Athletics Qualification to Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympic Games

[Olympian1010 7,470]

Perfect example of how the world rankings don’t reward athletic performance, but rather circumstance.

 

[dcro 10,179]

Well,  Marthe Koala got in instead.

[Olympian1010 7,470]

8 minutes ago, dcro said:

Well,  Marthe Koala got in instead.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, it’s awesome that both  qualified in women’s heptathlon. 

I’m just pointing out why this system needs to be reformed or completely reworked after Tokyo.

[Jan Linha 470]

6 hours ago, rafalgorka said:

https://www.worldathletics.org/stats-zone/road-to/7132391?eventId=10229509

The ranking is already with all race points added? 

[Jan Linha 470]

Question about universality places. Weren't they supposed to awarded regardless the ranking? In men's 800m, 48 spots,  awarded 4 universality but added to the ranking and 2 runners out of ranking. Without universality places, they are on positions 46,47.... 

[dodge 697]

3 minutes ago, Jan Linha said:

Question about universality places. Weren't they supposed to awarded regardless the ranking? In men's 800m, 48 spots,  awarded 4 universality but added to the ranking and 2 runners out of ranking. Without universality places, they are on positions 46,47.... 

Unfortunately except for the 100m, the universal places counted against the limits in all other events

 

So in men’s 800m there’s 44 qualified by time, 4 by univseral and none left for the rankings

[Jan Linha 470]

29 minutes ago, dodge said:

Unfortunately except for the 100m, the universal places counted against the limits in all other events

 

So in men’s 800m there’s 44 qualified by time, 4 by univseral and none left for the rankings

Well, in this case, it is freaking unfair. But what can we do...... Thanks for the info. 

[Vic Liu 1,588]

4 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

Perfect example of how the world rankings don’t reward athletic performance, but rather circumstance.

 

It’s a common phenomenon for athletes who don’t travel a lot in the pandemic. China also have some talented athletes achieved some good result but not good enough to meet the standard directly in domestic meetings which is undervalued in E or F levels. If federation allowed them to go abroad to attend some higher level events during the pandemic they would have enough score to qualify. For example Wang Zhen, jumped 2.30m and 2.28m high this year both at F level events so failed to qualify through ranking. Standard is 2.33m which almost promises top6 in OG or WCh.

I mean all these athletes knew the rules of WA at the very beginning. You either meet the extremely high standard directly or attend a lot of higher level events to collect enough points. That’s also the intention of WA to set the high standard to encourage more participation. You may argue it’s harsh especially in the pandemic, but it’s fair for everyone.

 

[Olympian1010 7,470]

28 minutes ago, Vic Liu said:

It’s a common phenomenon for athletes who don’t travel a lot in the pandemic. China also have some talented athletes achieved some good result but not good enough to meet the standard directly in domestic meetings which is undervalued in E or F levels. If federation allowed them to go abroad to attend some higher level events during the pandemic they would have enough score to qualify. For example Wang Zhen, jumped 2.30m and 2.28m high this year both at F level events so failed to qualify through ranking. Standard is 2.33m which almost promises top6 in OG or WCh.

I mean all these athletes knew the rules of WA at the very beginning. You either meet the extremely high standard directly or attend a lot of higher level events to collect enough points. That’s also the intention of WA to set the high standard to encourage more participation. You may argue it’s harsh especially in the pandemic, but it’s fair for everyone.

 

That’s one of the main problems with this system. What does World Athletics consider “higher level events?” Like Gittens said, the level of the SEC Champs was higher than many events rated above it. Also, many “higher level events” are invitation only, so if you don’t have a good agent, promoter, or federation you’re essentially shut out of a qualification opportunity. Additionally, the world ranking doesn’t actually award athletic performance, it awards circumstance like I said above. There were multiple situations were an athlete had a much higher mark than those ranked ahead of them, yet they were ranked lower just because they didn’t attend some super fancy, exclusive, invite only athletics meet. 
 

If World Athletics actually wanted to increase the standard of competition, they’d use the “top lists” instead of the world ranking. If you reward athletes based purely off performance, it’s hard to see how athletes won’t be motivated to better each other’s marks.

 

I’d argue the current system isn’t fair because all athletes don’t have the same opportunities. Plus, just because a system might be equally terrible for many athletes, it doesn’t make it a fair system. The current system might be equal in some ways, but it’s definitely not equitable.

[Monzanator 3,593]

Olympics is not about making rich even richer. It's about giving the small nations the additional quota not about increasing the standard of competition.