m1500 Rank: this could be a first....


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby gh » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:08 pm

In a quick look at seasonal records I'm struck by the thought that it's not an impossible scenario where neither the silver (Manzano) nor bronze (Iguider) medalists will make the World Rankings.

Manzano ran in 5 DL meets: 10th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 12th.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:43 pm

gh wrote:In a quick look at seasonal records I'm struck by the thought that it's not an impossible scenario where neither the silver (Manzano) nor bronze (Iguider) medalists will make the World Rankings.
Manzano ran in 5 DL meets: 10th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 12th.

The trouble with that line of thinking, especially with a mid-distance runner, is that if he was only trying to peak at the OG, his meets before the OG were 'training runs' and his meets afterwards happened when his peak had 'expired' (his body was no longer able to respond to the training stimulus). Perhaps he did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do, peak precisely at the Games. In that regard, his season was a spectacular success and his performances can be seen as a result of that timing. To expect him to peak early - or sustain that peak is . . . unreasonable.

That said, the T&FN rankings are for whatever you say they are and if you wish to penalize him for peaking perfectly (actually twice - OT and OG), that is certainly your prerogative.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Daisy » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:48 pm

Marlow, you of all people should know that the ranking is for the body of work. Obviously some competitions are more important than others, but I doubt that even you believe that 'factoring in peaking' is a big part of the equation.

I guess we could just give all the Olympic gold medalists the number #1 ranking? Hell, why not let silver and bronze take #2 and #3?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:40 pm

Daisy wrote:Marlow, you of all people should know that the ranking is for the body of work. Obviously some competitions are more important than others, but I doubt that even you believe that 'factoring in peaking' is a big part of the equation.
I guess we could just give all the Olympic gold medalists the number #1 ranking? Hell, why not let silver and bronze take #2 and #3?

I agree with you: that is exactly what the T&FN rankings are (and best in the world IMO). And yes, the OG medal is its own reward, so skewing the rankings to the OG finish accomplishes nothing, but I hope you also see the logic in my argument. Peaking is a very real thing and probably should be at least obliquely considered when trying to 'objectively' (impossible!) esteem someone's season. Or am I just being my usual contrarian self? :twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby nevetsllim » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:54 pm

Was Kaouch ranked in 2005? He won silver at the World Champs but only ran one other 1500m race (second at the Mediterranean Games in 3:45!)
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby dukehjsteve » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:55 pm

OK Marlow, don't get mad at me, I love you man, but I also love how you always find a way to "rebut" whatever gh has to say ! :)
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:40 pm

dukehjsteve wrote:OK Marlow, don't get mad at me, I love you man, but I also love how you always find a way to "rebut" whatever gh has to say ! :)

Hence my 'contrarian' remark. [but notice the suck-up about the rankings being the best we have, which they really are]
I'm still convinced that we ALL agree on about 90% of everything on here (semantics aside), but the 10% we disagree on can get pretty ugly! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Daisy » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:48 pm

Marlow wrote:Or am I just being my usual contrarian self? :twisted:

This is rhetorical, right?

OK, I'll play the game. I think that the US athletes should all get a significant boost in the rankings as they have to peak twice!! So Manzano should probably be ranked #1.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:13 pm

Daisy wrote:This is rhetorical, right?
OK, I'll play the game. I think that the US athletes should all get a significant boost in the rankings as they have to peak twice!! So Manzano should probably be ranked #1.

Yes and yes.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Powell » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:26 am

The funny thing is if Manzano hadn't raced at all apart from the OT and OG, his ranking would be higher. Which illustrates one problem I have with the ranking process: athletes often end up getting penalized for competing more.
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby lionelp1 » Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:05 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:In a quick look at seasonal records I'm struck by the thought that it's not an impossible scenario where neither the silver (Manzano) nor bronze (Iguider) medalists will make the World Rankings.
Manzano ran in 5 DL meets: 10th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 12th.

The trouble with that line of thinking, especially with a mid-distance runner, is that if he was only trying to peak at the OG, his meets before the OG were 'training runs' and his meets afterwards happened when his peak had 'expired' (his body was no longer able to respond to the training stimulus). Perhaps he did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do, peak precisely at the Games. In that regard, his season was a spectacular success and his performances can be seen as a result of that timing. To expect him to peak early - or sustain that peak is . . . unreasonable.

That said, the T&FN rankings are for whatever you say they are and if you wish to penalize him for peaking perfectly (actually twice - OT and OG), that is certainly your prerogative.


Totally unconvincing, imo, to state that Manzano and coach was so skilled that he brought all his skill to bear for one race???? that day, that moment :o ; except of course the USATrials where his 10th/11th place s of the year would have been insufficient.
Should track fans not see the obvious that in the 1500m, both men and women, anyone of a dozen or so competitors, evey global Champs, are in with a chance cos of the convenient 3.34 to 3.38 pace( for guys that is) that tends to ensue.

