Rudisha loses...Eaton AOY?? [or Merritt?!]

[toyracer]

and bringing up the indoor heptathlon, at least in terms of T&FN's AOY award, is a waste of time. The mark will not be on his cv and the voting instructions will contain usual boilerplate regards the ignoring of such events

gh, I honestly don't know hence I ask; why?

[26mi235]

To me also, the multi events are ones that cannot be competed very often. Eaton showing up and scoring 8500 [does anyone here really think that an 8500 Deca is anywhere close to a 6600 Hept; the one has been done once, the other possibly 100 times] at Talence is worth a lot less than beating the WR in the closest thing to a decathlon you can imagine. I can hardly think of a competition that would be more of an anticlimax than another decathlon. He may have one the OT with the largest margin ever, and did it by defeating the defending WC and the defending OC.

Here, we are not talking about the event top performer, but the AOY, and setting a WR in an event competed at the WIC, and in fact doing it at the WIC, seems particularly relevant rather than something to be absolutely ignored.

[mump boy]

I don't get why multi eveners are seemingly getting a free pass from competing ?

As GH said there are other opportunities for AE to compete (and win large prize money). Gotzis was a month before trials, Multistar a month before that and Decastar a Month after London, but he has seemly chosen not to. Why is anyone who has achieved all they need to this year still competing ? Why didn't everyone just go home after London ?

Obviously i don't expect them to compete week in week out like other events but if they don't even take part in those that are available to them, then i can't compare them fairly to athletes who have competed 5 times as much and may have 1 loss. If we think Eatons achievements this year are superior to everyone else's (there is of course an argument for this) that's fine but others shouldn't be marked down for losing when competing a lot more frequently

[gibson]

there should be no penalty to rudisha what so ever for losing at seasons end in less than great conditions (for him).

say tiger woods wins 6 tournaments by 5 or 10 strokes and then finishes second by one in the last event of the season in the rain.....

say it was bolt and he blew away the competition by the equivalent rushida did this year (1-2 seconds) = 0.2 seconds in the 100. then loses in the rain for the first time by 0.01 to a guy he squashed all year???

you get the picture.

[DecFan]

Surely we can all agree on two points:

1) A loss for someone who competes only 2x in a year is more important than a loss for someone who competes many more times. Had Eaton lost either of his decathlon competitions this year, he would not be in consideration at all for AOY, regardless of the greatness of his other performance.

2) A loss is worse than a win, or not competing. Duh. Rudisha's record is unquestionably blemished by losing to Aman. Certainly an argument can be made that his season still merits AOY, but a loss is still a loss.

[DecFan]

Here are some statistics for the extent to which Rudisha's and Eaton's WRs are superior to past performances in their events:

WR superiority to 2nd best performer ever:
Rudisha: 0.20%
Eaton: 0.14%

WR superiority to average of next 5 best performers ever:
Rudisha 0.80%
Eaton 1.36%

WR superiority to average of next 10 best performers ever:
Rudisha 1.15%
Eaton 2.02%

WR superiority to average of next 5 best PERFORMANCES ever:
Rudisha 0.59%
Eaton 1.07%
(Note: Performances by someone other than Rudisha/Eaton)

WR superiority to average of next 10 best Performances ever:
Rudisha 0.86%
Eaton 1.60%

# of next 10 best performers beaten this year:
Rudisha: 5 (#4 Amos, #6 Kaki, #9 Borzakovsky, #10 Kitum, #11 Aman)
Eaton: 3 (#2 Sebrle, #7 Clay, #10 Hardee)

# of top 10 performances all time Rudisha/Eaton have in 2012, excluding their previous years' results
Rudisha 3 (#1, #4, #8)
Eaton 2 (#1, #8)

[marknhj]

Duh. Rudisha's record is unquestionably blemished by losing to Aman. Certainly an argument can be made that his season still merits AOY, but a loss is still a loss.

What nonsense. It isn't a blemish on his outstanding season at all.

Anyone who has a clue about the real world of elite track and field takes most post-Olympic results that are below expectations with a very large pinch of salt. In fact, it I cared one cent about AOY (guess what, I don't care for any subjective rankings of athletes), I'd vote for all post-Games results to be barred from consideration.

[DecFan]

Duh. Rudisha's record is unquestionably blemished by losing to Aman. Certainly an argument can be made that his season still merits AOY, but a loss is still a loss.

What nonsense. It isn't a blemish on his outstanding season at all.

Anyone who has a clue about the real world of elite track and field takes most post-Olympic results that are below expectations with a very large pinch of salt. In fact, it I cared one cent about AOY (guess what, I don't care for any subjective rankings of athletes), I'd vote for all post-Games results to be barred from consideration.

What nonsense. And how contrary to TaFNews' system over all these decades of taking head to head results seriously.

There's no question that a late season win/loss is less important than a mid-season win/loss; I buy the "very large pinch of salt" argument. But to say late season results are of absolutely no importance in judging the quality of an entire season of work? So if Eaton were to show up at Talence and win in 8700+, that should have no impact on AOY voting? Or flip the results of Zurich around: If Rudisha had won that race in low 1:41, that should have no impact on AOY voting? What nonsense.

[kuha]

Got to agree that the WHOLE season does have importance. One can weight the Olympics appropriately, but it cannot be the only meet that matters.

[j-a-m]

Great athletes compete to win; not so great athletes compete not to lose.

So shouldn't voters base their considerations mostly on wins, and less on losses?

[j-a-m]

And how about this: The real value of wins versus losses is in the predictive value, i.e. if the athlete were to compete next week against the best in the world, how likely is he or she to win?

Eaton has dominated the competiton both times, and both in sunshine and rain. So while two competitions is not much, it is in this case enough in terms of predictive value.

[marknhj]

Got to agree that the WHOLE season does have importance. One can weight the Olympics appropriately, but it cannot be the only meet that matters.

To the athletes it is.

As I said, a post-Olympic loss in an Olympic year should never be held against an outstanding athlete who has produced an incredible result in an Olympic Final. Especially when you are comparing an out-of-this-world individual event performance with multi-event performances.

What multi-event athletes achieve is fantastic, fabulous, and occasionally incredible, but they are stringing together a series of mostly average or below average marks in the context of world class performance. To me it's simply not the same as running a sub-1:41 800m which almost requires a word beyond "excellence".

[mump boy]

Surely we can all agree on two points:

1) A loss for someone who competes only 2x in a year is more important than a loss for someone who competes many more times. Had Eaton lost either of his decathlon competitions this year, he would not be in consideration at all for AOY, regardless of the greatness of his other performance.

2) A loss is worse than a win, or not competing. Duh. Rudisha's record is unquestionably blemished by losing to Aman. Certainly an argument can be made that his season still merits AOY, but a loss is still a loss.

I don't think a loss is worse than not competing, in fact i think coming 2nd is better than not taking part

[Conor Dary]

I don't think a loss is worse than not competing, in fact i think coming 2nd is better than not taking part

Just like Tennyson's

Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Tuariki]

Got to agree that the WHOLE season does have importance. One can weight the Olympics appropriately, but it cannot be the only meet that matters.

To the athletes it is.

As I said, a post-Olympic loss in an Olympic year should never be held against an outstanding athlete who has produced an incredible result in an Olympic Final. Especially when you are comparing an out-of-this-world individual event performance with multi-event performances.

What multi-event athletes achieve is fantastic, fabulous, and occasionally incredible, but they are stringing together a series of mostly average or below average marks in the context of world class performance. To me it's simply not the same as running a sub-1:41 800m which almost requires a word beyond "excellence".

I definitely agree with paragraphs 1 and 3. In regards to paragraph 2 I don't think you can discount post Olympic performances totally but as in the case of Rudisha you have to look at the context of the whole season; and in his case I would not hold his last loss against him at all in comparing him to Eaton.

[j-a-m]

there should be no penalty to rudisha what so ever for losing at seasons end in less than great conditions (for him).

Question is, what is the explanation for Rudisha's loss:
- Not comfortable running in rain, then it should count against him; or
- ran only with the goal of improving the WR, even though that increased the risk of losing, i.e. had he run to "only" win that day, he would've and it shouldn't count against him then.

[odelltrclan]

No mulligans in track are there? If you run and lose, deal with it. I am sure he was not thinking anything about AOY going into the meet. Does any athlete really? Maybe their event rankings but not AOY. And I am sure he was motivated by his pay for participating to be there so if he loses he loses, it is part of his body of work. He may still get AOY. If that was the only loss of the year, it does not taint him much.

