That's a question somebody is surely going to pose soon, so let me try to get ahead of the curve for you. This boilerplate appears with the IAAF's current series of meet previews:
<<After the last qualifying meeting, the IAAF Golden League meeting in Berlin (Sunday 16 September), the process began to contact all the athletes concerned to ascertain that they are fit and willing to compete. Not until those answers are received, wild card entries are decided, and the usual technical meeting is held on the day before the World Athletics Final, can the final start list be made available.>>
But IAAF sources say they are hopeful of getting a "preliminary list" posted late Wednesday or early Thursday. One suspects that at that point they'll at least know of any top 7s who have dropped out.
Last edited by gh on Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
This has to be a massively frustrating job, esp. this late after the WC. Some people have shut it down, and may or may not come - I can't imagine they'd actually have a start list w/lane assignments till really late in the game.
No. As lamented by me on another thread they're using the yearly list for seed order. I lament not because I'd like random draw, but because if they're going to base admission into the meet on a point-scoring system, why isn't that system good enough for seeding purposes? (other than giving the wild card the last seed, that is)
At what point does $2000 for just showing up become the equivalent of not bending over to pick up a penny in the street?
Precisely. If you look at the last few years, actually very few athletes pass up on the WAF unless there is an injury involved. If anything, it's the REAL BIG stars, for whom USD 30k may not be that big a deal compared to the risks involved (such as losing to their no. 1 rival and spoiling their perfect season record). For the others, particularly the field eventers (and especially the throwers), the money's just too good to be ignored.
EPelle wrote:Sounds like your point is that travelling 5.000km won:t yield fast times, not when the 5.000km is travelled and in relation to what meet.
The times weren't particularly fast last year, so it probably has less to do with the travel than the (late) date. I just don't think the athletes are as focused on getting their bodies attuned to the meet as they were for the WC, but they're pros, so they'll be fine. I retract my earlier comment.
You don:t have to retract. I:m not interested in watching 1.48 800m races in september, either. I would like to see Sanna chop off a few more 1/100 in her speciality, however.
Addendum: "Athletes competing in 1500m, 5000m, 3000m, 3000m Steeplechase who finish from 9th to 12th place will receive prize money of US $1000 each." [Source: IAAF]
The IAAF is in the process of uploading the start lists to their website even as we speak (04:30 PDT). I've had a quick peek, and at least one event doesn't have the full complement of 8 yet. Some/lots of big names missing, as we have seen hints of already.
gh wrote:The IAAF is in the process of uploading the start lists to their website even as we speak (04:30 PDT). I've had a quick peek, and at least one event doesn't have the full complement of 8 yet. Some/lots of big names missing, as we have seen hints of already.
Notable that there's no Felix in the 400m(which has it's full compliment of 8 listed). Too bad.
One slot still to be filled in the 200, perhaps her wildcard.
gh wrote:The IAAF is in the process of uploading the start lists to their website even as we speak (04:30 PDT). I've had a quick peek, and at least one event doesn't have the full complement of 8 yet. Some/lots of big names missing, as we have seen hints of already.
My quick peek shows the missing include Lagat, Wariner, Saladino, Liu, and K Bekele.
Felix running only the 100. Taylor doubling 400/400H.
The distance races, other than those listed above, all have 11. I thought they took 12, but perhaps they're stopping at 11. Otherwise, add those to the not-full list.
tandfman wrote:The distance races, other than those listed above, all have 11. I thought they took 12, but perhaps they're stopping at 11. Otherwise, add those to the not-full list.
Maybe reserving a spot for a pacemaker... would be a nice change from the dawdling at past WAFs
tandfman wrote:My quick peek shows the missing include Lagat, Wariner, Saladino, Liu, and K Bekele.
Also Gay, Bolt, Xman, Borza, Rudisha (won the 800 in Brussels and was in top 8 qs), Torri Edwards, V.Campbell, Mutola, Dibaba (x2), Pavey, Pechenkina, Kluft, Gomes,
Upsides are:
v.strong W400, W800, WSteeple (i'm tipping a WR here) and almost complete field lineups...
tandfman wrote:My quick peek shows the missing include Lagat, Wariner, Saladino, Liu, and K Bekele.
Also Gay, Bolt, Xman, Borza, Rudisha (won the 800 in Brussels and was in top 8 qs), Torri Edwards, V.Campbell, Mutola, Dibaba (x2), Pavey, Pechenkina, Kluft, Gomes,
Upsides are: v.strong W400, W800, WSteeple (i'm tipping a WR here) and almost complete field lineups...
Did Samitova have enough races/points to run at the WAF's?
tandfman wrote:My quick peek shows the missing include Lagat, Wariner, Saladino, Liu, and K Bekele.
Also Gay, Bolt, Xman, Borza, Rudisha (won the 800 in Brussels and was in top 8 qs), Torri Edwards, V.Campbell, Mutola, Dibaba (x2), Pavey, Pechenkina, Kluft, Gomes,
Upsides are: v.strong W400, W800, WSteeple (i'm tipping a WR here) and almost complete field lineups...
For me, it's almost all upsides. I'm thinking that the bulk of the big names who are absent wouldn't change their ultimate World Ranking position much no matter what happens. And even more importantly, there are some very-much-hanging No. 1s that absolutely depend on this meet. mTJ, w100H (Lolo Jones as designated pincushion ).
gh wrote:For me, it's almost all upsides. I'm thinking that the bulk of the big names who are absent wouldn't change their ultimate World Ranking position much no matter what happens. And even more importantly, there are some very-much-hanging No. 1s that absolutely depend on this meet. mTJ, w100H (Lolo Jones as designated pincushion ).
The key words there are "for me." Since you're talking about T&FN's rankings, it's perfectly understandable that you would think and feel as you do.
But I wonder how many people sitting in the stands in Stuttgart, or watching the meet on tv, will be thinking of how the outcome of various events may affect the T&FN world rankings. I actually care about the rankings, but I suspect that if I were at the meet, they wouldn't be on my radar screen during the competition. And even though the absent superstars' rankings may be assured, I'd enjoy watching them perform and I'd miss them if I were there and they were not.
Which is one reason why I--whom most probably thought cheered and said "no more competition!" when the IAAF Rankings died--wish they were still alive.
As people noted on an earlier thread, some sports having their most important competitinos not at the end of the year (Daytona for NASCAR, Masters for golf...). But note that NASCAR points-fight wages right until the end (and they make hay out of hit), and the golf thing last weekend was relatively dramatic in the weeks leading in until Tiger took a shotgun to that balloon.
Point being, IAAF could/should have been able to do a better job of marketing the Rankings, and it would surely help the locals promote if they could say "Kallur vs. Perry for No. 1 in the hurdles."
Of course, the way the IAAF Rankings were set up, with a performance coefficient, helped kill that concept. Wouldn't just be enough for X to beat Y; the time would also matter, which, I think,is most unfortunate.
Perhaps they'll try again with a more workable setup. I always had the feeling the original was set up by a math guy with limited appreciation for the sport and a true love for creating a formula which reduced everything to numbers. But the lack of knowledge of how the sport worked led to too many bad assumptions and nobody ever challenged him on it. (Well, I tried, but that's another story.)
).