pakillo wrote:Austra Skujyte was trying only SP for several years but no success. At 2010 Euros she was in the final but far far from the medal though she threw around 17.50. Hard to believe any throw-oriented will explode to reach the A standard.
Eva Wilms was one of the best SPers in the world and the pentathlon WR holder. Irina Press finished 6th in the SP at the Tokyo OG, where she also won the pentathlon (and she actually threw nearly half a meter farther in the pentathlon as she did in the SP final).
mump boy wrote:Tessa Sanderson was a rather nifty heptathlete 6125 in 81 is still 8th ranked all time in UK
her 100mh best was 13.46 but i don't know any other events
What would 73.58 score you inthe hep ??
apparently 1321
all WR are not equal but a quick look at what you'd score for all WR marks and SP is actually the highest and the others show no pattern re sprints/throws, i'm not sure what this proves
mump boy wrote:It will take a better mind than mine to work out an significance so over to you Gabs
Hogwash about that better mind stuff. Yes, I am more analytical than you are but that is only a small part of the 'better mind'. What I have seen from you does not lead me to think you are lacking there at all.
mump boy wrote:all WR are not equal but a quick look at what you'd score for all WR marks and SP is actually the highest and the others show no pattern re sprints/throws, i'm not sure what this proves
Nothing, really. What matters is not the absolute number of points in an event, but how much you can gain or lose. Now, the difference between a great hurdler (12.80) and a poor one (13.80 - that's pretty much as slow as it gets among top heptathletes) is less than 150 points. In the JT, on the other hand, there's more than 300 points difference between 54.00 and 38.00 (and that's not even the full range - there have been top multi eventers who could throw more than 54m and a few who had trouble getting to 38).
The points given in the Heptathlon as a percentage difference to the specific performances seem questionable or somewhat anomalous as is indicated by a small sample check I have made.
Let us assume that there 4 athletes in the Heptathlon, A,B,C and D and taking two of the events, namely, the Long Jump and the Shot Putt one finds that whereas in the LJ the improvements in distance ,percentage wise, between the athletes A,B,C,D achieving 6.40, 6.50, 6.60 and 6.70 show by B an improvement of 1.56% over A, by C an improvement over A of 3.13% and by D over A a 4.68% improvement; however the Points Table gives B over A 3.28% more points, C over A 6.67% more points and D over A 9.95 % more points; thus the points given are twice as much percentage wise as by by distance achieved . So D athlete gets 9.95 % more points than A for jumping 4.68 % further.Each athlete gets over 100 % more in points, percentage wise, than in the distances achieved However, the same exercise by our sample Heptathletes, A,B,C,D, for the Shot Put, using 14.00,14.50,15.00 and 15.50 metres shows a different increase percent for points gained over distance achieved, entirely different to the LJ; so that B over A throws 3.57m % further and gets 4.16 percentage more points; C over A throws 7.14 % further and gets 8.43 % more points and D over A throws10.71% further and gets 12.59 % more points.
So in the Shot Put event the percentage increase of points gained is far less an increment over the distance achieved; NOT twice as much as in the LJ but merely approx 18-20 percentage more in points over distance; there fore I suggest that the points given in the Long Jump are out of sync and unfair.
Must look afterwards at the typical running events, say the hurdles and 200 metres.
The current scoring tables were created back in the 1980's and based on scores and times being set then. But it has a formula that isn't based wholly on logic or science; there are arbitray scores in there that just do not make sense.
The current scoring method is expressed by this formula: S(P) = A.(P-B)c
P is the performance (distance/time) S is the score (points assigned) A, B C are event-dependent parameters that define the nature of the scoring table. (NB for running events (P-B) is replaced with (B-P) because of the descending nature of the performance.)
The scoring is slightly progressive, mainly determined by the power C. The overall scaling of the curve is determined by parameter A. Parameter B defines the threshold underwhich no score is assigned. For the women's long jump, that threshold is 210cm.
The Longjump values, where P is expressed in cm, uses these values:
A=0.188807, B = 210cm and C=1.41
A, B and C are different for each discipline, so, for example, the 200m has the following:
A= 4.99087, B= 42.5 s, C= 1.81
while the javelin has the following:
A= 15.9803, B= 380 cm, C=1.04
But why? This is based on tradition not science. The men's LJ has a different formula to the women's: A=0.14354, B=220 cm, C=1.40. So why do the men have 220cm and the women 210cm?