[Dave]

there should be no penalty to rudisha what so ever for losing at seasons end in less than great conditions (for him).

Question is, what is the explanation for Rudisha's loss:
- Not comfortable running in rain, then it should count against him; or
- ran only with the goal of improving the WR, even though that increased the risk of losing, i.e. had he run to "only" win that day, he would've and it shouldn't count against him then.

If the weather is going to be an issue for Rudisha, then it certainly cuts both ways. Rudisha loses his race because of weather and Eaton sets a world record in terrible conditions. Eaton comes out way ahead on that one.

[kuha]

Got to agree that the WHOLE season does have importance. One can weight the Olympics appropriately, but it cannot be the only meet that matters.

To the athletes it is.

As I said, a post-Olympic loss in an Olympic year should never be held against an outstanding athlete who has produced an incredible result in an Olympic Final. Especially when you are comparing an out-of-this-world individual event performance with multi-event performances.

What multi-event athletes achieve is fantastic, fabulous, and occasionally incredible, but they are stringing together a series of mostly average or below average marks in the context of world class performance. To me it's simply not the same as running a sub-1:41 800m which almost requires a word beyond "excellence".

OK, I'll debate this. To the WINNING athletes, or to those (Leo M) who have performed better than expected, yes, the Olympics certainly will have a high likelihood of being the only meet that "really matters." But for ALL the rest of the athletes, particularly for those who performed below expectations, that's clearly not true and it should not be true. (If it was, then every 4 years would see one "meaningful" day of competition per event--a situation that would end my interest in the sport.)

And by no means should my view be seen as somehow dissing Rudisha. I give him enormous credit for putting himself on the line in ANY post-Olympic meets. Unlike some, I actually did think that there was "some" chance of him getting beaten--in any of the meets this year.

So: a) all the leading meets "count", with the OG weighted appropriately; b) Rudisha was so brilliant in the top meet of the year that, for me, his Zurich loss doesn't change the fact that he's still the top male performer for the year.

[dbirds]

Well, actually he could. Skipping Götzis so close to the OT was the right choice. If he were to show up at Talence in a couple of weeks and win with a mid-8000s score, I suspect he'd become a pretty clear choice for a lot of people.

I'm still leaning towards him even with only the pair of meets. (and bringing up the indoor heptathlon, at least in terms of T&FN's AOY award, is a waste of time. The mark will not be on his cv and the voting instructions will contain usual boilerplate regards the ignoring of such events)

There is NO reason for Eaton to compete in Talence. He was won gold and set the WR. He started the season early - setting the heptathlon record and he is earning more $ marketing himself and the deca in the States than competing. Injury is a possibility after a long season.

Once again, the heptathlon should have some weight for decathletes. They only compete 2-4 times a year and a heptathlon is 70% of a deca. Give it 10% or something just like a relay leg should count a little bit. Maybe a tiebreaker or something.

Defeating Clay, Suarez and Hardee should count for something as it shows he beat the top competition. Not that Rudisha didnt but it can't be overlooked or ignored.

Any way you look at it, Rudisha was amazing and so was Eaton. Eaton had probably the best year a decathlete could have a should win by a slight margin over Rudisha with Harting, Merritt, Farah and Bolt close behind.

[mump boy]

For me setting a WR, in a non sprint event, in an Olympic final, tops any other kind of achievement in Track and Field and more than compensates for one end of sea on loss. If Eaton had competed and won another time, or if we could could include indoor Hep in our consideration, it may be a closer run thing but as it is Rudisha for me.

Eaton

Can't choose between

Merrit
Harting
Bolt

at the moment

Farah but he could easily be demoted as his season outside of OG is very thin

So without looking anyone up, Taylor, Lavillenie and James and Pars come into play. Actually looking at that lot Mo is safe in 6th but deffo won't go any higher

[nevetsllim]

I'm going for Rudisha as AOY too. I'm not going to hold his defeat to Aman against him when comparing Rudisha to Eaton simply because of the nature of the events. If he'd had 3-4 losses on the circuit, then I'd give the nod to Eaton but one loss doesn't blemish his 2012 record when he's competed frequently compared to Eaton's two.

