trackinblack2 asked in another topic (viewtopic.php?t=30758), what is responsible for the rapid improvement in the men's 100m running. The question led to vivid discussion, and finally to statistical analysis. While not directly answering the question, the statistics showed that development has been rapid, indeed, but only until 1996. Since then the development has more or less stopped, possible reasons being analyzed in the original topic.
Besides 100m running, one may ask what has happened to the other events. For my own curiosity (maybe this is of interest to someone else too), I try to provide similar data over time also for the other individual Olympic events, starting from 200m running.
Top 100 averages (performers) for men's 200m during 1976-2007 (manual times +0.24 included for 1976-1980; electronic times only from 1981 on; wind-legal only):
1976 20.75
1977 20.79
1978 20.73
1979 20.65
1980 20.67
1981 20.73
1982 20.67
1983 20.61
1984 20.56
1985 20.57
1986 20.58
1987 20.51
1988 20.51
1989 20.60
1990 20.60
1991 20.61
1992 20.50
1993 20.52
1994 20.54
1995 20.50
1996 20.43
1997 20.47
1998 20.47
1999 20.42
2000 20.41
2001 20.48
2002 20.49
2003 20.45
2004 20.45
2005 20.47
2006 20.47
2007 20.42
2008 20.43
2009 20.41
2010 20.46
The story seems pretty similar to 200m than what it was for 100m (no big surprise that the sprints are linked to each other). Olympic year peaks are maybe more visible here. Development was rapid until 1996, and has ceased after that. The year 2007 perhaps starts a new era of improvements. More sophisticated statistical analysis might also reveal something else, who knows.
|
|
Development trends in men's individual Olympic events
119 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Development trends in men's individual Olympic events
Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's 400m:
For 1976-1980 both electronic and manual times (+0.14), electronic times only from 1981 on. 1976 45,95 1977 46,10 1978 46,00 1979 45,92 1980 45,89 1981 45,86 1982 45,76 1983 45,64 1984 45,51 1985 45,48 1986 45,46 1987 45,47 1988 45,34 1989 45,63 1990 45,66 1991 45,58 1992 45,38 1993 45,50 1994 45,51 1995 45,44 1996 45,22 1997 45,41 1998 45,32 1999 45,34 2000 45,27 2001 45,39 2002 45,50 2003 45,35 2004 45,35 2005 45,40 2006 45,34 2007 45,38 2008 45.34 2009 45.46 2010 45.36 400m appears to be an "Olympic year event", strongly peaking there. Again, no improvements since 1996, which is the best year so far. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's 800m:
1976 1.46.87 1977 1.46.86 1978 1.46.94 1979 1.46.87 1980 1.46.79 1981 1.46.59 1982 1.46.28 1983 1.45.96 1984 1.45.73 1985 1.45.88 1986 1.46.00 1987 1.46.02 1988 1.45.62 1989 1.45.99 1990 1.46.05 1991 1.46.06 1992 1.45.80 1993 1.45.92 1994 1.45.85 1995 1.45.78 1996 1.45.44 1997 1.45.59 1998 1.45.65 1999 1.45.48 2000 1.45.50 2001 1.45.61 2002 1.45.80 2003 1.45.63 2004 1.45.54 2005 1.45.71 2006 1.45.58 2007 1.45.83 2008 1.45.55 2009 1.45.72 2010 1.45.65 Strange event, showing practically no development since 1983. Not influenced by rabbited races (when did it start? - I don't remember), not influenced by awakening of Africa. This brings to my mind a topic, which I found when browsing the forum (viewtopic.php?t=29109). Perhaps 800m is a difficult event for human beings as it is a compromise between speed and endurance. 1996 is the best year so far, but the margins are small. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's 1500m:
1976 3.38,92 1977 3.39,50 1978 3.39,01 1979 3.38,36 1980 3.37,98 1981 3.38,25 1982 3.38,14 1983 3.37,43 1984 3.36,88 1985 3.37,53 1986 3.37,12 1987 3.36,94 1988 3.37,04 1989 3.37,27 1990 3.37,13 1991 3.37,01 1992 3.36,94 1993 3.37,19 1994 3.37,21 1995 3.37,03 1996 3.35,77 1997 3.35,32 1998 3.35,93 1999 3.35,48 2000 3.35,62 2001 3.35,47 2002 3.36,45 2003 3.36,02 2004 3.35,44 2005 3.35,79 2006 3.35,99 2007 3.35,98 2008 3.35,62 2009 3.35,52 2010 3.35.44 Practically no development from 1983 to 1995. Then a sudden drop in 1996, bringing 1500m running to the level where it is today. 1997 is the best year so far. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
I had a few minutes to start doing the regressions on these new data. For the 1500 the fit is 'good' but not nearly as good as for the 100. The first 'doping' dummy is significant (but not too large, ~1 second).