The following article, which I have paraphrased above, proposes 3 alternative models which are based more on science and make interesting reading.
It is interesting how different the shapes of the functions are because the powers (the cs) are rather different. However, I have not calculated the gradients which are a function of where the performances lie within the ranges implied by the choice of cutoff parameters (bs) and scaling factors (the as.
For instance, the shot and discus are almost linear (c ~ 1) while the running events are 'almost quadratic' (c =2), but the scaling may lead to it having very little curvature.
In the comment about different values in the functions, the functions are the same, the parameter values are not. The parameter values should not be the same due to the differences in performance levels. I would expect the parameters to be more similar in the weights because women throw almost as far because the implements weigh less.
I would love to say how I followed you, gabriella/26mi235 , but having stopped maths at ordinary level back in the fifties, you could be chatting in Greek for me .
I still feel all is not fair and unbiased and may well favour good long jumpers; is that what was meant by Gabs comments about "logic or science"
mump boy wrote:It will take a better mind than mine to work out an significance so over to you Gabs
Hogwash about that better mind stuff. Yes, I am more analytical than you are but that is only a small part of the 'better mind'. What I have seen from you does not lead me to think you are lacking there at all.
Don't worry i wasn't being modest i'm very smart but ........
Gabriella wrote:The current scoring tables were created back in the 1980's and based on scores and times being set then. But it has a formula that isn't based wholly on logic or science; there are arbitray scores in there that just do not make sense.
The current scoring method is expressed by this formula: S(P) = A.(P-B)c
P is the performance (distance/time) S is the score (points assigned) A, B C are event-dependent parameters that define the nature of the scoring table. (NB for running events (P-B) is replaced with (B-P) because of the descending nature of the performance.)
The scoring is slightly progressive, mainly determined by the power C. The overall scaling of the curve is determined by parameter A. Parameter B defines the threshold underwhich no score is assigned. For the women's long jump, that threshold is 210cm.
The Longjump values, where P is expressed in cm, uses these values:
A=0.188807, B = 210cm and C=1.41
A, B and C are different for each discipline, so, for example, the 200m has the following:
A= 4.99087, B= 42.5 s, C= 1.81
while the javelin has the following:
A= 15.9803, B= 380 cm, C=1.04
But why? This is based on tradition not science. The men's LJ has a different formula to the women's: A=0.14354, B=220 cm, C=1.40. So why do the men have 220cm and the women 210cm?
The following article, which I have paraphrased above, proposes 3 alternative models which are based more on science and make interesting reading.
In general there is a component that is the difference between some value (210cm cited above for the LJ, I think) and the athlete's effort. If they jump 610 cm, then the difference is 400cm. If there was no power (the c), then the proportional constant a scale this value of 500 (and would have units of points per cm. In addition, however, the 400 cm is taken to the fractional power of 1.41 (great than not using a power, but not anywhere close to the effect of squaring in (where the power would be 2). At 210 cm you get no points.
Here is a little example from a spreadsheet. In the three equations at the bottom you have the it listed first using the symbols, then the cell references I used, then with the actual parameter values.
The Long Jump values, where P is expressed in cm, uses these values: a= 0.188807 b= 210 (cm) c= 1.41
=a(P - b)*c =B13*(A2-B14)^B15 =$B$13*(A2-$B$14)^$B$15 [note the parameters are in cells B13, B14, and B15 and the performance, Pj, is in cell Aj (j being used as an index for the row, and the letters are the index for the columns) =0.188807(An - 210)*1.41
Note there there is only ONE formula; everything that causes different values are from the parameters [well, the performances are pluses in the events except for the track times, where they enter as minuses because lower values for time, of course, give higher scores.
I was surprised at the differences in the three types of events. To see why this matters, just increase the power to 1.43 and you get:
Of course, they would rescale a downward to get some marker but the ratio of points for one value versus another is much different in the throws (1.04, 1.05) than in the track events (1.81 etc). They may have reasons, but you can see the implications if you target 1000 points (actually 1001, the closest to 1000 at 6.48) as the same performance, and adjust a and c then you get the following table, where I have also put in the power for the throws, 1.05, and adjusted the a parameter.
