T&FN's Men's AOY: David Rudisha

[aaronk]

This could go in either men's or women 's AOY threads, but after a bit of scanning the two Top Ten's, I found the following bits of trivia:

In each Top Ten, there was one Multi person each, one High Hurdler each, and one Pole Vaulter each.

Multi's: Both Ennis and Eaton took 2nd place. Eaton was 17 points behind 1st, while Ennis was 21 points back

110/100H: Both Merritt and Pearson finished in 4th!!

PV: Both Lavillenie and Suhr ended in 10th. Suhr was 245 points behind Adams, while Lavillenie was 250 back from Rudisha!!

[dbirds]

Harting omission by 3 voters? Easy, some voters are biased vs multieventers and field eventers just like heisman voters and MVP voters are often biased v defensive players. I would kick people out if they leave out an obvious pick for bias but I realize that is not always easy to do

[Tuariki]

This could go in either men's or women 's AOY threads, but after a bit of scanning the two Top Ten's, I found the following bits of trivia:

In each Top Ten, there was one Multi person each, one High Hurdler each, and one Pole Vaulter each.

Multi's: Both Ennis and Eaton took 2nd place. Eaton was 17 points behind 1st, while Ennis was 21 points back

110/100H: Both Merritt and Pearson finished in 4th!!

PV: Both Lavillenie and Suhr ended in 10th. Suhr was 245 points behind Adams, while Lavillenie was 250 back from Rudisha!!

and your point is??

[aaronk]

This could go in either men's or women 's AOY threads, but after a bit of scanning the two Top Ten's, I found the following bits of trivia:

In each Top Ten, there was one Multi person each, one High Hurdler each, and one Pole Vaulter each.

Multi's: Both Ennis and Eaton took 2nd place. Eaton was 17 points behind 1st, while Ennis was 21 points back

110/100H: Both Merritt and Pearson finished in 4th!!

PV: Both Lavillenie and Suhr ended in 10th. Suhr was 245 points behind Adams, while Lavillenie was 250 back from Rudisha!!

and your point is??

Nothing!!
Just found it interesting!
(But "interesting", I suppose, is strictly "in the eye of the beholder"!! )

[Tuariki]

What I find interesting and illogical is the All-Athletics.com ranking of Yohan Blake as 2nd in the overall AOY ranking behind Bolt. Makes no sense at all to me.

Blake is give 1455 points in the 100m and 1409 in the 200m. His individual scores for the event seem OK; that is they make sense. But then those 2 individual scores somehow then translate to 1509 points overall.

Rudisha, on the other hand, gets 1472 for the 800m which translates to 1472 for the overall.

Blake gets 2 x silver, 0 x WR compared to Rudisha's 1 x gold and 1 x WR.

It appears All-Athletics rated the best performances - at least by single event as:

Merrit 1487; Rudisha 1472; Eaton 1471; Bolt (110m) 1464

Perhaps even more ridiculous is the ranking of Mo Farah as 19th overall and only 4th in the 5000m. Even Gatlin stomps all over Farah - 7th overall and his points for the 100m well ahead of Farah for the 500m and 10000m.

Robert Harting was only good enough for 30th overall. He was behind Asafa Powell, Liu Xiang, Churandy Martina, Tyson Gay and Nickel Ashmeade. 1 x gold and undefeated just can't keep up with a bunch of sprinter types with 0 x any sort of medal and multiple defeats.

What a complete nonsense of a ranking system. Are any of the posters on this message board involved in the compiling of the All-Athletics.com list of statistical nonsense.

At the risk of being banned again I will sum up by using the very "banning terminology" that got me into trouble a few weeks ago. IMO the All-Athletics.com ranking list has been put together by morons and idiots.

[18.99s]

What a complete nonsense of a ranking system. Are any of the posters on this message board involved in the compiling of the All-Athletics.com list of statistical nonsense.

At the risk of being banned again I will sum up by using the very "banning terminology" that got me into trouble a few weeks ago. IMO the All-Athletics.com ranking list has been put together by morons and idiots.

They use a formula which is explained at the link below.

http://www.all-athletics.com/en-us/rule ... kings-2012

Apparently they don't give any extra consideration for championship events like the Olympics or the quality of the competitors in any given meet; it's all about placings and timings/distances. Looks like they simply decided on a simplistic formula, and didn't bother to give it a reality check and tweak it after looking at its output.

[Tuariki]

What a complete nonsense of a ranking system. Are any of the posters on this message board involved in the compiling of the All-Athletics.com list of statistical nonsense.