Yearly top 100 averages for men's 5000m:
1976 13.31.2 1977 13.31.5 1978 13.31.0 1979 13.29.8 1980 13.29.2 1981 13.29.5 1982 13.28.8 1983 13.29.6 1984 13.27.0 1985 13.29.3 1986 13.26.7 1987 13.27.7 1988 13.28.5 1989 13.28.0 1990 13.28.1 1991 13.26.9 1992 13.22.9 1993 13.22.6 1994 13.22.9 1995 13.20.6 1996 13.20.5 1997 13.21.3 1998 13.19.3 1999 13.18.0 2000 13.15.5 2001 13.17.7 2002 13.18.3 2003 13.16.5 2004 13.13.2 2005 13.12.2 2006 13.12.2 2007 13.14.2 2008 13.13.3 2009 13.12.7 2010 13.11.9 Relatively constant development. The rise of Africa is clearly seen in the big drop from 1991 to 1992. Last year was not a very good one. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:05 am, edited 3 times in total.
WCs in Osaka and championship years do not necessarily help the long distance events as those events are tactical as well as being slowed by summer weather. This year we will see another effect - since the 10,000 was run at the OGs, one of the big races of the year will not be held, since the meet is after the OGs. There is the countering effect of qualifying times with a push in the range of the top 50 to 100 (bigger effect on top-100 marks?), although this is now pushed into the prior year due to the longer qualifying period. BTW, I have some results from the 200 through 1500, and will add in more and try to make the results more readily presentable. It might be interesting to compare the evolution across events. Last edited by 26mi235 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Only a heart attack could stop me now that I'm this far (well, I already have a pacemaker). This is not very laborious for me, as I just make use of data that others have compiled. That's the tough part, to make the compilations! All my respect goes to Pino Mappa & co.
Great work! Interesting stuff to discuss, regarding what we think is beind all of this. Keeping in mind the changes in track surfaces, and the move to more professionalism and longer careers, this is not unexpected. Still, I love it when we get into the numerical weeds.
Charts are more illustrative than the numbers, and they are very easy to make, of course. I have them on my computer, but I don't know how to post them here, so it is great if you can make the results more presentable (whichever way you plan to do it). Evolution across events is certainly of great interest, too.
I also have trouble posting graphs/tables and might even e-mail them to those adept at the task. What I am working on will probably be either the fitted curves or smoothed curves with the time axis being time/100m so that multiple curves are shown on the same graph. Mikli, when you provide the data you have been rounding to the nearest 0.01, which is rather granular for the sprints (esp 100m). (Believe it or not, the fact that the times are only reported to the nearest 0.01 is not relevant because we are talking about a mean which is a continuous variable.) Finally, in the 100, I expected that the difference between the top 50 and top 100 would shrink over time as the pool got much more populated but gap is almost constant, with almost all of the differences 0.07 or 0.08. Of course, this means that the difference between the top 50 and the Second 50 is twice as large. Here is the list of the 2nd 50 for the 100m Year … 2nd 50 … 1st 50 Difference 1976 … 10.39 … 10.27 … 0.12 1977 … 10.43 … 10.27 … 0.16 1978 … 10.40 … 10.24 … 0.16 1979 … 10.39 … 10.23 … 0.16 1980 … 10.38 … 10.24 … 0.14 1981 … 10.40 … 10.24 … 0.16 1982 … 10.37 … 10.23 … 0.14 1983 … 10.35 … 10.19 … 0.16 1984 … 10.34 … 10.20 … 0.14 1985 … 10.31 … 10.19 … 0.12 1986 … 10.32 … 10.16 … 0.16 1987 … 10.30 … 10.16 … 0.14 1988 … 10.30 … 10.14 … 0.16 1989 … 10.32 … 10.18 … 0.14 1990 … 10.32 … 10.18 … 0.14 1991 … 10.31 … 10.15 … 0.16 1992 … 10.28 … 10.14 … 0.14 1993 … 10.28 … 10.14 … 0.14 1994 … 10.26 … 10.10 … 0.16 1995 … 10.28 … 10.14 … 0.14 1996 … 10.23 … 10.07 … 0.16 1997 … 10.25 … 10.07 … 0.18 1998 … 10.24 … 10.06 … 0.18 1999 … 10.23 … 10.07 … 0.16 2000 … 10.20 … 10.08 … 0.12 2001 … 10.24 … 10.10 … 0.14 2002 … 10.24 … 10.10 … 0.14 2003 … 10.23 … 10.07 … 0.16 2004 … 10.21 … 10.07 … 0.14 2005 … 10.25 … 10.09 … 0.16 2006 … 10.23 … 10.09 … 0.14 2007 … 10.21 … 10.07 … 0.14
I think so too. Sadly, I was so unbelievably stupid to not save the 100m toplists, but I will collect them again with three desimals later at some point. Meanwhile, here is 200m with three desimals: 1976 20.753 1977 20.785 1978 20.733 1979 20.654 1980 20.673 1981 20.735 1982 20.665 1983 20.614 1984 20.562 1985 20.566 1986 20.581 1987 20.509 1988 20.512 1989 20.597 1990 20.604 1991 20.605 1992 20.504 1993 20.519 1994 20.538 1995 20.498 1996 20.427 1997 20.471 1998 20.466 1999 20.418 2000 20.413 2001 20.480 2002 20.487 2003 20.452 2004 20.453 2005 20.474 2006 20.470 2007 20.419 2008 20.427 2009 20.412 2010 20.464 Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:06 am, edited 3 times in total.
Thanks, I will redo the regressions with the updated data.
There is another look at these data that I thought that I would try. I would take the data for 4-year period and go across the distances with a graph of Pace vs Log(Distance), which provides a surprisingly clean fit when using Championship distances. It will be interesting to see how that line looks over time. Does it compress at the top end or the bottom end, and how do some of the dummies (FS, 'drug regimes', etc) play out? [note, this relationship changes down around the 200 where several factors come into play: 1) reaction time; 2) hard acceleration phase a larger part of the event; 3) different energy systems; and 4) non-linear wind resistance. A couple of these can be finessed, or instance by taking out the reaction time of about 0.15 for the 100, 0.20 for the 200 and 0.25 for the 400). Maybe I will try to team up with someone with real credentials in the field -- JRM
Relief, did actually save it and found it.
Top 50/100 averages for men's 100m with three desimals: year top50 top100 1976 10.266 10.331 1977 10.271 10.347 1978 10.239 10.316 1979 10.231 10.306 1980 10.237 10.307 1981 10.245 10.317 1982 10.227 10.297 1983 10.194 10.266 1984 10.204 10.266 1985 10.191 10.254 1986 10.160 10.237 1987 10.162 10.228 1988 10.141 10.215 1989 10.180 10.250 1990 10.184 10.247 1991 10.149 10.225 1992 10.143 10.214 1993 10.136 10.210 1994 10.101 10.177 1995 10.138 10.207 1996 10.070 10.148 1997 10.075 10.157 1998 10.064 10.147 1999 10.068 10.146 2000 10.079 10.140 2001 10.099 10.166 2002 10.100 10.165 2003 10.073 10.146 2004 10.070 10.142 2005 10.088 10.169 2006 10.087 10.163 2007 10.071 10.139 2008 10.019 10.104 2009 10.012 10.098 2010 10.045 10.134 Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's 10000m:
1976 28.17,7 1977 28.18,2 1978 28.15,8 1979 28.17,0 1980 28.13,1 1981 28.19,9 1982 28.13,1 1983 28.15,5 1984 28.07,2 1985 28.17,1 1986 28.07,8 1987 28.15,6 1988 28.05,2 1989 28.12,1 1990 28.10,4 1991 28.03,7 1992 28.05,7 1993 28.06,6 1994 28.09,7 1995 28.00,2 1996 27.57,7 1997 27.59,7 1998 27.58,8 1999 27.57,9 2000 27.53,0 2001 28.02,7 2002 27.56,6 2003 27.53,7 2004 27.49,7 2005 27.50,1 2006 27.56,6 2007 27.39,4 2008 27.36.5 2009 27.51.1 2010 27.54.0 Solid improvement, but with large deviations. This is understandable, as 10000m is nowadays run relatively rarely, and the yearly averages are influenced by what the pace in the few important races happened to be. 2007 is clearly the best year so far, but due to the large deviations, it might be a wrong interpretation that the event moved strongly on there. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's marathon:
1976 2:15:35 1977 2:15:56 1978 2:14:24 1979 2:14:04 1980 2:12:44 1981 2:13:00 1982 2:12:45 1983 2:11:32 1984 2:11:52 1985 2:11:37 1986 2:12:10 1987 2:12:12 1988 2:11:27 1989 2:11:58 1990 2:12:00 1991 2:11:41 1992 2:11:36 1993 2:11:30 1994 2:10:51 1995 2:11:08 1996 2:10:52 1997 2:10:03 1998 2:10:00 1999 2:09:35 2000 2:09:49 2001 2:09:53 2002 2:09:26 2003 2:08:49 2004 2:09:33 2005 2:09:35 2006 2:09:21 2007 2:09:04 2008 2:08:33 2009 2:08:11 2010 2:08:00 Extremely fast development until 1983, followed by slow or no development for the next 10 years. 1997 marks the beginning of the "modern" era, peaking at 2003. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's 3000sc:
1976 8.30,79 1977 8.32,04 1978 8.30,91 1979 8.31,15 1980 8.28,13 1981 8.30,24 1982 8.29,21 1983 8.27,62 1984 8.27,21 1985 8.28,41 1986 8.26,82 1987 8.28,11 1988 8.26,77 1989 8.28,99 1990 8.27,67 1991 8.27,74 1992 8.26,11 1993 8.27,66 1994 8.27,51 1995 8.25,34 1996 8.25,51 1997 8.24,87 1998 8.25,00 1999 8.22,58 2000 8.23,04 2001 8.23,64 2002 8.24,32 2003 8.22,93 2004 8.21,48 2005 8.22,38 2006 8.22,60 2007 8.22,65 2008 8.22,65 2009 8.24.54 2010 8.24.28 Not much to say. The event has moved on, which is not a big surprise.The years in late 80s / early 90s were not particularly good. The level has risen since, thanks to the Kenyans. 2004 is the best year so far. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:11 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top 100 averages for men's 110m hurdles (manual times +0.24 included for 1976-1980; electronic times only from 1981 on; wind-legal only):
1976 13.839 1977 13.861 1978 13.868 1979 13.841 1980 13.816 1981 13.823 1982 13.774 1983 13.750 1984 13.698 1985 13.715 1986 13.680 1987 13.651 1988 13.614 1989 13.689 1990 13.636 1991 13.631 1992 13.579 1993 13.602 1994 13.585 1995 13.553 1996 13.503 1997 13.532 1998 13.540 1999 13.521 2000 13.531 2001 13.569 2002 13.554 2003 13.533 2004 13.478 2005 13.519 2006 13.533 2007 13.488 2008 13.477 2009 13.476 2010 13.502 Same as with the other sprints: Rapid development until 1996, nothing since. 2004 the best year so far. Olympic year peaks are clear. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's 400m hurdles:
1976 50.29 1977 50.44 1978 50.36 1979 50.30 1980 50.14 1981 50.21 1982 50.04 1983 49.90 1984 49.76 1985 49.80 1986 49.66 1987 49.68 1988 49.70 1989 49.89 1990 49.79 1991 49.80 1992 49.65 1993 49.70 1994 49.60 1995 49.51 1996 49.30 1997 49.39 1998 49.40 1999 49.33 2000 49.29 2001 49.35 2002 49.36 2003 49.35 2004 49.28 2005 49.28 2006 49.50 2007 49.40 2008 49.54 2009 49.57 2010 49.57 First rapid development until 1986, then a stop for several years. Then again rapid improvements from 1993 to 1996, and no thereafter. 2006 and 2007 were relatively weak years. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's high jump:
1976 2.207 1977 2.217 1978 2.223 1979 2.231 1980 2.240 1981 2.245 1982 2.258 1983 2.275 1984 2.283 1985 2.285 1986 2.279 1987 2.282 1988 2.290 1989 2.281 1990 2.288 1991 2.281 1992 2.283 1993 2.285 1994 2.282 1995 2.279 1996 2.282 1997 2.278 1998 2.275 1999 2.268 2000 2.275 2001 2.267 2002 2.269 2003 2.268 2004 2.271 2005 2.274 2006 2.277 2007 2.280 2008 2.279 2009 2.275 2010 2.269 Rapid development until mid 80s, which was the "golden age" of high jump, introducing exceptional talents like Sjöberg and Sotomayor. But clearly, there was more in the 80s than those talents, a sort of a surprise to me, as the overall level was higher than today. The level slowly started to decrease after the peak at 1988, reaching bottom in 2001. The level has constantly increased since, whilst not to the level of 80s, yet Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's pole vault:
1976 5.320 1977 5.303 1978 5.342 1979 5.386 1980 5.453 1981 5.472 1982 5.511 1983 5.539 1984 5.575 1985 5.598 1986 5.623 1987 5.615 1988 5.631 1989 5.614 1990 5.613 1991 5.627 1992 5.656 1993 5.647 1994 5.652 1995 5.648 1996 5.686 1997 5.662 1998 5.681 1999 5.660 2000 5.675 2001 5.644 2002 5.639 2003 5.641 2004 5.664 2005 5.651 2006 5.644 2007 5.658 2008 5.645 2009 5.640 2010 5.605 Extremely rapid development until 1986, followed by further increase, while with slower pace, until 1996. The level has slightly dropped since, perhaps due to the change of the rules. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's long jump:
1976 7.922 1977 7.890 1978 7.900 1979 7.924 1980 7.950 1981 7.949 1982 8.006 1983 8.017 1984 8.063 1985 8.053 1986 8.062 1987 8.098 1988 8.107 1989 8.066 1990 8.060 1991 8.080 1992 8.087 1993 8.080 1994 8.092 1995 8.080 1996 8.114 1997 8.101 1998 8.077 1999 8.086 2000 8.104 2001 8.048 2002 8.070 2003 8.102 2004 8.108 2005 8.075 2006 8.081 2007 8.076 2008 8.090 2009 8.108 2010 8.081 Rapid development until 1988, no improvements after that. 1996 the best year so far. I would have guessed that the level had dropped from the late 80s, but that does not seem to be the case. While there were a couple of expectional talents back then (Lewis, in particular), the overall level was about the same as today. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's triple jump:
1976 16.431 1977 16.449 1978 16.514 1979 16.529 1980 16.566 1981 16.673 1982 16.742 1983 16.827 1984 16.853 1985 16.935 1986 16.958 1987 16.950 1988 16.980 1989 16.885 1990 16.886 1991 16.924 1992 16.931 1993 16.931 1994 16.892 1995 16.886 1996 16.924 1997 16.872 1998 16.845 1999 16.774 2000 16.837 2001 16.793 2002 16.810 2003 16.782 2004 16.928 2005 16.836 2006 16.886 2007 16.887 2008 16.926 2009 16.919 2010 16.862 Extremely rapid development until 1988, then a clear drop in 1989, followed by a slightly decreasing trend until 2003. The level has been improving for the last few years. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:16 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Development trends in men's individual Olympic events
I am not really sure what you capture with average of top 100 athletes. I believe that when people talk about improvement in an event they are talking about the sharp end of the distribution (something like the top 10). Among 20-100 most athletes are armature or semi-professional and are likely to lag behind any improvement in an event. It would be interesting to see the comparison between this list and top ten average. Regardless, good work!