Last three columns are the gradient for a 1% better performance (unless I blew the calculation) (dots added to help alignment a little bit) CM Pnts Run Thro Pnts Run Thro 210 0... 0... 0... 0.. 0.. 3 300 107 57.. 190 5.. 3.. 6 350 200 126 302 7.. 6.. 8 400 308 220 416 9.. 9.. 10 450 428 336 533 12 12 10 500 559 474 650 14 15 11 550 700 633 768 17 18 12 600 850 811 886 19 23 15 648 1001 1001 1001 22 27 16 700 1172 1226 1126 25 32 17
You can see that the higher the c (the exponent), the more curvature there is in the function, as given by the gradient. As is known the gradient for the throws is shallower than for the jumps and especially the running events, Of course, in general you would also adjust the minimum point (the 210 for the LJ) and not just the overall scaling parameter.
Eva Wilms was one of the best SPers in the world and the pentathlon WR holder. Irina Press finished 6th in the SP at the Tokyo OG, where she also won the pentathlon (and she actually threw nearly half a meter farther in the pentathlon as she did in the SP final).[/quote] Do you have Eva Wilms marks of 4924p in 1976 including 20.94m and 23.9s handing time?wow,her best SP 21.43p means 1296p,her multi-event sp BEST 20.95m equals 1263p,however, at the pen times,21.00m only equals 1200p and 16.96m equals 1000p comparing to current 17.07m 1000p and 20.02m 1200p.Except her,FRG has another huge putter Beatrix Philipp,18.63i/18.49m 24.06.1978,placing fourth in 1978 EC final,i remember one of her sp in pen is 17.46m.as for the latest,maybe lots of hep fans forgot Vera Yepimashka of BLR,only had a hep pb of 5829p in 2004,achieving a 17.78m 2nd Brest 30.Apr.2005,in 2007 she still did hep,later she moved to SP which seems to her earliest event. In 2010,she got a massive pb of 18.95m in Brest which surprise me a lot because her prior pb of 18.07m in 2009. after the stonishing pb she got down. these two over 18m also her career over 18m times,details look at: http://www.tilastopaja.org/db/atw.php?ID=21175&Odd=1 her best in hep,however,only 16.90m twice and very unstable, in pen indoors 17.57m in 2006 seems only behind Eva Wilms,she passed 17m in pentathlon at least 5times[17.57m,17.25m,17.09m twice and 17.00m],comparing to skujyte hep and pen totally 4 times,dobrynska totally 3 times.
I think you've picked the best two examples there. Also worthy of note is Ghada Shouaa; 16.25 and 55.70 and also Jane Frederick, 16.30 and 52.74.
There's an interesting paper on the net from a few years ago about the women's scoring and how it unfairly favours the speed events. It proposes 3 other types of scoring, and interesting one of the methods has Turchinskaya as the WR holder. It's very clear if you're stronger in the throws than in the running and jump events, you are at a disadvantage in trerms of points.[/quote]
wow,IF not consider there rae only 2 throwing events,you almost have the opposite opinion of me, score tables in 1970s are disadvantage for throwing type player, the most-known is eva wilms, if not the old table, using 1985 table she will hold WR until 1980 oly,look at : Pentathlon 100 m hurdles - Shot Put - High jump - Long jump - 800 m
5083 Nadeshda Tkatchenko SOV 80/07/24 Moscow 13,29 - 16.84 - 1.84 - 6.73 - 2.05,2 However, 1985 table often surprised me 100mH is hard to make a difference,like 12.98s and 14.27s only has a gap of 186p,23.31s and 25.83s only has a gap of 236p,however,55.15m and 35.12m,wow,386p gap,so has a good JV is very crucial, like Ghada Shouaa who cannot break 14s ,200m cannot break 24.30s and also the worst 100mH world and oly champion,wow,she is only field-type, having scores more than 6700p as other top players. 6715 1 Götzis 28/05/1995 14.02/-0.3 - 1.84 - 15.18 - 24.34/-0.7 / 6.68/3.0 - 55.56 - 2:17.72 6651 1 Göteborg 10/08/1995 14.11/0.5 - 1.86 - 15.16 - 24.21/-0.9 / 6.30/0.4 - 54.92 - 2:14.33
6847p Larisa Turchinskaya 1 Duisburg 29/08/1989 13.47/NWI - 1.81 - 16.12 - 24.12/NWI / 6.66/NWI - 59.28 - 2:22.07 and also skujyte,very bad at running events,just ok jumpings,also over 6400p and won oly silver, it is some aspects unfair for running-type,even though i like the throwing-type like skujyte. the aboves are some of my opinions,if you want to discuss with me, i will be very glad,
mump boy wrote:Tessa Sanderson was a rather nifty heptathlete 6125 in 81 is still 8th ranked all time in UK ,What would 73.58 score you inthe hep ??
To Tessa Sanderson, she want challenge combined event again which happened in her youth times,to set fair, only her throwing marks this year can count in it, 13.27m SP and 68.86m JV,totally 1973p behind Larisa Turchinskaya 16.45m and 59.28m both setting in hep in 1989 ,tatally 1999p,wow,one point shy of 2000p.about Tessa Sanderson, it is strange her SP is so poor even for heptathlete,she is strong although short,at least 15m for her can accept for the top-class JV thrower.
Since the throws are almost 'linear' (power was a mere 1.04 or 1.05), for the Jav, the tables list 62.25 worth 1099 and 52.24 worth 904, so going up to 72.26 is worth just north of 1294 and adding 1.23 more is worth 24, so without doing the equation I get about 1320.
And this is the thing; no woman has thrown 62.25 in the heptathlon JT to score those 1099 points, whereas many women have run the 13.17 needed for 1099 points in the 100mh.
To score 1000pts in each event, these are the marks you need to achieve:
13.85 1.82 17.07 23.80 6.48 57.18 2:07.63
If I had time (which I may do when I'm bored) I could go through how many women have achieved those marks, but on face value it's clear that none of the current women have achieved 57.18 in the JT and none probably will either; and in the SP, only Skjyute and Dobrynska have ever beaten 17.07. Yet in the 100mh, 13.85 is what the poor hurdlers are running; the top women (top 10) are running between 13.40 (1065 points) and 13.00 (1124 points).
If we look at what is roughly mid-range i.e. the score that half of the women achieve, then 24.50 (933 pts) is about mid-range in the 200m, going to 23.30 (1049) for the best women. Yet in the JT, mid range is around 42m (706 pts) so over 200pts down on the 200m scores. In fact, the top women Javelin throwers are doing around 54m at very best (and not often) which is only 938 pts; compare that to the 24.50 (933 pts) that mid-range hept 200m runners do.
1.77 is around mid range in the HJ. That equates to 941 pts. As with the 200m, the mid-range women are scoring more than what the very best Javelin thrower can achieve.
The interesting event is the LJ. Mid range now is about 6.20 (912 points) whereas in the 80's and 90's this was more common. This is definitely an event that has seen women struggle with more recently, however, it's still one that clearly outscores the JT and SP.
So, the bottom line is, as long as you're a good hurdler and jumper, you'll score well.
To nianchengyu, the reason why Skjyute scores well is that she's a good jumper, not just a good thrower. She can jump high 1.8's and is right at the top end of the women in that event, as well as jump between 6.2 and 6.3 in the LJ. Again, above average. But she has to be extremely good in the SP to counteract her poor hurdles; if she has a 'poor' SP (for her) and throws around 16m, she removes herself from the equation; she needs at least high 16's. And as pointed out earlier, she can achieve well over 900 pts in the hurdles with a mediocre run. But she'll never get big scores because of her poor hurdles and 200m, which clearly reward athletes unfairly compared to other events.
Gabriella wrote:And this is the thing; no woman has thrown 62.25 in the heptathlon JT to score those 1099 points, whereas many women have run the 13.17 needed for 1099 points in the 100mh. To nianchengyu, the reason why Skjyute scores well is that she's a good jumper, not just a good thrower. She can jump high 1.8's and is right at the top end of the women in that event, as well as jump between 6.2 and 6.3 in the LJ. Again, above average. But she has to be extremely good in the SP to counteract her poor hurdles; if she has a 'poor' SP (for her) and throws around 16m, she removes herself from the equation; she needs at least high 16's. And as pointed out earlier, she can achieve well over 900 pts in the hurdles with a mediocre run. But she'll never get big scores because of her poor hurdles and 200m, which clearly reward athletes unfairly compared to other events.