At the risk of being banned again I will sum up by using the very "banning terminology" that got me into trouble a few weeks ago. IMO the All-Athletics.com ranking list has been put together by morons and idiots.

They use a formula which is explained at the link below.

http://www.all-athletics.com/en-us/rule ... kings-2012

Apparently they don't give any extra consideration for championship events like the Olympics or the quality of the competitors in any given meet; it's all about placings and timings/distances. Looks like they simply decided on a simplistic formula, and didn't bother to give it a reality check and tweak it after looking at its output.

Their rules, on the surface, read like the world's very best breakfast of Eggs Benedict but the reality of the resulting meal is very much a complete dog's breakfast.

[donley2]

At the risk of being banned again I will sum up by using the very "banning terminology" that got me into trouble a few weeks ago. IMO the All-Athletics.com ranking list has been put together by morons and idiots.

I have absolutely nothing to do with setting up the All-athletics.com ranking system, but I do at least appreciate that someone is attempting to do it. Your name calling really does not do much for anything or anyone. How about you set up a ranking system.

[Marlow]

All-athletics uses a formula . . . is all about placings and timings/distances. Looks like they simply decided on a simplistic formula, and didn't bother to give it a reality check and tweak it after looking at its output.

While it's an 'improvement' of the old IAAF (worthless) formula, it still suffers from a lack of 'common sense' in the output. Here are the wPV rankings [T&FN vs. A-A]:

1 4 SUHR
2 3 ISINBAYEVA
3 1 SILVA
4 2 SPIEGELBURG
5 7 PTÁČNÍKOVÁ
6 5 MURER
7 6 BLEASDALE
9 9 STRUTZ
10 10 BOSLAK

Putting Suhr 4th reveals just how of touch the formula is.

[Tuariki]

At the risk of being banned again I will sum up by using the very "banning terminology" that got me into trouble a few weeks ago. IMO the All-Athletics.com ranking list has been put together by morons and idiots.

I have absolutely nothing to do with setting up the All-athletics.com ranking system, but I do at least appreciate that someone is attempting to do it. Your name calling really does not do much for anything or anyone. How about you set up a ranking system.

While I appreciate the dedication to tracking and recording performances their AOY formula is a dog's breakfast and IMO brings the sport into disrepute when the results are so obviously a farce. As a case in point I use the rankings of Tyson Gay compared to Robert Harting.

2012 Comparison

Gay - - - - - - Harting
12th - - - - - - 30th - - - - - - All-Athletics AOY ranking
9.80 - - - - - - 70.66 - - - - - - Best performance in 2012
4th - - - - - - - 1st - - - - - - - Olympic Placing
0 - - - - - - - - - GOLD - - - - - Olympic medals
1290 - - - - - - 1269 - - - - - - IAAF scoring table points for 2012 best performance
4th - - - - - - - 1st - - - - - - - Rank in world of best athletes (one performance per athlete)
10th - - - - - - 1st - - - - - - - - Rank in world of best performance (count all performances)
1 - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - Number of performances in world top 10 performances
10,- - - - - - - 1,2,7,10 - - - - Ranking of top 10 performances in world
42211 - - - - - 11111111111- - Places in finals for 2012

Notes
1. Gay's best 100m had a +1.5 m/s wind.
2. Would a 0 m/s wind bring Gay down to 9.86 and 1267 points
3. Only finals counted - heats and qualifying ignored

And as I pointed out this is not an isolated example. All-Athletics claim to be the world's leading TNF database; and I do not dispute that claim at all. They are also a commercial organization. Their standing in the world of athletics demands that they have a formula that is not nonsensical; and IMO what they currently have is just that - nonsensical - and it throws up moronic and idiotic rankings.

Their contributors are world recognised experts. I do not believe that these experts believe the results of their computer formula.

Tyson Gay is a great athlete and clearly a great person as well. But he is far behind Robert Harting in terms of AOY rankings for 2012.

[Tuariki]

The letsrun.com final weekly recap where they do comparison of Rudisha vs Merritt is the best analysis of I have read on the subject. My choice had been Merritt, but based on this analysis I think TNF News got it right with Rudisha.

[Flumpy]

I'm really surprised Merritt only came 4th?

I can't remember who I finally decided was my #1 between Merrit and Rudisha but there were definitely 1 + 2 for me.

[ATK]

I'm really surprised Merritt only came 4th?

I can't remember who I finally decided was my #1 between Merrit and Rudisha but there were definitely 1 + 2 for me.

I think seeing him in 1-2 or 3 would have been understandable. But the drop to 4th seems rediculous. All things considered, I feel Bolts season was not in the same leauge a Merrits.

