|
|
Post by ronb on Dec 14, 2009 20:47:42 GMT -5
Today, the Head Coach of the U.K. Athletics team, spoke out and tried to justify tougher standards for the U.K. team to the European Championships next summer, with the following intellectual gems....
* " no-one ever jumped higher by lowering the bar".
and
* "we are looking for contenders, not pretenders".
I think this guy is in direct line to ascend to the top of our sport in Canada... Non-knowing bureaucrats love guys that talk like this, and it will take a few years to prove that just toughening up standards, without any real attempt to develop the sport, will prove absolutely futile...
Meanwhile, the USA just goes along selecting all who have made the International Standards, without even thinking of imposing tougher standards --- I wonder which approach will prove to be the more successul over time...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Dec 14, 2009 22:29:17 GMT -5
Interesting, Ron. And it's true that the U.S. has managed to create something of a renaissance in distance running without ever applying "super-standards", even during years when their runners struggled to make meet standards after finishing top 3 at their trials. In the marathon, their nadir came in 2000, when only one athlete-- Rod Dehaven-- had run fast enough to be entered in the Sydney Games. They stuck with their practice of using only games standards-- thereby keeping the dream alive for more athletes-- and American marathoners and their supporters raised their OWN standard in the only way standards ever get raised: by making it possible, and meaningful, for more people to stay in the sport, and by competing with one another to represent the country at major games.
It's very rare that anyone ever becomes competitive internationally without first encountering good, deep competition on the national level-- which is a function of sheer numbers, with numbers being a function of the existence of broad incentives. And in places where people don't approach running as a means of material survival, the best incentives, I would argue, are clear, reasonable standards. But wait: AC's standards regime has little or nothing to do with improving performance and everything to do with keeping team sizes small and Sport Canada funding up. This British guy may actually believe that his tough talk is going to make a difference (and the Brits probably have tons of cash lined up for 2012) , but I doubt anyone at AC genuinely believes this stuff any more. They been going on this vein for years now without have any appreciable effect on our net performance at the top levels-- except perhaps a negative one.
|
|
bcg
Junior Member
Posts: 65 
|
Post by bcg on Dec 14, 2009 23:18:08 GMT -5
Wise words by both ronb and oldster. AC, are you listening?  |
|
|
|
Post by lukesteer93 on Dec 14, 2009 23:33:24 GMT -5
I find it crazy that we lose out 23-1 in terms of medal count at the bejing games to the americans, yet our 10 000 m qualifying standard (for example) at 27:50 is 35 seconds FASTER than that of the americans.
Surely if we want to expose our athletes to high levels of international competition, which will motivate our elite athletes to continue at high levels, it would be in AC's best interests to back off on our standards. For a country who's success has been so limited as of late, it can't be a bad idea to follow the example the premier country on the track is setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukesteer93 on Dec 14, 2009 23:35:12 GMT -5
|
|
Catts
Full Member
Posts: 181
|
Post by Catts on Dec 15, 2009 7:30:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lukesteer93 on Dec 15, 2009 9:08:27 GMT -5
my mistake catts, thanks for the correction
|
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Dec 15, 2009 10:47:39 GMT -5
This brings up another point which I have mentioned before...
Look at those standards for just getting to Nationals!?!
I realize we don't have the depth in population/athletes that the U.S. does, but I think tougher standards to qualify for our National Championships would be a great thing!
For the competitiveness, the spectators, the depth in the sport etc..
I know from living and training with numerous American athletes down there for 6 years that most of them have a goal of just qualifying for the National Championships. All they want is a chance to compete there.
The attitude up here is just not the same. Nationals is looked at as more of a right to compete than a privilege to do so.
I think if we had tougher standards to qualify for Nationals it could become a distinction and highlight to run there... You would see the overall depth increase because people would have to work harder just to get there!
Note: I realize this is what has been used as justification for tougher team standards, but I don't think bumping down a time like 1:54, 3:53, 9:35, 14:25 is the same as changing IAAF standards. (Those times are a little different than 1:46, 3:36, 8:30, 13:20...)
|
|
|
|
Post by coldneck on Dec 15, 2009 11:15:01 GMT -5
It's all relative Linc. The same arguments can be made for any tougher standard. If Nationals are a big goal (like you said in your post) and the standards seem too far off then we'll lose numbers. Same thing with the Olympics, if the standards are too hard then you lose some athletes. On the other hand if standards are too weak then people don't aim high enough. It's a fine line and you have to remember not everyone is as fast as you and yet are still motivated, have goals and are involved in the sport.
I think some of the numbers at nationals are already too low (mainly the 5000m and 10 000m) and setting tougher standards will reduce those numbers even more.
