Likes Likes:  6
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

Thread: Tokyo 2020 Weightlifting Qualification Standings/ Extension of the Qualification

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleddau View Post
    I'm more inclined to believe that the Executive Board has little or no regard for the welfare of athletes and teams.
    They definitely don't but what would be the point in following through with the continentals if there was not some sort of incentive for the Board?

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looks like they released the system modification document, indeed less than 3 weeks before the end of the qualification period.

    https://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploa...L-10052021.pdf

    Looks a bit different to the proposal paper that was circulated a few weeks ago. That had a drop from 6 appearances to 5 appearances and a creation of a 'virtual' competition to make up for all of the competitions that had been cancelled. This final version however has dropped appearances from 6 to 4, but no allowance for all of the missed lifting opportunities to be made up with a virtual competition - I can see that rustling some jimmies because it means that the entire African and Oceania regions are at a dis-adavantage to Europe, Asia and Pan-America which were able to hold continental championships. Just one appearance in an Olympic class is now required.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    567
    Post Thanks / Like
    And it looks like the African Championships will still actually occur by May 31st but have been moved to Kenya at the last moment! Incredible.

  4. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  5. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    298
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wondered if this would happen.

    The qualification system has resulted in athletes gaming the system to qualify in categories that they have never actually competed in.

    https://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...tin-tokyo-2020

  6. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,073
    Post Thanks / Like
    The rules could've required a "token total" in each participated category and it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

  7. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    298
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by erpel View Post
    The rules could've required a "token total" in each participated category and it wouldn't have changed the outcome.
    I don't think a requirement for a token total would have improved the qualifying system. But a system that allows qualification on that basis of points earned entirely in a different category seems a bit perverse.

    I won't deny that this is anything other than my subjective opinion.
    Last edited by Cleddau; 05-17-2021 at 08:12 PM.

  8. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleddau View Post
    I don't think a requirement for a token total would have improved the qualifying system. But a system that allows qualification on that basis of points earned entirely in a different category seems a bit perverse.

    I won't deny that this is anything other than my subjective opinion.
    I’d agree with your opinion.

  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,073
    Post Thanks / Like
    What's the alternative? You should be able to change classes.

    I think this case is mainly a product of the heavy women's classes not being as competitive. If 87 was as popular as 76 she wouldn't rank higher (since the qualifying ROBI is based on the original world standards, not current records).

  10. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    298
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by erpel View Post
    What's the alternative? You should be able to change classes.
    I think a superior alternative would be based on the athlete allocation system that was introduced for the 2018 Commonwealth Games. Which I personally think is the fairest and best system I've seen to date.

    https://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploa...-July-2017.pdf

    Each weight category is capped at maximum of 14 competitors (8 in A session, remainder in B session).

    1. First ranking position is reserved for the winner of the senior world championship in the preceding year (golden ticket)

    2. Ranking positions 2-12 are calculated using the best total achieved at sanctioned international qualifying events

    3. Ranking position 13 is reserved for the hosting country

    4. Ranking position 14 is reserved for a tripartite commission invitation (to ensure universality)


    The ranking lists would feature one lifter per country for each division. Maximum team size = ?? (this is a political decision for the IWF)

    The requirement for mandatory participations in three specified qualifying periods can be retained. If athletes don't attend any competitions in a specified qualifying period then they get dropped from the ranking table. However attending a competition doesn't imply a need to actually compete (it's really more of an attendance requirement to ensure that athletes are subjected to whereabouts reporting and anti-doping controls). This creates an opportunity for athletes to recover from injuries if needed.

    Final ranking is simply the best total recorded by an athlete in that category during the entire qualifying period i.e. ranking positions are calculated using actual total not ROBI. In other words the ranking table is based on 'best qualifying total' rather than 'best average total'.

    And to answer the question which prompted this reply: If you want to qualify in an Olympic category under this system then you would have to record a qualifying total in that category that ranks you highly enough to receive a qualifying spot (points can't be transferred between categories).
    Last edited by Cleddau; 05-18-2021 at 12:49 PM.

  11. Likes Hawkpeter liked this post
  12. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,073
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok, I thought you originally meant in the context of the system that exists. Like a minor addendum.

    I agree the qualification procedure we have is needlessly complicated. The whole ROBI score is unnecessary. Yes, the ranking should be based on what actually counts, the total. Not multipliers, modifiers or any other jazz.
    Last edited by erpel; 05-19-2021 at 06:40 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •