Skip to main content

Attention veteran measurers:
There will be an IAAF Measurement seminar this summer. The date is August 20, 2016 and the location is Akron, OH.
This is an opportunity to work with IAAF Administrator Bernie Conway.
As IAAF Administrator, Bernie makes recommendations annually for IAAF Approved measurer status. Unlike most Measurement Workshops, this would be a hands on "field" experience rather than a training workshop.
Bernie is looking forward to meeting with measurers of all experience levels.

Interested individuals please contact Mike Wickiser at
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Duane, this will not work for several reasons.

1. We only get one or two "A's" per year. Hence, we must be very selective.

2. I find that it's best to look first at a need in a specific State. Some States have more than one and it is more important to promote one from a State with none.

3. Now, if we could get those "B's" to come that would be great. I have asked a couple to come. So we will see what happens.

4. There is more to becoming an "A" than understanding the process. By this, I mean a close look at there background over the years is also important. Some of our B's were appointed without any recommendations and I have found some of these not doing a very good job.

Thanks for your comment.
My premise for this Seminar was to get Bernie involved with US "A"&"B" measurers in hopes there would be more opportunity for new "B" measurers and hopefully an increased number of "A" promotions.

With Jim Gilmer's input and aid, there will be an objective method of assessing measurement skills. Something that doesn't exist today. Actually the credit for this goes to Jim Gilmer.

Granted in the past there have been a limited number of IAAF "A" appointments. That may stay the same even if there is a standard method.
In any event, a standard evaluation with quantifiable results indicates a measurer's abilities for IAAF approvals.
Might this be a chance to create a process of our own, that can be distributed to any of us "A"'s who might be called upon to do an evaluation of a measurer? It might be good to have a check list of things we can "grade" a measurer's performance on, like a report card. Something that can be submitted to Bernie, as part of the report he uses to determine a measurer's readiness.
Toni, Good question.
Currently there is no quantifiable standard for grading measurers.
If this is successful, a method of grading measurers against a standard could be implemented.
I do not believe geography has any bearing on whether an accomplished, knowledgeable measurer who is capable shouldn't be acknowledged.
Under the current IAAF system, good measurers are not accredited and some measurers might not measure up.
This may be an unpopular view , like standardized testing in schools but shouldn't all approved measurers be able to display some standard of excellence?
Interesting questions and discussion. I'm thinking we might learn how measurers are rated in countries where they do that-- maybe Mike Sandford could shed some light, and Bernie too from his international knowledge.

I've always thought our system works pretty well by allowing anyone to measure a course, but always with the "threat" that some experienced measurer may put us to the test by means of a validation measurement. These days I wonder if we actually do enough validations to make that an effective means of enforcing quality.

In the meanwhile we are left with looking at submitted calculations, discussions, and maps. Still, someone who does the math perfectly and produces a good-looking map, may or may not do a great job of measuring the SPR on the course. I always hope that they at least do a "good enough" job of measuring, and I'm confident that measurers who keep at it will to some degree compete with themselves to improve.
In years gone by there were more opportunities for measurers to come together and learn from the experience. Olympic Trials measurements were a big deal and were often team measured by a group of several measurers.
Today there is less emphasis on getting groups of measurers together and the certifier is more important for training purposes.
So far there are about 20or so interested measurers coming together in August. This will be a good size group and I hope to see it double as the Seminar grows nearer.
Having that many measurers together will make for a genuine learning opportunity for everyone.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.