of them from the U.S. and 1 from Canada. Rodney was hand-timed at Central Bucks East HS in Holicong, PA, in 20.3 in June and he’s not too hopeful, but what’s the difference? He’s at the Worlds, and that is what is important.
The field of 11 scratches down to 9, and only 8 lanes will be used. Per masters dictum, a trial has to be run to eliminate just 1 competitor. Soon, Rodney hears whispers, which quickly grow to a chant: “Drop out, Skeets, so we won’t have to run a trial.” Someone says, “Is Renaldo ‘Skeets’ Nehemiah really here? Wow.” “No, the answer comes, it’s Skeets Taylor. And Skeets Taylor is a jumper. He jumps the hurdles rather than hurdling them.”
The meet administrators decide on a heat of 5 (including Skeets Taylor, who is assigned lane 4 –they will use lanes 2 through 6) followed by a heat of 4. Skeets remembers how to start, although he can no longer hurdle worth a lick. He barrels toward the first hurdle, crashes into it, falls into lane 3, knocking down that hurdler, who before he hits the track surface wipes out the hurdler in lane 2.
Only 3 hurdlers finish in heat 1, and all 4 hurdlers finish in heat 2. There is a field of 7 for the final.
Rodney “Skeets” Taylor is crestfallen, utterly defeated, as his Aunt Bertha and Uncle Chester from San Francisco have come to see him compete. But then his wife Gladys reminds him of the “Swim at the World Masters” event. Yes, the meet administrators have gotten together with the US swimming people, and there is an 800-m pool swim for masters T&F athletes only. Rodney goes silver in M45 and is ecstatic. Before leaving on the final day of the T&F championships he watches the “5,000 at the Worlds” road race, which draws over 1800 competitors.
You see, before Sen. Specter stepped in to get the injunction, the meet management was concerned that having standards might cut the attendance by 10% or so. They added a swim and a road race, and they ended up with the best attendance ever at a U.S. Worlds. Someone notes that it was a successful event, but one person is heard muttering: “Why not have qualifying standards for masters T&F, a swimming event, and a road race? Do you remember that Skeets Taylor from Pennsylvania? The guy wiped out two …..” His voice cannot be heard any longer, however, as James Taylor’s voice is piped in, something about seeing fire and rain, or is it seeing Carolina in his mind? Either way, it sounds pretty good, very sweet in fact.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Peter. It’s obviously anything BUT a dead horse.
There is something magical about a standard: a goal that we strive for, that motivates us throughout the year. Just qualifying for the meet makes a statement people can be proud of, a level of commitment that requires much more than a credit card or a travel agent. I envision competitors seeing each other at Nationals greeting each other with “Congratulations, you made it! Way to go, you did it!”, as opposed to accepting the shallow truth that being there requires no talent whatsoever.
Would participation drop? Overall, no, and here’s a couple of reasons:
1) It’s psychological: Make something hard to obtain, and we all want to get it. Make something easy to obtain, and it’s ignored as worthless. Psych 101, I’m not making it up! 😉
2) Requiring qualifying at USATF meets for the National meet would improve participation at those qualifying meets (speak up USATF Association & Regional meet directors.) Perhaps a combination of ways to qualify should be in place, as the Seniors seem to be doing.
There are always going to be folks that want to be included, that don’t want to be left out, that want to do everything to encourage participation, that demean others for acting exclusive. However, this “increase numbers no matter what the cost” attitude is what actually dilutes the attraction. The value of the National Meet product has been greatly diminished, to the point that many athletes actually aren’t interested at all. Why should they be? Make the prize attractive, and more will strive for it.
Hop onto this bus to increase the value of the National Championships. Implement some reasonable qualifying standards that are reviewed and altered annually. I don’t have a shred of doubt that this increased value from qualifying standards will generate more interest and more participation.
I’ve heard it said before. It’s the National Championships, not an all-comers meet. The statement “I’m proud to be at Nationals” should require more than one’s wallet.
And then the next step: Create medal standards!
Couldn’t agree with you more, Jeff Brower. What is largely ignored (but which you do not ignore) is the “attractive” nature of standards. How many times have I heard the following words fom a long-distance runner:
“I’m trying to qualify for Boston.” Yes, history aside,in this modern world of short attention spans Boston would be JUST ANOTHER MARATHON if it didn’t have qualifying standards. Thus, it increases its attendance dramatically by having standards.
Realistically, in the short term I think our national masters would drop slightly in attendance the first two or three years after standards were imposed, but after that attendance should go up. One, it would be an “attractive” meet.
Two, it would be the final step after a qualifying round, which could be completed at the Senior Games (state level), at the masters regional/sectional championships, at the Hayward Masters Classic, at the indoor masters nationals, at the Penn Relays, at the Southeastern Masters Nationals, etc., etc. We would have to work on this to formalize it a bit — qualify locally or regionally and then go on to nationals.
BTW, in my story above only 2 people made it out of the first heat, as Skeets wiped out not only himself but the two hurdlers inside of him.
having spent some time in Kamloops qualifying standards may be a bit tricky. The reason is that Kamloops isn’t really a destination place (unless you want to go skiing) at that time of the year (I could see the XC race having some problems with snow and temperature). I could see them having some problems in getting people up there and getting in ‘locals’ might be the main way to get entries.
Leave a Reply