London 2012 hept - update

[nianchengyu]

there is SP section of hep in oly in beijing:
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNzAxNDU1NzY=.html

[nianchengyu]

this is 200n section:
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNzAxNDQ2Njg=.html

[Gabriella]

Seeing as you're such a fan of Schippers, any news on Dutch heptathlete Jolanda Keizer, nianchenkyu? She had that great 6370 from Beijing at 23 then won European indoors silver in 2009....then apparently injured herself and missed Berlin. She came back for Barcelona 2010 but was DQed in the first event. She went on to complete the HJ (1.74) and SP (14.97) but withdrew from the 200m. She then did a 5804 at Kladno in 2011. The only positive thing from the 2011 was her JT PB of 45.79.

I hope she is over her injuries now as she was progressing nicely till 2008/2009, and I was expecting her to be an outside medal candidate in Berlin. She's sub 24 secs over 200 and has that great SP, way over 15m at her best. She was progressing nicely over 1.80 and 6m in the HJ/LJ but since her injury has regressed to low 1.7's and under 6m. I hope she can sort this out as she is definitely a talent. It could just be that the injury came at totally the wrong time and we'll never see what she could have achieved. I hope not.

[nianchengyu]

Seeing as you're such a fan of Schippers, any news on Dutch heptathlete Jolanda Keizer, nianchenkyu? She had that great 6370 from Beijing at 23 then won European indoors silver in 2009....then apparently injured herself and missed Berlin. She came back for Barcelona 2010 but was DQed in the first event. She went on to complete the HJ (1.74) and SP (14.97) but withdrew from the 200m. She then did a 5804 at Kladno in 2011. The only positive thing from the 2011 was her JT PB of 45.79.

I hope she is over her injuries now as she was progressing nicely till 2008/2009, and I was expecting her to be an outside medal candidate in Berlin. She's sub 24 secs over 200 and has that great SP, way over 15m at her best. She was progressing nicely over 1.80 and 6m in the HJ/LJ but since her injury has regressed to low 1.7's and under 6m. I hope she can sort this out as she is definitely a talent. It could just be that the injury came at totally the wrong time and we'll never see what she could have achieved. I hope not.

ABOUT her,i first saw her SP at oly in 2008,she and Hoos both good putters,then in 2009 she further won silver in 2009 behind Anna Bogdanova,rather good form and she also set PB 15.61m
Lisse 09/05/09,however,she injured herself,Bogdanova also injured i guess,even slower than keizer until 2012 winter she showed result in pen.there is a report about her,the title was Keizer turns to Klüft for inspiration and advice :
http://www.european-athletics.org/news/latest-news/496-general/9833-keizer-turns-to-klueft-for-inspiration-and-advice.html
BUT for her, not enough result to qualify in 2011,contesting two heps,ther are some reason best in 2010 and 2011:
2010：
15,33 Jolanda Keizer 05-04-85 AAC Amsterdam 18-07-10
5,76 0,6 Jolanda Keizer 05-04-85 AAC Amsterdam 17-07-10
1,74 Jolanda Keizer 05-04-85 Phanos Eindhoven 11-07-10
44,72 Jolanda Keizer 05-04-85 AAC Lisse 05-09-10
2011:
14.38 -0.5 Jolanda Keizer 05/04/85 AAC Kladno (CZE) 15-06-11
1.71 Jolanda Keizer 05/04/85 AAC Kladno (CZE) 15-06-11
25.22 0.7 Jolanda Keizer 05/04/85 AAC Kladno (CZE) 15-06-11
5.83 0.7 Jolanda Keizer 05-04-85 Phanos Eindhoven 10-07-11
15.45 Jolanda Keizer 05-04-85 Phanos Eindhoven 10-07-11
45.79 Jolanda Keizer 05-04-85 Phanos Torun (POL) 03-07-11
about this winter,she took part in National pentathlon, with no finish in 60mH and withdrawed,later she threw 15.00m SP in NC,gaining 3rd. she plannned to participate in AUS hep in April,let us hope a good comback for her.

[nianchengyu]

Sharon Day of USA,09/06/1985,wow, the former high jumper scored 6337p,huge PB for her, 13.57/0.0 - 1.84 - 14.40 - 24.27/0.3 / 6.06/NWI - 41.60 - 2:12.63
1st,Santa Barbara, CA ,03/04/2012

[DecFan]

Sharon Day of USA,09/06/1985,wow, the former high jumper scored 6337p,huge PB for her, 13.57/0.0 - 1.84 - 14.40 - 24.27/0.3 / 6.06/NWI - 41.60 - 2:12.63
1st,Santa Barbara, CA ,03/04/2012

Previous Hept PR 6177.
100h previous PR 13.69
SP previous PR 14.28
200 previous PR 24.74
LJ previous PR 6.02
800 previous PR 2:13.54

5 event PRs in one early season competition. Very exciting.

[az2004]

should also be noted bettie wade scored 6143 just missing the A qualifier

looks like she should get it

krais scored less than 5700 in that same one..

looks like her form of last year is gone..

injury??

[26mi235]

Krais did very well at the end of the season; I would not publish her season obit quite yet.