To win it as a multi-eventer (or as a marathon/walks specialist), I think every performance has to be of a hugely distinguished standard. Eaton's victory in London was fantastic but it wasn't an Olympic record and he was somewhat down on his best in a few events. Had he achieved an OR or gone over 8900 for the best ever mark in a championships, then the balance would probably tip in Eaton's favour. Instead, his performance was the ninth best ever, while Rudisha has produced a WR and the eighth fastest time ever (and the twelfth).

Both great athletes but Rudisha nabs it this year.

Can't choose between

Merrit
Harting
Bolt

I'd probably put Merritt just below the other two. He lost two early-season races (fourth in Shanghai, second in Eugene) and had two DQs (New York and Lausanne). I'm assuming the DQs count as losses to the people judging it?

[mump boy]

I'm going for Rudisha as AOY too. I'm not going to hold his defeat to Aman against him when comparing Rudisha to Eaton simply because of the nature of the events. If he'd had 3-4 losses on the circuit, then I'd give the nod to Eaton but one loss doesn't blemish his 2012 record when he's competed frequently compared to Eaton's two.

To win it as a multi-eventer (or as a marathon/walks specialist), I think every performance has to be of a hugely distinguished standard. Eaton's victory in London was fantastic but it wasn't an Olympic record and he was somewhat down on his best in a few events. Had he achieved an OR or gone over 8900 for the best ever mark in a championships, then the balance would probably tip in Eaton's favour. Instead, his performance was the ninth best ever, while Rudisha has produced a WR and the eighth fastest time ever (and the twelfth).

Both great athletes but Rudisha nabs it this year.

Can't choose between

Merrit
Harting
Bolt

I'd probably put Merritt just below the other two. He lost two early-season races (fourth in Shanghai, second in Eugene) and had two DQs (New York and Lausanne). I'm assuming the DQs count as losses to the people judging it?

I know marks aren't supposed to count for much but the quality of his races is far superior to the others

12.96w (2) Eugene
12.93 (1) OT
12.93 (1) London
12.93 (1) Monaco
12.94 (1) OG Semi
12.92 (1) OG
12.95 (1) Birmingham
12.97 (1) Berlin

this kind of consistency and ubiquity is worth more than a couple of loses

[Flumpy]

Problem solved

[j-a-m]

Merritt !!!

[marknhj]

Yep!

[beebee]

Things just changed folks...

A big WR, Olympic Championship, and one of the best hurdling seasons ever.

[Tuariki]

IMO as it stands today it is Rudisha, then Eaton as:
1. I rate Rudisha's WR performance higher than Eaton's
2. Rudisha's number of wins with quality performances
3. It is not that difficult to go undefeated if you only compete twice

The only athlete that could upset that scenario is Merritt. IMO if he can break the WR then he would go to the top for AOY.

As I am no longer a politician then I am no longer allowed to be a hypocrite.
And so 12.80 does it for me.
#1 Merrit
#2 Rudisha
#3 Eaton

[jamal00005]

IMO as it stands today it is Rudisha, then Eaton as:
1. I rate Rudisha's WR performance higher than Eaton's
2. Rudisha's number of wins with quality performances
3. It is not that difficult to go undefeated if you only compete twice

The only athlete that could upset that scenario is Merritt. IMO if he can break the WR then he would go to the top for AOY.

As I am no longer a politician then I am no longer allowed to be a hypocrite.
And so 12.80 does it for me.
#1 Merrit
#2 Rudisha
#3 Eaton

I completely agree Merrit just did it for me

[Flumpy]

#1 - Merrit
#2 - Rudisha
#3 - Eaton
#4 - Harting
#5 - Farah

[Tuariki]

#1 - Merrit
#2 - Rudisha
#3 - Eaton
#4 - Harting
#5 - Farah

Yep. That's 1 to 5 IMO also

[tm71]

doesn't he MERRITT the AOY now ? lol !!!

[mump boy]

#1 - Merrit
#2 - Rudisha
#3 - Eaton
#4 - Harting
#5 - Farah

Yep. That's 1 to 5 IMO also

HAven't you forgotten someone ??

Where's Bolt ? and i wouldn't mind Blake before Farah as well

[gh]

How can Blake possibly be ahead of Bolt?

[mump boy]

How can Blake possibly be ahead of Bolt?

You beat me to it Gaz, i just assumed he's included Bolt but when re read i saw the error of his ways

Bolt and very possibly Blake are in front of Farah who has a very contrived and weak season outside of London