Grades of Measurers

Duanne,

I'm off to the USATF Convention and when I return after Dec. 8th please contact me to see if I can suggest to Bernie Conway about you being considered a Grade B measurer.

Generally, the people that are graded are Certifiers or those with much experience as measurers. They get nominated by someone like the Chair of RRTC. One should not use this grading for acquiring work. I hope the Certifiers that are graded encourage folks to measurer as I do.

You are not worthless and one should pick you for any measurement based upon the work you have done. Yes, to do a race such as the trials is an honor, but the dollars for measuring or validating are not what one thinks. I just helped with the validation of the men's trials for no money. It was an honor.

Please contact me after Dec. 8th by email or give me a call.

520-648-3353 newmangc@cox.net

Best Regards,

Gene

Gene,

I was not looking at a higher-profile course from the money aspect. I think it would be a good experience (as opposed to "good experience") to measure a high-profile course with a group of people.

So, what are the grades really for? Is there any benefit from being graded A or B?

Have fun in Hawaii

No there is no advantage as for being graded. There has been some desire to grade those in the US, but we at RRTC don't see any reason at the present time to have this done.

Again, I know your work and it's very good so I would have no problem contacting the IAFF/AIMS person with my blessing for you to become a Grade B.

Gene

Well, if you become an "A" measurer you get a cool little green felt armband from AIMS/IAAF, which has sat in my closet for several years. Like a dummy, I left it at home during the men's Olympic Trials in New York, but Dave Katz was on the ball and wore his.

I think it and $3 will get you a cup of coffee.

I'm sure Pete has a better recollection of this than do I, but if I remember correctly, while serving as the IAAF administrator for the Americas (the position now held by Bernie Conway) he was asked to designate some "A" and "B" measurers for the USA. He designated a number of us who had attended the 1990 Columbus Measurement Seminar as "A" measurers and most of the rest of the state certifiers as "B" measurers. From time to time, as the need arose, other measurers were given IAAF designations. I'm not sure any of us did a whole heck of a lot to earn the designations.

The only time I've found it even comes into play is when measuring a really high profile course, and there just aren't that many of those. And if I have the green armband, I have no idea where it is.

A, B, C

In the early 1980’s IAAF selected four people and named them “Area Measurement Administrators.” I was one. I was asked to select a list of US measurers who could be considered as “A” measurers. I prepared a list and was told it was too long. I think it looked too dominant to have so many measurers when most other countries had so few. I pared the list down to eight. Some of them were from the early days, dating from the Corbitt era. Some were later. Some were known to me, some were “grandfathered” onto the list.

IAAF defines A, B and C loosely as:

“A” may measure World Championship and Olympic courses
“B” may measure just about anything else
“C” is anyone who has attended a measurement seminar

I understand that the A, B, C hierarchy corresponds to A, B, C levels of IAAF track & Field officialdom. When IAAF incorporated AIMS within its purview it gained some control over many of the international marathons and road races. IAAF wanted measurement people to be thought of as “officials” and fit within the IAAF structure.

As the years went by some appointments seemed to me to be getting political. Also, I began to believe that the IAAF way was not as effective in identifying and training new measurers as is the USATF way. I taught lots of seminars, but never heard back from those I was supposed to have trained. I became frustrated and disillusioned and resigned my IAAF post.

In the USA the major races tend to be affiliated with AIMS. AIMS requires that their courses be measured by an AIMS approved “A” or “B” level measurer. When I was contacted, I found that often the local measurer was an experienced person, but never vetted as an “A” or “B.” In these cases I looked at their capabilities, inquired of their certifier, and recommended their appointment. It is much better, I believe, to have the measurer as a local asset.

At bottom I believe the A, B, C business has little relevance to US measurement. Here we have information available as to map-drawing ability online. Certifiers can provide opinions on the quality of the measurement work. We know who is capable and who is not. I am not impressed with an unsupported “A” title. I prefer to know the quality of the work.

All,

Thanks for the info. But, according to the definition above, I wouldn't even be a "C", as I have never attended a measurement seminar. Details.

Somewhat related, though; Where do I ask for permission to use the USATF logo on my Website? I have scoured the USATF site, but there is no email contact information that I could find. And, since I assume they would want to send me a digital file, I figure email would be a good way to contact them.

I tried "info" and "support@usatf.org", but they both bounced. Anyone have an inside contact?

Thanks

When I was appointing "A's" and "B's" (nobody ever asked to be made a "C") I considered anyone who has measured a course for certification as already a "C." I think going through the actual process educates one a lot better than watching and listening to somebody else do it.

Duane,

I asked this question about USATF logo use, and was put into contact with Andy Martin, who gave me the go-ahead. This was June, 2006, but I assume he is still the correct contact.

Andy.Martin[put an at symbol here]usatf.org

Mark

Thanks, Mark. I will ask him.