One of the UKs 1500m women, England, obtained a medal and Simpson from the USA won the race at last year's WC... aint going to happen again, Ill bet.
Manzano was somewhat fortunate to get the run through in a very ordinary time ; if that race was held a week after or a day after I do not believe he would have prospered similarly; may be Nick Willis who ran poorly when it mattered might agree .The 1500m right now is a lottery( can't even rely on the Kenyans these days); wait till next year and Makloufi will not be near a medal , I reckon
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:38 am

Daisy wrote:I think that the US athletes should all get a significant boost in the rankings as they have to peak twice!!

Actually yeah, and the same would be true for Jamaicans, Kenyans, etc. It does make a huge difference whether someone has to peak once or twice. And I believe it's to some extent reflected in the rankings already, with major trials being included in the honors won category.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:40 am

Powell wrote:The funny thing is if Manzano hadn't raced at all apart from the OT and OG, his ranking would be higher.

Yeah, it seems that way; he would probably score better in the head-to-head wins category.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:44 am

gh wrote:In a quick look at seasonal records I'm struck by the thought that it's not an impossible scenario where neither the silver (Manzano) nor bronze (Iguider) medalists will make the World Rankings.

Normally I'd disagree with leaving Leo out of the top ten just based on medicre DL showings. In this case, though, the OG race was rather slow; so I might agree with an argument that other races should be valued higher because of that. Then again, that's not really part of your criteria.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:57 am

lionelp1 wrote: Manzano was somewhat fortunate to get the run through in a very ordinary time

Say what ?!?! In the tactical championship races, the times mean NOTHING - it's all about the nature, length and timing of the kick, so in that regard Manzano (or the Gold and Bronze medalists) were not 'fortunate' at all, they were PREPARED to kick as necessary.

As for peaking, if one is believe the biomechanical science involved (why would one NOT?), bringing the body to a peak performance is all about the tapering - higher intensity, lower volume - which necessitates training through the meets before the OG (which is not conducive to great performances), and leaving the body weary (from the intense training and then competition) after the fact. I also think some athletes' bodies are more conducive to peaking than others, i.e., they can't hold the peak for very long.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:02 am

Marlow wrote:Say what ?!?! In the tactical championship races, the times mean NOTHING - it's all about the nature, length and timing of the kick, so in that regard Manzano (or the Gold and Bronze medalists) were not 'fortunate' at all, they were PREPARED to kick as necessary.

They were fortunate in the sense that none of their competitors made it a fast race, UNLESS they were prepared for that as well and would have had the same chance of success.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby mump boy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:54 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:In a quick look at seasonal records I'm struck by the thought that it's not an impossible scenario where neither the silver (Manzano) nor bronze (Iguider) medalists will make the World Rankings.
Manzano ran in 5 DL meets: 10th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 12th.

The trouble with that line of thinking, especially with a mid-distance runner, is that if he was only trying to peak at the OG, his meets before the OG were 'training runs' and his meets afterwards happened when his peak had 'expired' (his body was no longer able to respond to the training stimulus). Perhaps he did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do, peak precisely at the Games. In that regard, his season was a spectacular success and his performances can be seen as a result of that timing. To expect him to peak early - or sustain that peak is . . . unreasonable.

That said, the T&FN rankings are for whatever you say they are and if you wish to penalize him for peaking perfectly (actually twice - OT and OG), that is certainly your prerogative.


if they can only maintain form for 1 week then they don't deserve to be ranked high in a yearly ranking do they ?

They have medals to prove they were good for one week in Aug yearly rankings are for a whole season
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:09 am

Ponderng peaking... when do the strategy of peaking come into vogue? Sixty years ago, as far as I was aware, we all "peaked" every week.. running as hard as possible trying to improve on last week. :?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:15 am

mump boy wrote:if they can only maintain form for 1 week then they don't deserve to be ranked high in a yearly ranking do they ?

If it's an Oly (or WC) year, isn't the primary goal to do your best at the Big Meet? And if you do well there, isn't it a GREAT year? It hinges on the semantic value of the word 'year'.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:58 am

mump boy wrote:if they can only maintain form for 1 week then they don't deserve to be ranked high in a yearly ranking do they ?


Indeed. And, in fact, a "peak" that precise cannot be distinguished from "luck" of the win-the-lottery-over-the-moon variety. The medals pay no attention to "luck"; the yearly rankings have to.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby mump boy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:21 pm

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:if they can only maintain form for 1 week then they don't deserve to be ranked high in a yearly ranking do they ?

If it's an Oly (or WC) year, isn't the primary goal to do your best at the Big Meet? And if you do well there, isn't it a GREAT year? It hinges on the semantic value of the word 'year'.


If you have low expectations !! i expect someone to be consistently GREAT across the whole year if they expect a high yearly ranking
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:22 pm

kuha wrote:And, in fact, a "peak" that precise cannot be distinguished from "luck" of the win-the-lottery-over-the-moon variety.