sandersson has thrown 64.64m in 1981 which hep HB still count it in,skujyte has a outdoors best 1.87 in 2011, and before 2009, her best in HJ stood 1.85m and often around 1.80m,after moving to SP,she jumped much better in HJ,in Athens SHE only jumped 1.76m,6435 Austra Skujyte LTU 12/08/1979 2 Athína 21/08/2004 ( 14.03/0.1 - 1.76 - 16.40 - 24.82/-0.2 / 6.30/-0.4 - 49.58 - 2:15.92 ) haha,just as some of friends said 100mh and 200m did not open a gap,espicially in this hep,14.02s very poor hurdles can gain 974p,only 101p from 13.33s,24.82s 903p,100p away from 23.77s, a quite good time for hep,49.58m means 852p,44.40m has a 100 gap to 49.58m,39.20m has 200 gap to 49.58m, means 13.33s - 23.77s-39.20=14.03s-24.82s-49.58m. just see 13.85s easily can gain 1000p,however, even if you can reach world champion level of 12.50s,only 200p to open a gap,comparing to 49.58/39.20 also 200p gap,for 200m,21.81s can only1201p,300p than 24.86s,equalling 41.80m /57.29m also 300p,1.66m/1.90m also 300p gap.
I also think hep is full of changeable espacially after 6 events some athletes score so close, few heptathletes ran 800m outside hep, i only knew Helga Margrét Thorsteinsdóttir of Iceland ran a 800m in her nation this year.why so few hep run 800m although their level much lower than specilized player,even Tminska never ran 800m outside hep,this made 800m in hep so difficult to predict,such as fountain, only ran 2.27s in NT,gaining a pb 2.15s in oly.
nianchengyu wrote:sandersson has thrown 64.64m in 1981 which hep HB still count it in,skujyte has a outdoors best 1.87 in 2011, and before 2009, her best in HJ stood 1.85m and often around 1.80m,after moving to SP,she jumped much better in HJ,in Athens SHE only jumped 1.76m,6435 Austra Skujyte LTU 12/08/1979 2 Athína 21/08/2004 ( 14.03/0.1 - 1.76 - 16.40 - 24.82/-0.2 / 6.30/-0.4 - 49.58 - 2:15.92 ) haha,just as some of friends said 100mh and 200m did not open a gap,espicially in this hep,14.02s very poor hurdles can gain 974p,only 101p from 13.33s,24.82s 903p,100p away from 23.77s, a quite good time for hep,49.58m means 852p,44.40m has a 100 gap to 49.58m,39.20m has 200 gap to 49.58m, means 13.33s - 23.77s-39.20=14.03s-24.82s-49.58m. just see 13.85s easily can gain 1000p,however, even if you can reach world champion level of 12.50s,only 200p to open a gap,comparing to 49.58/39.20 also 200p gap,for 200m,21.81s can only1201p,300p than 24.86s,equalling 41.80m /57.29m also 300p,1.66m/1.90m also 300p gap.
Sanderson's 64.64 is with the old javelin model, not the current model, when the then WR was 80.00. The furthest with the current model is Margaret Simpson's 56.36, with the current WR Spotakova's 72.28; a big difference. This is one of the reasons why the points system should have changed in 1999 when the current javelin model was introduced.
On Skujyte, yes, she did have a poor HJ in Athens, but she was lucky to get the silver medal as the event was in a transition that year; Barber was injured and DNS, Lewis was injured and DNF, Sazanovich DNF and Prokhorova was below form, eventually finishing 5th. That silver medal winning score is one of the worst ever. But even so, she still long jumped 6.30 which was the 7th best performance out of 33 women, and 4th amongst the medal contenders (discounting Tonn, Wheeler and Shobha) Even that poor HJ was 14th out of 33, but still higher than medal contenders Burrell, Prokhorova and Kesselschlager (and Lewis and Sazanovich who both did just 1.73)
After day 1 she was ranked 5th, with places 2 to 9 still in contention for silver and bronze, but her day 2 was great: 7th best in the LJ, 3rd best in the JT and then a good 2:15.92 in the 800m (12th best)
So, while I agree Skujyte has that great SP and gains points in that event, do not over emphasize that event; she still jumps well and should actually be scoring more for her superior SP and JT.