What some people need is a championship between Olympics/Worlds and Nationals to bridge the gap. We'll just have to wait and see where AC sets the Commonwealth standard for 2010...
|
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Dec 15, 2009 11:35:54 GMT -5
This brings up another point which I have mentioned before... Look at those standards for just getting to Nationals!?! I realize we don't have the depth in population/athletes that the U.S. does, but I think tougher standards to qualify for our National Championships would be a great thing! For the competitiveness, the spectators, the depth in the sport etc.. I know from living and training with numerous American athletes down there for 6 years that most of them have a goal of just qualifying for the National Championships. All they want is a chance to compete there. The attitude up here is just not the same. Nationals is looked at as more of a right to compete than a privilege to do so. I think if we had tougher standards to qualify for Nationals it could become a distinction and highlight to run there... You would see the overall depth increase because people would have to work harder just to get there! Note: I realize this is what has been used as justification for tougher team standards, but I don't think bumping down a time like 1:54, 3:53, 9:35, 14:25 is the same as changing IAAF standards. (Those times are a little different than 1:46, 3:36, 8:30, 13:20...) I could not disagree more. For a young athelete to make the nats it is an excellent learning experience. Weed these althletes out via either timed sections or heats but give them the chance to participate; racing and learning to race (i.e. multiple races to get the finals) are very different things in my opinion. We are already struggling with extremely low participation rates at these events ... how does it hurt to let a 15min+ young male 5000m runner into the same race as the low 14min to high 13min guys? These events are hollow if you only cater to the elite ... plus the event itself is a joke ... nobody watching the few athletes who can qualify or dare to enter; there must be a developmental path. Look at the success of the masters level atheletes at the Athletics Ontario cross-country meets ... a great event for parent and child combos! The athletics ontario model is a good example (mixed age class events like BMYs (old BMJs)). From personal experience I fondly remember running the 5000m against Steve Boyd and other distance runners in Ontario back in the late 80s when I was a teen. For me I never ran 5000m before on the track, nor with such competition (I went through 3000m in a pb also ... then tanked it out over the last 2k!). Hamilton Spectator Games also gave this opportunity. We don't have the luxury in CDN athletics to take this approach; we need to be inclusive not exclusive and focus on the bigger holistic picture. Running like other sports is a game of numbers ... the more little seeds you process through the system the higher the probability you get a gem. |
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Dec 15, 2009 11:45:22 GMT -5
I think some of the numbers at nationals are already too low (mainly the 5000m and 10 000m) and setting tougher standards will reduce those numbers even more. What some people need is a championship between Olympics/Worlds and Nationals to bridge the gap. We'll just have to wait and see where AC sets the Commonwealth standard for 2010... I definitely agree with you here. The 5 and 10 shouldn't be made any tougher for Nationals...and bridging the gap! I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of 800/1500m where the 800 went from 4 or 5 heats to a final and the 1500 from 3 heats. If you know you're on the bubble for one of those, maybe you consider the move up to the 5km where you could get in. Too many people seem to stick around at the shorter distances too long I think, and that's why the numbers are so low in the longer stuff?? |
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Dec 15, 2009 12:07:33 GMT -5
That is what Junior Nationals is for. No?
How does letting a 15min+ 5000m runner race with 14min to high 13min guys possibly help the 15min guy learn how to race?
Catering to the Elite?? This is the attitude I refer to. It is NATIONALS. It should be all the BEST in the country, not whoever feels like coming.
There is a developmental path. Its called AO championships/BC championships/Quebec Championships etc./West Coast Series/East Coast Series/ OU Championships/CIS Championships/ Conference Meets in the U.S.....
The National Championship, in most cases, should be the culmination of the developmental path!?! Not the main part of it.
Exactly, there are plenty of other opportunities other than Nationals for this.
I agree.
|
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Dec 15, 2009 13:05:13 GMT -5
From Linc:
"How does letting a 15min+ 5000m runner race with 14min to high 13min guys possibly help the 15min guy learn how to race?"
In most cases championship races are not record breaking attempts with killer pace but strategic quick pace changing events; a learned skill only mastered via competition.
Again learning how to race vs learning how to pace ... different beasts for many kids/runners who in many cases try to run away from the competition. At higher levels this tactic really doesn't work (unless your initials are KB).
To take another tanget I take a look at poker today ... one of the thrilling aspects of the "sport?" is that any joe can sit at the table with the pro (and usually get schooled).
In my opinion a massive rethink of TF/XC (from top to bottom ranging from administration to how events are structured and presented ) is required; no new or crazy ideas are out of the realm of consideration imho (look at Penn Relays ... how can we transfer that energy and excitement to Nats?).