[gh]

a letter to the editor (non-native English speaker)

Your choice of David Rudisha (for the third time in a row, nonetheless) over Ashton Eaton stinks. Eaton, with a world record under the rain, was unbeaten and unchallanged, not so for your third timer, well beatable if one of the other top runners manage to stay with him at the exit of the last turn. As far as your rankings are concerned, they stink too, as usual. You value an olympic gold medal about the same as a first place in a meeting, i.e. no more than an exhibition. A loser, and not even the first of the olympic losers, as Reese Hoffa ahead of both Majewski and Storl in the shot, is a travesty of what counts in every sport: win a title.

[Marlow]

Your choice . . . stinks.
As far as your rankings are concerned, they stink too, as usual.
a travesty of what counts

A perennial subscriber, I presume?

T&FN's rankings are indeed, at times, infuriating, irrational, nonsensical, risible, and insulting. They are also, to paraphrase Churchill (in regard to democracy being "the worst form of government"), better than every other method that's ever been tried.

[bushop]

Your choice . . . stinks. As far as your rankings are concerned, they stink too, as usual. a travesty of what counts.

T&FN's rankings are indeed, at times, infuriating, irrational, nonsensical, risible, and insulting. They are also better than every other method that's ever been tried.

Sergej Litvinov December 29
i think im something like 10th in the world this year. because i wasnt at the olympics. but next year i hope to do it better ))

[bobguild76]

a letter to the editor (non-native English speaker)

Your choice of David Rudisha (for the third time in a row, nonetheless) over Ashton Eaton stinks. Eaton, with a world record under the rain, was unbeaten and unchallanged, not so for your third timer, well beatable if one of the other top runners manage to stay with him at the exit of the last turn. As far as your rankings are concerned, they stink too, as usual. You value an olympic gold medal about the same as a first place in a meeting, i.e. no more than an exhibition. A loser, and not even the first of the olympic losers, as Reese Hoffa ahead of both Majewski and Storl in the shot, is a travesty of what counts in every sport: win a title.

Yikes! Maybe the writer wants T&FN to simply rank each event according to the Olympic final order, which is as non-sensical as whatever non-formula All-athletics uses. For example, does this writer think Makhloufi should be ranked above Kiplagat in the 1500?

I most definitely agree with Marlow ... T&FN gets it better than any other publication. While Kiplagat would certainly trade his #1 ranking for Makhloufi's Olympic gold, there is no way T&FN would switch their respective rankings without violating its own decades old three-part criteria.

As for Rudisha vs Eaton, that has been discussed every which way on this forum, and their respective seasons were reflected in the closeness of the vote. As many others, I would have voted Merritt - Bolt as 3 - 4, but even that was close, and there's no denying Bolt had a fantastic season. Keep up the good work T&FN!!!

[Peter Michaelson]

Rudisha is the only man to win the Olympic 800 and the outdoor World Championships 800. I know that's not part of the criteria for AOY. Just sayin'.

[26mi235]

Not to mention - a heptathlon wr even though t&f news refused to acknowledge it

it was well acknowledged to the indoor season, where it belonged. We similarly "refused to acknowledge" (as always) cross country races, non-marathon road races, 56-pound weight throws, caber tosses, the egg-and-spoon race, 3-legged race, synchronized high jumping and being the member of a relay team.

None are part of the picture of the central core of the sport as defined by T&FN for its purposes decades ago. It's a simple system to understand, and it's here to stay.

There are exceptions, as the vertical jumps seem to have some effect. I posit that for the AOY consideration, as regards multi-event competitors it is relevant. Its relevance is seen in part by the, to me, inapt statement that he deserves lesser consideration because he only had two competitions. In fact, prepping for and performing at the WIC to get the WR very much is a part of his competitive year and effects his schedule of events in a way that is at the core of track and field -- the comments about caber tossing in this context is really absurd--I understand the point that you were trying to make but I think that the absurdity serves to point out why in this case it is relevant.

[bushop]

Not to mention - a heptathlon wr even though t&f news refused to acknowledge it

it was well acknowledged to the indoor season, where it belonged. We similarly "refused to acknowledge"... 56-pound weight throws, caber tosses... None are part of the picture of the central core of the sport as defined by T&FN for its purposes decades ago. It's a simple system to understand, and it's here to stay.

... the comments about caber tossing in this context is really absurd--I understand the point that you were trying to make but I think that the absurdity serves to point out why in this case it is relevant.

26mi235... you picked the wrong event as an example... I know throwers who think the caber, stone, shelf and weight should be in the mix for T&F News rankings.