On the scores you quote, I agree, they’re not ideal and that’s the point; the system needs re-working. But you are still not rewarded if you’re a great javelin thrower or shot putter compared to runner/hurdler/jumper.
nianchengyu wrote:sandersson has thrown 64.64m in 1981 which hep HB still count it in,skujyte has a outdoors best 1.87 in 2011, and before 2009, her best in HJ stood 1.85m and often around 1.80m,after moving to SP,she jumped much better in HJ,in Athens SHE only jumped 1.76m,6435 Austra Skujyte LTU 12/08/1979 2 Athína 21/08/2004 ( 14.03/0.1 - 1.76 - 16.40 - 24.82/-0.2 / 6.30/-0.4 - 49.58 - 2:15.92 ) haha,just as some of friends said 100mh and 200m did not open a gap,espicially in this hep,14.02s very poor hurdles can gain 974p,only 101p from 13.33s,24.82s 903p,100p away from 23.77s, a quite good time for hep,49.58m means 852p,44.40m has a 100 gap to 49.58m,39.20m has 200 gap to 49.58m, means 13.33s - 23.77s-39.20=14.03s-24.82s-49.58m. just see 13.85s easily can gain 1000p,however, even if you can reach world champion level of 12.50s,only 200p to open a gap,comparing to 49.58/39.20 also 200p gap,for 200m,21.81s can only1201p,300p than 24.86s,equalling 41.80m /57.29m also 300p,1.66m/1.90m also 300p gap.
Sanderson's 64.64 is with the old javelin model, not the current model, when the then WR was 80.00. The furthest with the current model is Margaret Simpson's 56.36, with the current WR Spotakova's 72.28; a big difference. This is one of the reasons why the points system should have changed in 1999 when the current javelin model was introduced. .
but the WR 71.88 in 1981 not 80m so Sandersons JT was proportionally better than you infer, what this meand for score analysis i have no idea
Gabriella, when you work with that data, in addition to the range (of the top 10 or top X) it would be interesting to see the other statistical measures of the variation, given best by the standard deviation (probably).
Several people have mentioned that it is not the level of the scoring but the gradient -- how many extra points for a given change in performance. However, since the performance metrics are different in each case, there is no direct way to compare the gradients, rather we have to compare relative to the variation normally seen in the events.
The events with more skill are generally going to have a broader performance range than those where semi-natural speed is paramount. That is what you see in terms of the exponents, the c values, with the throws having a broad range and the 100/200 much narrower in performance and hence with a higher value of the power, with the jumps in the middle.
Going to the issue of the scoring, it would not change any placings at all if 200 more points were assigned at every performance level in an event, so adding 200 points to the SP or the Jav. In fact, since the function is almost linear, moving the threshold (of zero points) to a lower value would also not have much effect if they did not change the scaling factor (a).
Given the gradients (which are not constant but where the power affects the curvature if the threshold is 'relatively high' (too hard to explain here) the optimization question for the athlete is: If I train in a certain manner I will be able to transform X amount of training into dP improvement in performance (P); where do I get the most bang-for-the-buck? So, it ends up being a comparison of the training effect gradient with the scoring gradient.
Empirical evidence would seem to indicate that for the Hept (women) training in the hurdles is most productive and the SP least productive. Of course, it is also complicated because of the interaction of training on the body with performance in other events. Here, the weight that follows from strength training for the SP and Jav is a negative for the HJ, LJ, and to a lesser extent the running events (for the men the 1500 gets hit hard). That is why even good shot putters do not look like SP specialists although they can and do look like LJ and 100h athletes (800 and HJ athletes are generally thinner, of course; but there is Tia...).
Note I have not looked at the Multis in the detail of some of our regular posters and will make some errors in my thinking here, but I was trying to bring in some analytical aspects of the scoring system so that people who know the events and add in the content. Feedback welcomed.
As you say, the thing about the SP & heptathletes is there's no definite correlation between an athlete that appears to be strong (and may well have a great bench press) and being a great putter. On face value you would think Eunice Barber and Hyleas Fountain would be good at the SP, but both struggle/d and we know Barber often threw just over 12m. Barber's team mate Collonville was smaller and lighter and nowhere near as conditioned, yet had similar SP results. It's that combination of pure strength, explosive strength and co-ordination that makes the SP more difficult than we think. It would be interesting to see the women's weight training results compared to SP performances; the SP is still largely about the legs, if performed correctly, so I wonder whether the best putters have better squat bests or press/clean bests etc? Just curious.