Higher standards will only further kill the National Championships ... again just an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Dec 15, 2009 13:11:14 GMT -5
If my memory isn't failing me, I think the 1500 standard for the 1996 Trials was something like 3:46.0 (auto) and 3:47.6 (provisional). The field had two full semifinals, and it definitely felt like an accomplishment to be there. On the other hand, my memory of the 2004 Trials is that the field wasn't even full and there were quite a few runners coming in with times in the 3:50s. Given a choice between the two scenarios, I'd obviously prefer the buzz of the 1996 races. But I'm not sure raising standards would do anything to get there.
In fact, compared to 2004, the scenario from the past few years with packed fields (but lower standards) seems preferable. It makes it seem like lots of people actually want to be there!
One approach would be to go back to having auto and provisional times. You could tighten the auto standards up, but leave leeway in the provisional standards to make sure you have a full field of whatever size you predetermine is appropriate (24 in the 1500, for example). That way the provisional standards keep nationals as a realistic goal for developing athletes, but if some events are way more popular than others (e.g. 1500 vs. 5000) it nudges some of them in the direction of the less popular event.
|
|
|
|
Post by ottlcoach on Dec 15, 2009 14:17:04 GMT -5
I always get a kick out of seeing the comparison of standards between AC and USATF. What I think many people don't realize is that USATF can't actually change their standards for the Olympics, even if they felt it would encourage better competition. The USOC is mandated by congress to send the largest US Olympic team as possible. As such, a move by USATF to increase standards and deplete the qualifying pool would be in violation of such mandate.
It would be interesting see what would happen if the House of Commons put forth such a mandate to the COC.
|
|
STIkS
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by STIkS on Dec 15, 2009 16:12:57 GMT -5
I agree with Ahutch, the Auto and Provisional standard is probably one of the better methods of developing athletes and giving them the nudge to a different event. I think in general, Canada has a large number of runners in events that they aren't suited towards (we definitely verge towards shorter distances). Definitely a topic for a different thread though...
|
|
|
|
Post by bdeacon on Dec 15, 2009 16:31:17 GMT -5
The issue revolves around the simple question of how best to develop athletes. It seems to me that we have a great examples of successful systems: OFSAA.
We continually develop amazing talent out of the Ontario high school system, for a comparatively small population compared to many states. Here, in a nutshell, are some of the system's strengths:
1) OFSAA offers regular competitions that get progressively more difficult. Yes, it is probably more than when I was in high school, and yes it is probably more than are needed. Nevertheless, there are good opportunities to learn to race.
2) OFSAA itself carries huge incentives. If you return to your high school having come top five at OFSAA, you gain some social standing. It might not translate into money for nothing and chicks for free, but it has enough incentive to warrant some sacrifices. Peer respect is a very important motivator.
3) There is a "season" that has a beginning, middle and end. Oh sure, you can continue in summer track, but the OFSAA season can and does stand alone in many instances.
If we compare OFSAA to the Canadian system, we see that we have a ways to go. If you are a top level athlete, then you probably can survive on the European system. If you are a scholarship athlete then you can get by on the US system. However, if you are a Canadian athlete competing at a national or emerging elite level, then there really isn't a system for you. There are not a series of meets that progressively get you to a peak race. Our season starts with top quality races in the US...arrive ready to race at your top levels...especially if you are a 5/10 runner.
Assume that the season is heading for the nationals. There is little cache should you come top five or even top three. In most cases, national teams have been all-but decided before the gun goes off. As was mentioned, national races are often tactical, so the incentive or running your best time is often not there.
Ideally, we would have a strong domestic season that would culminate in the national championships. Prize money would be available at the nationals (if rowing can do it...why not us). The top five would qualify for a subsidized European tour and a national team singlet/track suit. We would find a base in Europe and have our team compete in a series of meets (think any winter sport). We would fund a media person to travel with the team and would encourage the athletes to use blogs and twitter to keep domestic fans informed.
Oh...one more thing. We need to revive an indoor season held in hockey arenas. Indoors is, from a development perspective, not much more than a fun distraction. But from a marketing perspective it is critical for our sport. We need it in arenas because it is difficult to develop any atmosphere in your typical field house. Alternatively, we could host it in a darkened fieldhouse with spot lights and rock music.
My message is clear...we need to develop a domestic season(s). It needs to mean something to athletes, be progressive throughout the season, culminate domestically at our nationals. We need to sell a bit of sizzle, and ladder into international opportunities. If national teams such as Olympics, Pan Ams, and Commonwealth Games team sizes are capped, and Worlds teams are restricted for Sport Canada ratios, then we need to create opportunities (like Guelph has done) that expose athletes to international racing.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetcoast on Dec 15, 2009 18:00:30 GMT -5
Having not run until middle age - so not having the luxury of seeing what all the sizzle is and or where it is in track, I have the benefit of a fresh pair of eyes. I agree wholeheartedly with Bruce on the selling the sizzle thing.