[gh]

just to clarify.... my use of the "highland events" was meant in the context of using results in those events as part of ranking one of the standard events (e.g., factoring the 56lb weight into the hammer rankings).

It was a classic reductio ad absurdum.

I'll try one last time. The indoor heptathlon doesn't count for the decathlon rankings for the same reason that the indoor 60 doesn't count for the 100 rankings: they're not remotely the same event, and reward different skill sets.

If you can't see that the Eaton types (where all of his great events are included and his two worst are excluded) get an added advantage indoors over somebody who is slower afoot and throws better, then I don't know what to tell you.

Nonetheless, I hasten to add one last time that Eaton's non-hept season was plenty good enough for me and I voted for him as AOY without it.

[mump boy]

well beatable if one of the other top runners manage to stay with him at the exit of the last turn

I know it's an impossible comparison but i'm pretty sure that if he's competed 7 times it is likey that Ashton Eaton may not have tried so hard on one occasion, he may have been distracted or under the weather or even fouled out in one event

This is why i can't hold 1 (or even a few) loses against people who competed a lot. If Rudisha or Merrit had only competed on National Trials and OG they too would be undefeated, it's a totally unfair comparison

[gh]

....
I know it's an impossible comparison but i'm pretty sure that if he's competed 7 times it is likey that Ashton Eaton may not have tried so hard on one occasion, he may have been distracted or under the weather or even fouled out in one event ....

This is where it gets tricky. As I noted in discussing this in my column in the new issue, if Eaton were competing "not to lose" he could be distracted or under the weather and still win. And would take precautions not to foul out. He had enough margin over everybody else—which is my point—that he could afford a "safety jump/throw" and still win. I just see no circumstance under which he loses.

[Marlow]

I just see no circumstance under which he loses.

Just like Dan O'Brien in 92 . . .

[gh]

You're missing the point..... I stipulated COMPETING NOT TO LOSE: O'B in '92 was going for a high score at the same time.

[Marlow]

You're missing the point..... I stipulated COMPETING NOT TO LOSE: O'B in '92 was going for a high score at the same time.

I guess my point is that clearing the opening Decathlon PV bar (no matter how low) in the middle of the second day is sometimes problematic, even for the best of them. When a technical problem arises, even the very best are reduced to ashes.

[Dave]

....
I know it's an impossible comparison but i'm pretty sure that if he's competed 7 times it is likey that Ashton Eaton may not have tried so hard on one occasion, he may have been distracted or under the weather or even fouled out in one event ....

This is where it gets tricky. As I noted in discussing this in my column in the new issue, if Eaton were competing "not to lose" he could be distracted or under the weather and still win. And would take precautions not to foul out. He had enough margin over everybody else—which is my point—that he could afford a "safety jump/throw" and still win. I just see no circumstance under which he loses.

To your point, there was a 1-2 minute video featured on the front page of the indoor world championships from 2012 showing Eaton as he went for the world record. The other athletes in that video were so far out of Eaton's league, it was almost comical. I understand that multis are different from any other event, but can you imagine a 4% margin of victory in any other event at this level? ie 40cm in the PV, .4sec in the 100, or almost a meter in the LJ?

[Tuariki]

....
I know it's an impossible comparison but i'm pretty sure that if he's competed 7 times it is likey that Ashton Eaton may not have tried so hard on one occasion, he may have been distracted or under the weather or even fouled out in one event ....

This is where it gets tricky. As I noted in discussing this in my column in the new issue, if Eaton were competing "not to lose" he could be distracted or under the weather and still win. And would take precautions not to foul out. He had enough margin over everybody else—which is my point—that he could afford a "safety jump/throw" and still win. I just see no circumstance under which he loses.

To your point, there was a 1-2 minute video featured on the front page of the indoor world championships from 2012 showing Eaton as he went for the world record. The other athletes in that video were so far out of Eaton's league, it was almost comical. I understand that multis are different from any other event, but can you imagine a 4% margin of victory in any other event at this level? ie 40cm in the PV, .4sec in the 100, or almost a meter in the LJ?

While not quite at the same level, Jacko Gill's winning margin at 2011 Lille IAAF world youth champs was 19.65% greater than 2nd place. Tyler Schultz 20.35m for 2nd. 24.35m for Gill.

[mump boy]

....
I know it's an impossible comparison but i'm pretty sure that if he's competed 7 times it is likey that Ashton Eaton may not have tried so hard on one occasion, he may have been distracted or under the weather or even fouled out in one event ....