Another question about a newcomer is senior Dorcas Akinniyi who was second to Theisen at NCAAs and even led after three events. Outdoors she has to convert to the longer hurdles, add the 200 and the Jav. She is strong but only recently got a good shot in competition (13.95/45-9.5); if she gets a similar improvement in the Jav here Hept score could take a big jump

Pentathlon: 2nd - 4,299 (8.68 / 1.84m / 13.95m / 5.63m / 2:22.78) PRs in HJ, SP, 800, and 0.01 short in the 60h. The LJ has declined over the year and a half [PR 19-8 (5.99m) 6-26-10].

She has an uphill battle to become even the bottom of the world-class group, but 4300 points is a pretty good Pent.

[az2004]

looking at krais 5695, she had 2 fouls in the lj, then a saefty jump

5-6 in hj is below par

100h and 200 are ok for 1st hep

put pemt indoors she did a 2:17 and did 2:14 here..

no 400h yet, but those 800 times are bad given she's 2:07 hep 800 runner and a 2:05 opem 800

wade did the 6143, and wade tarins at ksate, so i suspect their programs are similar

day and wade and a healthy fountain would be my LONDON team..

a healthy krais would be lucky for 4th

[nianchengyu]

Hyleas Fountain ran 23.86s/+ 1.7 5rB FloridaR Gainesville FL 6 ,may show her form turned better now comparing to 6.20m and 8.51s INDOORS.

[Gabriella]

nianchengyu, do you have any links to any other of the hept events from Beijing? The full coverage in the 200m and SP is great.

[nianchengyu]

there is a link about the weaker group of JV:
http://space.tv.cctv.com/act/video.jsp?videoId=VIDE1218955363168263

[nianchengyu]

about HJ HEP IN BEIJING:
http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1218813626691957
http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1218801038099424

[nianchengyu]

there are maybe LJ of hep:
http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1218886020779141
http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1218886293615158

[nianchengyu]

there is 100mH HEP IN OLY:
http://space.tv.cctv.com/act/video.jsp?videoId=VIDE1218776266248238

[nianchengyu]

Gabriella, did you know who could do throwing events SP,JV combine following Larisa Turchinskaya 16.45m and 59.28m each in hep when she was heptathlete, is she Austra Skujyte 17.53i and 52.63m =1942p?

[Gabriella]

Gabriella, did you know who could do throwing events SP,JV combine following Larisa Turchinskaya 16.45m and 59.28m each in hep when she was heptathlete, is she Austra Skujyte 17.53i and 52.63m =1942p?

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.

[26mi235]

There are Hept athletes that might be placing at the Olympics in individual events, are these throw-oriented athletes at or near the top of the world list? 17m is very good for a Hept athlete but it does not begin to rival Adams. A better comparison (since the throws are much thinner than the speed events, an easier one too) is: how does it compare to the A and B standards?

[pakillo]

There are Hept athletes that might be placing at the Olympics in individual events, are these throw-oriented athletes at or near the top of the world list? 17m is very good for a Hept athlete but it does not begin to rival Adams. A better comparison (since the throws are much thinner than the speed events, an easier one too) is: how does it compare to the A and B standards?

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.

[Powell]

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.

A good thrower might be at a disadvantage simply because there are only 2 throwing events, but I disagree about the scoring favoring speed events, especially compared to the jumps. One height in HJ makes as much of a points difference as 0.25s in the hurdles - I always thought that's way unfair to the good hurdlers.

[Powell]

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]

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 ??

[mump boy]

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

100mh 1246
HJ 1359
SP 1378
200m 1251
LJ 1355
JT 1295
800m 1228

there's also a differential table on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptathlon ... s_.28HB.29

It will take a better mond than mine to work out an significance so over to you Gabs

[26mi235]

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.

[Powell]

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).

[72]

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.

Any comments would be interesting

[Gabriella]

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.

Paraphrased from the following study: http://www.open.ou.nl/wim/publicationsp ... athlon.pdf

[26mi235]

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.

[72]

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]

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 ........

[mump boy]

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.

Paraphrased from the following study: http://www.open.ou.nl/wim/publicationsp ... athlon.pdf

I haven't got a clue what any of this means

[26mi235]

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.

CM Points
210 0
300 107
350 200
400 308
450 428
500 559
550 700
600 850
648 1001
700 1172

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:

CM Points
210 0
300 117
350 221
400 342
450 478
500 626
550 787
600 957
648 1130
700 1327

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.

[nianchengyu]

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.

[nianchengyu]

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

4849 Eva Wilms FRG 77/05/14 Göttingen
13,70 - 20.62 - 1.74 - 6.03 - 2.19,91

4937 Eva Wilms FRG 77/06/19 Bernhausen
13,83 - 20.95 - 1.74 - 6.29 - 2.19,66

4913 Nadeshda Tkatchenko SOV 77/09/18 Lille
13,49 - 15.93 - 1.80 - 6.49 - 2.10,62

4920 Nadeshda Tkatchenko SOV 80/05/28 Donetsk
13,0 - 16.86 - 1.80 - 6.36 - 2.14,1

4915 Olga Kuragina SOV 80/06/20 Moscow
13,38 - 13.44 - 1.86 - 6.41 - 2.03,73

4964 Olga Kuragina SOV 80/07/24 Moscow
13,26 - 12.49 - 1.84 - 6.77 - 2.03,6

5051 Olga Rukavishnikova SOV 80/07/24 Moscow
13,66 - 14.09 - 1.88 - 6.79 - 2.04,8

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,

[nianchengyu]

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.