Re: Development trends in men's individual Olympic events
Looking at the list it does seem that 1996 was the best year in men T&F so far. This is true especially for spring and jump events (can you post the throws average?). I believe that this is very interesting since 1996 is not related to major changes in drug policies (unlike 1988 for women). I think that there is a good chance that 2008 will be able to pass 1996 since we are witnessing amazing results from all over the globe.
Olorin,
Thanks for your comment. The top100 averages capture the overall level, not only that of the very top. Usually, these go hand by hand. Not always, however, as top10 is influenced by exceptional performances of the very best athletes, whereas their influence is marginal in the top100. Anyway, less than top100 would be sufficient for this purpose, as shown by the top50 averages posted for 100m. But 100 is so nice round number 
After the season, I may come back with top10 or top 20 averages. By doing this, I should be able to go to the very beginning of modern athletics, which should place the "recent" developments into a larger perspective. i will post the throws + decathlon in about a week.
Mikli The 100 is rather special event with relatively a lot of money. This suggests that the armature bias is less likely to effect result in this event. Can you just satisfy my curiosity and post the correlation in 2-3 events between the top 20 and 21-100 over the years (shouldn’t be that difficult as you already have the data) and compare that to the 100. Thanks
I guess this should answer. Correlations coefficients between top20 and top100 averages for the events posted so far:
100: 0.98 200: 0.94 400: 0.94 800: 0.96 1500: 0.96 5000: 0.96 10000: 0.94 Marathon: 0.98 3000sc: 0.95 110h: 0.98 400h: 0.97 High: 0.97 Pole: 0.99 Long: 0.96 Triple: 0.97
Sorry to be a pain, but you should really examine the correlation between the top 20 and places 21-100. Doing your way will tend to produce high correlation. Thanks for the effort!
No problem at all. Is this what you meant? Correlation coefficients between top20 and position 21-100 averages for the events posted so far: 100: 0.97 200: 0.90 400: 0.91 800: 0.94 1500: 0.93 5000: 0.93 10000: 0.88 Marathon: 0.97 3000sc: 0.89 110h: 0.97 400h: 0.96 High: 0.95 Pole: 0.99 Long: 0.93 Triple: 0.95
Yearly top 100 averages for men's shot put:
1976 19.715 1977 19.545 1978 19.689 1979 19.762 1980 20.060 1981 19.879 1982 20.061 1983 20.286 1984 20.431 1985 20.251 1986 20.333 1987 20.220 1988 20.218 1989 19.896 1990 19.813 1991 19.471 1992 19.787 1993 19.566 1994 19.455 1995 19.424 1996 19.702 1997 19.593 1998 19.739 1999 19.670 2000 20.030 2001 19.878 2002 20.014 2003 19.998 2004 20.136 2005 20.056 2006 20.104 2007 20.066 2008 20.191 2009 20.047 2010 20.037 Rapid development towards the 80s, peaking at 1984, and gradually decreasing after that until 1988. What followed was a huge drop from 1988 to 1989 (for a reason we all must be aware of), and then another huge drop from 1990 to 1991, dropping the level below to that of the mid-70s. The level recovered for the time of the 1992 Olympic year and then immediately dropped back, the level of 1995 being the lowest in the last 30+ years. A new era of improvements started from there and has continued until today (or until 2004, at least). Nonetheless, we are still a long way back from the level of mid-80s. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Yearly top 100 averages for men's discus throw:
1976 62.41 1977 62.13 1978 62.40 1979 62.90 1980 63.83 1981 63.04 1982 63.65 1983 63.83 1984 64.41 1985 63.81 1986 63.85 1987 63.53 1988 64.12 1989 63.00 1990 62.78 1991 62.47 1992 62.79 1993 61.75 1994 61.08 1995 61.77 1996 62.73 1997 62.47 1998 62.84 1999 63.03 2000 63.77 2001 62.89 2002 63.08 2003 62.55 2004 63.34 2005 62.81 2006 62.77 2007 62.99 2008 63.60 2009 62.81 2010 63.21 The level strongly improved until 1984, followed by decrease until 1994, very similar to the trends in the shot. After 1994, a very poor year, the level sharply improved again until 2000, but unlike with the shot, has been perhaps on slight decrease thereafter. Last edited by mikli on Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
119 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: 26mi235, Al in NYC, Rothosen, Slowpope and 22 guests |
|