One thing is certain; the event attracts women that are generally fast and good jumpers. As long as you're a competent thrower you're fine. But even if you're not, and you have an atrocious throwing event, you can still do well: Barber, who scored over 6800 pts, with 12m SP's, and Sotherton, who medalled at Worlds and Olympics, with awful JT's. However, it is much rarer to find women that score big with awful hurdles (14+) or LJ's (>6m) or 200's (outside 25 secs) So, while you may sneak medals as a poor hurdler, like Skujyte, you still have to be a good jumper as she is, and your poor hurdles will still score more than the best SPers and best JTers. But you wont score the big points unless you are good at 100h/200/LJ.
mump boy wrote:but the WR 71.88 in 1981 not 80m so Sandersons JT was proportionally better than you infer, what this meand for score analysis i have no idea
The reference was to show we can't count Sanderson's mark as a heptathlon JT best now, as the women use a different implement. I mentioned the WR's for each implement as evidence of the differences between then and now, rather than meaning the 80m was the WR when Tess threw it.
So, to score 1000 points in the JT now, you have to throw 57.18. Considering the heptathlon best with the current model is 56.36, no women are about to be gaining 1000 points in this event, whereas to get that many points in the hurdles they only need to run 13.85, which the majority of them can do.
When the heptathlon calculation formula was created in the 1980's, the javelin model was different. Hence we have someone like Turchinskaya throwing over 59m with the old model. The women aren't going to be throwing 59m with the current model, so the javelin formula should have at least changed in 1999, if not the overall method.
If I remember correctly weren't the Jav points going to be changed when the new specification came in but then US kicked up a fuss as it meant JJK's WR would be made obsolete so they stayed the same, despite making no sense at all
So, to score 1000 points in the JT now, you have to throw 57.18. Considering the heptathlon best with the current model is 56.36, no women are about to be gaining 1000 points in this event, whereas to get that many points in the hurdles they only need to run 13.85, which the majority of them can do.
When the heptathlon calculation formula was created in the 1980's, the javelin model was different. Hence we have someone like Turchinskaya throwing over 59m with the old model. The women aren't going to be throwing 59m with the current model, so the javelin formula should have at least changed in 1999, if not the overall method. So, that was my point [/quote]
but you should the distance after 1999 very similar to 1990s when the model changed however WR still no change,in fact, after 1988 oly, the women throwing events flow a lot, it is may why hep not change the WR,HAHA,that is my view.
The old Jav allowed some really long throws when everything 'worked right'. This is one reason to have a flat points/performance function. Now, however, the long throws are not there and the curvature of the function should be increased, but if it is pivoted around 1000 points it will be flat and then get steep in a range in which no one is throwing. As I stated before, if a linear function is just shifted up (i.e., every distance gets more points) that does not change the event at all and has no effect on anyone (except for FFF, where zero is now even worse, but a zero is disaster no matter what). Thus, it is not the point level that matters but the gradient of points across the athletes. That is what a poor hurdle hurts -- so many points are lost to other athletes.
could anyone give me some link to 2009 and 2011 WC highlight which IAAF before did it, and also link to some famous combined event challenge meetings?thank you.
Love the intensity, but we're still too early I think. Be prepared to gear up with numbers in late July, but keep staying up. The competition itself will provide the world's best athlete. God willing, they'll all be there and in good health.
I programmed up the (w)Hept and Decathlon in a spreadsheet; just enter the marks and it scores the athlete. This must be available as a 'phone app', I would think. Still, if anyone wants a copy I will clean it up and e-mail it to you.
26mi235 wrote:I programmed up the (w)Hept and Decathlon in a spreadsheet; just enter the marks and it scores the athlete. This must be available as a 'phone app', I would think. Still, if anyone wants a copy I will clean it up and e-mail it to you.
I am interest in it,could you e-mail it to me, very appreciate to you.
Notice African combined event championship already undergone,Simpson of GHAand the fast growing teanager Nafissatou Thiam og BEL,WHO showed 1.87m HJ in pen with 4322p NJR for not yet 18y girl.
Nafissatou Thiam of BEL who is not 18 yet,having scores 5907p,link: [urlhttp://www.iaaf.org/Mini/WCE12/Results/ResultsByEventWCE.aspx?/Mini/WCE12/Results/ResultsByEventWCE.aspx?/eventcode=4916/sex=W/discCode=HEP/combCode=hash/roundCode=7/summary.html#det[/url]
. 
but ........