This is where it gets tricky. As I noted in discussing this in my column in the new issue, if Eaton were competing "not to lose" he could be distracted or under the weather and still win. And would take precautions not to foul out. He had enough margin over everybody else—which is my point—that he could afford a "safety jump/throw" and still win. I just see no circumstance under which he loses.

But we could say the same thing about DR in Zurich, stuff happens sometimes and if you put yourself in the position for it to happen then there's 100% more chance that it will do

i have no argument with AE season it was sublime BUT for me you don't get extra credit for going unbeaten when you don't really put yourself in a position to be beaten. DR didn't have to run in Zurich, AM didn't have to run against all his top competition week in week out

I'm not against any of these 3 being AOY but AE would be my 3rd choice

[mump boy]

To your point, there was a 1-2 minute video featured on the front page of the indoor world championships from 2012 showing Eaton as he went for the world record. The other athletes in that video were so far out of Eaton's league, it was almost comical. I understand that multis are different from any other event, but can you imagine a 4% margin of victory in any other event at this level? ie 40cm in the PV, .4sec in the 100, or almost a meter in the LJ?

Helsinki 2005
POS BIB ATHLETE COUNTRY MARK DETAIL
1 632 Elena ISINBAEVA RUS 5.01 WR
2 564 Monika PYREK POL 4.60
3 162 Pavla RYBOVÁ CZE 4.50

and how would 4% equal 1m in the LJ ?

[bobguild76]

To your point, there was a 1-2 minute video featured on the front page of the indoor world championships from 2012 showing Eaton as he went for the world record. The other athletes in that video were so far out of Eaton's league, it was almost comical. I understand that multis are different from any other event, but can you imagine a 4% margin of victory in any other event at this level? ie 40cm in the PV, .4sec in the 100, or almost a meter in the LJ?

Helsinki 2005
POS BIB ATHLETE COUNTRY MARK DETAIL
1 632 Elena ISINBAEVA RUS 5.01 WR
2 564 Monika PYREK POL 4.60
3 162 Pavla RYBOVÁ CZE 4.50

and how would 4% equal 1m in the LJ ?

Methinks he meant to say 1 foot. Long Jump results: Mexico City - 1968

1. Beamon - 8.90 WR
2. Beer - 8.19
3. Boston - 8.16

Almost a meter! A 7.98% margin of victory!

[tm71]

I was disappointed to see Merritt all the way down at 4th, but this was an unusually tough year at the top, what with three "are you kidding me?" types of World Records. Merritt had more losses than the others but did not go out if his way to avoid the tough competition.

totallt agree. in my book merritt had the best ever season by a high hurdler and deserved a much higher ranking !

[Dave]

To your point, there was a 1-2 minute video featured on the front page of the indoor world championships from 2012 showing Eaton as he went for the world record. The other athletes in that video were so far out of Eaton's league, it was almost comical. I understand that multis are different from any other event, but can you imagine a 4% margin of victory in any other event at this level? ie 40cm in the PV, .4sec in the 100, or almost a meter in the LJ?

Helsinki 2005
POS BIB ATHLETE COUNTRY MARK DETAIL
1 632 Elena ISINBAEVA RUS 5.01 WR
2 564 Monika PYREK POL 4.60
3 162 Pavla RYBOVÁ CZE 4.50

and how would 4% equal 1m in the LJ ?

Methinks he meant to say 1 foot. Long Jump results: Mexico City - 1968

1. Beamon - 8.90 WR
2. Beer - 8.19
3. Boston - 8.16

Almost a meter! A 7.98% margin of victory!

I was just sloppy. 8.90 * .04=.356 ~=1ft though. I should have stuck with running examples. Based on the vault and LJ example provided above. I guess Eaton's margin isn't completely unheard of. That said, being in the same league with Issy and Beamon on their best days is a good place to be.

[bobguild76]

I was just sloppy. 8.90 * .04=.356 ~=1ft though. I should have stuck with running examples. Based on the vault and LJ example provided above. I guess Eaton's margin isn't completely unheard of. That said, being in the same league with Issy and Beamon on their best days is a good place to be.

So true, Dave. And I think, years from now, athletes will be honored to have someone say; "You're in the same league as Eaton."

[mump boy]

That said, being in the same league with Issy and Beamon on their best days is a good place to be.

What's the % of breaking the DEc WR by 13 points ?? because i'm sure they did it by much more than that !!

AE was brilliant this year but let's not get carried away, the competition wasn't so hot was it ?Rudisha lead the greatest depth 800m of all time and Merrit was racing against the highest calibre competition ever, Eaton had an out of sorts Trey Hardee and that's about it