Darkness, loud music, fun - prims (sp?) etc etc....there is so much to do out there in sport that is so much sexier. Trathlon, MMA, downhill ski, Hockey....these are sports and their events sold with sizzle. Although a 5:00 a.m. hockey practice in a cold arena, leaves a little to be desired.
I say sell it and they will come. Then follow-up with the delivering of the goods - but SELL IT first.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Dec 15, 2009 18:42:00 GMT -5
I would imagine that if track athletes had to endure 5am training sessions because the sport was so popular, the usual suspects would be blaming AC.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Dec 15, 2009 20:05:07 GMT -5
Your subtlety eludes me here, SI, but I recognize myself in your "usual suspects" reference. For my part, my criticisms of AC are highly focused on two areas: funding for national teams (and junior teams in particular) and standards/selection. Sure, I have a rather more lengthy analysis of why I think they fall short in these areas, but I would have no complaints at all about the organization if it stepped up in at these one of these two areas, or at least seemed to be fighting the good fight on them. And, for the record, I think their work on developing a set of comprehensive LTAD guidelines was an excellent use of time and money, and produced a great final product. I also think they've done an excellent job in reviving the once flagging national road 10k championships. AC does some worthwhile things, and employs some great people; it is far from the only thing wrong with the sport in this country. But, its in a rather unique position to among stakeholders to start turning things around, as so has to come in for some sharper criticism. I'd even wager that most of the people in the organization recognize and accept this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Dec 15, 2009 20:05:20 GMT -5
I would imagine that if track athletes had to endure 5am training sessions because the sport was so popular, the usual suspects would be blaming AC. I'm not sure what you are saying there, SI. Please explain your point - thanks ! Otherwise, if you weren't there during the 1980's, we did all those things... In Vancouver (Burnaby) and Victoria, and many other cities and towns in B.C. And the guys at McGill also followed up with some excellent replication of our efforts in B.C. Great fields, good pacemakers, a serious emphasis on pushing the pace and running fast, introductions of each athlete, good press coverage, some music, etc., etc., etc. None of this is brand new - as I have said before (ad nauseam for some, I am sure), our future is in our past, and trying to do some of the amazing things that we did almost 3 decades ago... |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Dec 15, 2009 20:15:31 GMT -5
The Auto and Provisional Standard is an interesting idea. Where it breaks down, I think, is in the airfares. If you are living a long way from the Nationals, and need to get a cheap ticket, you need to know, as early as possible, if you are in the Meet or not.
However, for every problem, there is an opportunity. So if we had a Major Airline as one of our Nationals sponsors (I think it's either Air Canada or WestJet), and we agreed to try and get everyone using that Airline to get to Nationals, then there might be more flexibility in getting tickets at a good rate, even with only 10 days to go. I think there are some interesting possibilities in that area...
I like the idea of Nationals being more inclusive - a four day Meet, with 3 rounds in the shorter distance events, and 2 rounds in the Steeple and 5K, would be great... Lots more sponsor potential, our best guys/gals will come through just fine and gain a little more experience in running the rounds, and one hell of a party to finish.....
Top 60 in the Country in the Distance Events is fine --- I still like the idea of holding the 10K earlier, and in a different part of our Country. Of course, that will have the effect, as we proved many years ago, of having a much deeper 10K and 5K at our Nationals...
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Dec 15, 2009 21:32:24 GMT -5
The Auto and Provisional Standard is an interesting idea. Where it breaks down, I think, is in the airfares. If you are living a long way from the Nationals, and need to get a cheap ticket, you need to know, as early as possible, if you are in the Meet or not. I like the Auto/Provisional standard idea as well as the rock and roll/spotlight idea. I don't think that getting cheap flights should enter into the equation. If you set a date for qualification, you've got your certainty. There's motivation for you: run the time and you can book your ticket. If the goal is to make nationals something worth going to, then I doubt this will be an issue. How many Americans that Linc was training with worry about this? If you make US trials, you go! So should it be for a Canadian championship. |
|
|
|
Post by random on Dec 16, 2009 12:40:16 GMT -5
Currently even if you don't have standard you can qualify in through your provincial championships or your provincial branch can nominate you for entry.
I think a tougher entry standard should be put in place, and then the only other way to qualify is through your provincial or regional championship. This would add some incentive to run provincials, which have really struggled in some provinces. It may need some tweaking and provinces would be able to send athletes based on membership (ie. Ontario their top-5, BC their top-3, NFLD their winner, etc.). Or have a regional meet to qualify, particulary for the smaller provinces.
At the past couple of junior championships I have argued for heats of 8 in the 800m and 12 in the 1500m. Currenty they have heats of 12 in the 800m and 15 in the 1500m, this changes the race slightly. The need to go back to three rounds of races or toughen entry standards or change how the event is run.
|
|
