In justifying why he selected Eaton over Bolt etc, on the front page, gh makes the comment that he considered, inter alia, that if Eaton had competed numerous times he would have still dominated the others easily as he saw it, and that was a factor for him in his selection, but in selecting Adams over Ennis he makes the point that the same did not apply and that Chernova may have been snapping at her heels . Not so. Ennis thrashed Chernova by hundreds of points in the OG and beat her earlier in the year I believe? and would on the evidence we saw have done so again last year. Just somewhat illogical and strange comment about an event where no assumptions can be made over 10 and 7 events for physical reasons, if no other.
In any event my AOYs were Rudisha and...... Adams, but I still disagree with his reasoning as stated above.
odelltrclan wrote:Just reviewing the women's AOY voting and notice Pearson's rated at #4 and deservedly so for a great year. Yet when reviewing event rankings, her season essentially came down to only .02 better than Dawn Harper. Dawn, apart from that narrow loss was undefeated, with great marks as well. Would .03 seconds have taken her high up the AOY charts (where she got no votes at all)? You wonder where someone like Pearson would have ended up with such a slight difference for that one race. This is truly a sport where miniscule amounts can mean the world.
But it is worth remembering that Pearson and Harper hardly raced (as Pearson returned home from Europe straight after the OG). Harper's 'undefeated but once' status is thus a little misrepresentative
So if Pearson went ended her season after London, shouldn't Harper get more credit for racing more often?
Almost never does an athlete without a No. 1 ranking get much support in the AOY wars (Blake's presence on the men's side notwithstanding).
With the always 100%-perfect reflection of hindsight, I would def. say that Harper got way shortchanged in the AOY department (as in, no votes). As you note, she and Pearson each had one loss (Harper's coming in the big one, so she couldn't be No. 1), but Harper (4 wins) clearly had a better DL record than Pearson (2 wins, 1 second). They weren't all that far apart that one should be No. 4 in AOY and the other not there at all.
gh wrote:mump is also apparently unaware of the fact that T&FN stats don't include marks from the Chinese National Games of '93 and '97 (the two with obvious "irregularities"), and Alptekin didn't make a dent in a list with those revised numbers either.
(see our all-time lists elsewhere on the site, with the Chinese marks given the heave-ho)
Why is it that the results have been removed from the all-time lists, but yet remain on the world records page?
gh wrote:because as it says at the top of the page "World Records are as ratified by the IAAF" (just as say about American Records and USATF).
We don't presume to usurp the role of those who are the "official" word on such things. When it comes to all-time lists, we're free to craft them as we see fit.
Not to push the point too much, but in other instances ie: Randy Barnes and FloJo the lists do make a clear reference to the fact that T&FN does not consider these the real records despite iaaf ratification and then proceeds to list what the best other mark is. I'm a fan of consistency.
I would feel a lot more comfortable with deleting whole sets of marks from lists if you could posit a concrete reason for doing so, other than they were "irregular". I don't disagree on the irregular nature of most of the marks, but I don't believe anyone has ever been able to legitimately charge the Chinese with any illegal activities or use of contraband. More along the lines of a stinky meter: Smells bad, worse, worse, worse...okay, THAT one just smells way too bad, so out it goes. With former Eastern Bloc-PED using/admitting athletes practically falling out of trees nowadays, there are a whole lot of other marks that could more reasonably be stricken from the unofficial books, donchathink?