I think one angle folks are missing-it is very difficult to get a race on board as a world champs qualifier. And I mean all the little boxes that have to be checked on the USATF requirements and World requirements, etc. Having seen the efforts state USATF organizations have had trying to even find a place willing and able to host a national qualifier meet, and knowing the issues for example the US Olympic Marathon Trials has had . . . I think folks can always talk about the ideal races, but there is "ideal" and "okay, done." And, sometimes, you just have to get a "done" mark in the box, not a perfect one.
That is kind of a USA thing. Making a non specific race as a qualifier for a brutal mountain race. In France, Switzerland or Italy those who will participate will have to show their mountain skills period. If I remembered well the ultra event in the SPANISH PYRÉNÉES will have 83km distance with D+5000m of elevation gain on a high mixture of runnable and sky run style technical terrain. What you would need as a qualifier is like the speedgoat 50km or a hard rock 50 or there is that 50k event of MikeFoote what was on the sky circuit. So first of all it should be an under distance race as recovery for some athletes after a 100k might compromise the entire season. Leaving their WC effort out on the qualifier. A 50km mountain event with 3500m of gain would be better.
Gorge Waterfalls 100K has produced winners. Look at the all time list (1. Jim Walmsley, 2. Vincent Bouillard, 3. David Laney). What have these guys done in mountain races?
Another great shorter pod covering an interesting topic. I do think as much as runners need to be trained specifically for certain races like States in order to podium,we clearly have several top men and women who have proven within a calendar year or body of work, they are capable of fast performances over a variety of terrain/elevation and weather. So, I don’t think it necessarily matters what the qualifier is.
I can't believe people are even complaining about this. There are no options that fit the time window and are comparable to the Worlds course. The biggest factor is simply this, race directors have to first submit to be considered, and very few of them do so. The people complaining should go get their favorite races to actually start asking to host championships/qualifiers.
@@selfcoachedrunner in France it's the federation who chooses if I understand well and not the race organisers who propose their courses. That is the exact opposite of the US...
lol, "weird rule" about sending only amateurs, that was the rule for everyone. The USA wasn't allowed to send the pros prior to 1992. The USSR also didn't send "pros" but worked around it by sending a team who's official job was military. They didn't get paid to play a sport- they got paid to serve in the military. But all they did in the military was train for their sport. That's why the "Miracle on ice" was such a big deal. The US team was a bunch of college amateurs, vs a Soviet team that had full national support to do nothing but play hockey.
I think one angle folks are missing-it is very difficult to get a race on board as a world champs qualifier. And I mean all the little boxes that have to be checked on the USATF requirements and World requirements, etc. Having seen the efforts state USATF organizations have had trying to even find a place willing and able to host a national qualifier meet, and knowing the issues for example the US Olympic Marathon Trials has had . . . I think folks can always talk about the ideal races, but there is "ideal" and "okay, done." And, sometimes, you just have to get a "done" mark in the box, not a perfect one.
That is kind of a USA thing. Making a non specific race as a qualifier for a brutal mountain race. In France, Switzerland or Italy those who will participate will have to show their mountain skills period.
If I remembered well the ultra event in the SPANISH PYRÉNÉES will have 83km distance with D+5000m of elevation gain on a high mixture of runnable and sky run style technical terrain.
What you would need as a qualifier is like the speedgoat 50km or a hard rock 50 or there is that 50k event of MikeFoote what was on the sky circuit.
So first of all it should be an under distance race as recovery for some athletes after a 100k might compromise the entire season. Leaving their WC effort out on the qualifier. A 50km mountain event with 3500m of gain would be better.
Gorge Waterfalls 100K has produced winners. Look at the all time list (1. Jim Walmsley, 2. Vincent Bouillard, 3. David Laney). What have these guys done in mountain races?
Another great shorter pod covering an interesting topic. I do think as much as runners need to be trained specifically for certain races like States in order to podium,we clearly have several top men and women who have proven within a calendar year or body of work, they are capable of fast performances over a variety of terrain/elevation and weather. So, I don’t think it necessarily matters what the qualifier is.
Qualifying for worlds will require steely toughness.
Great chat. I agree with Bret, who are choosing the team members? Is it public knowledge? Finn, what race are you directing?
Canfranc is located in the Spanish Pyrenees, specifically in a province called Huesca 😅😊
I can't believe people are even complaining about this. There are no options that fit the time window and are comparable to the Worlds course.
The biggest factor is simply this, race directors have to first submit to be considered, and very few of them do so. The people complaining should go get their favorite races to actually start asking to host championships/qualifiers.
@@selfcoachedrunner in France it's the federation who chooses if I understand well and not the race organisers who propose their courses. That is the exact opposite of the US...
@Trail_Coach_Levi hopefully we'll get to that here one day! 🙏
What about a primarily race qualification but one slot set aside for "application/invite" to cover extenuating circumstances.
That's exactly what the system is currently. 2 team spots from the race and 2 based on resume.
lol, "weird rule" about sending only amateurs, that was the rule for everyone. The USA wasn't allowed to send the pros prior to 1992. The USSR also didn't send "pros" but worked around it by sending a team who's official job was military. They didn't get paid to play a sport- they got paid to serve in the military. But all they did in the military was train for their sport.
That's why the "Miracle on ice" was such a big deal. The US team was a bunch of college amateurs, vs a Soviet team that had full national support to do nothing but play hockey.
@wk633 it definitely wasn't the rule for everyone. Los Angeles '84 Spanish silver in basketball was full of pros from Real Madrid and Barcelona.
Everyone should race their way in (on a proper course) the year before. Cut out the politics.
0:23 Sad Aragón noises
Make Zane Grey a qualifier
⚔Gorge Defender ⚔