No; peaking for a specific event is very different from being lucky. It's a different question whether athletes are "lucky" because other competitors are not on top of their game.

So Manzano did a great job peaking at the right time. In addition to that, he was "lucky" that nobody made it a fast race, playing into his strengths. Similarly, the winner in the mJT did a great job peaking at the right time; he was also "lucky" that others didn't.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:34 pm

mump boy wrote:if they can only maintain form for 1 week

There's a difference between maintaining form and peaking. Every high-level t&f athlete maintains good form for several months. One characteristic that distinguishes the best from the others, though, is that on top of that they are able to peak at the right time.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:43 pm

j-a-m wrote:Every high-level t&f athlete maintains good form for several months.

That's a generalization that cannot be supported. Indeed some elite athletes have a short shelf-life at the top. Review the T&FN Annual every year and look at the sequence of marks and you can see that with a few athletes.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:59 pm

Marlow wrote:That's a generalization that cannot be supported.

Shoulda been more clear what I meant with "good form". I didn't mean that the performances are close to the athlete's SB for several months; rather wanted to express that getting to peak form is a process that takes several months, and during that process athletes aren't out of shape or anything like that, but in something I'd consider "good form" (as opposed to great). Hope that generalization can be supported.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:09 pm

j-a-m wrote:
kuha wrote:And, in fact, a "peak" that precise cannot be distinguished from "luck" of the win-the-lottery-over-the-moon variety.

No; peaking for a specific event is very different from being lucky. It's a different question whether athletes are "lucky" because other competitors are not on top of their game.


I'm saying that in ANY of these case-studies-of-one there is NO WAY to actually determine brilliant peaking from at least some significant element of luck/chance. And in this case, luck played some real role.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby bushop » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:10 pm

j-a-m wrote:
mump boy wrote:if they can only maintain form for 1 week
Every high-level t&f athlete maintains good form for several months.

I'm not seeing that at all.
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:16 pm

bushop wrote:I'm not seeing that at all.

Please see my post where I clarified what I meant with "good form"; I didn't mean it as "performing close to their SB", but rather wanted to emphasize that getting to peak form is a long process, during which I'd consider athletes in "good form", as opposed to great form.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:19 pm

kuha wrote: to actually determine brilliant peaking from at least some significant element of luck/chance.

Just because you can't determine it, does that mean it doesn't exist? In other words, if you had detailed insight into an athlete's training, could you then determine whether or not the athlete actually peaked?
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby bushop » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:28 pm

j-a-m wrote:
bushop wrote:I'm not seeing that at all.
Please see my post where I clarified what I meant with "good form";

Right... lots of posts while I was typing.

Certainly medalists need to be in a specific level of preparation pre- and post-championship... it's just that for some medalist those levels of preparation will not produce quality (or even 'good') competition marks.

Some folks are only in peak condition for a short time (sometimes a single day) and spend much of the rest of the season in a down condition. These athletes are usually those whose championship performances are very close to their maximum potential and are very well coached.

So agreed, generally world class athletes can usually produce good performances through much of the season.
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby bushop » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:34 pm

bushop wrote:So agreed, generally world class athletes can usually produce good performances through much of the season.

But kicking the shit out of the whole world on the day everyone wants the same singular thing has to count for a whole bunch.
bushop
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:41 pm

j-a-m wrote:
kuha wrote: to actually determine brilliant peaking from at least some significant element of luck/chance.

Just because you can't determine it, does that mean it doesn't exist? In other words, if you had detailed insight into an athlete's training, could you then determine whether or not the athlete actually peaked?


I'm saying you CANNOT tell, empirically, what the ratio is between brilliance and luck. And you CANNOT. Period.

We love success. And every Olympic medal represents success. But it is ridiculous to pretend that ALL such success is strictly a matter of planning/intentionality. EVERYONE was planning; and everyone was "intending" to do well.

The real thought experiment here is: re-run the 1500 final 10 times. Who would pretend that we'd see the same results in all 10?
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:42 pm

bushop wrote:But kicking the shit out of the whole world on the day everyone wants the same singular thing has to count for a whole bunch.

Agreed; ultimately t&f is about being the fastest (jumping the highest, etc.) when the stakes are the highest, and that's the case at the Olympics.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:47 pm

kuha wrote:The real thought experiment here is: re-run the 1500 final 10 times. Who would pretend that we'd see the same results in all 10?

The results would be different; some of those times the Kenians may well make it a fast race and run away from Leo.

That doesn't change anything about whether or not he peaked on that day. I don't know if he did, but he and his coach should have a pretty good idea.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Flumpy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:53 pm

Powell wrote:The funny thing is if Manzano hadn't raced at all apart from the OT and OG, his ranking would be higher. Which illustrates one problem I have with the ranking process: athletes often end up getting penalized for competing more.


Only if they compete badly.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:09 pm

j-a-m wrote:
bushop wrote:But kicking the shit out of the whole world on the day everyone wants the same singular thing has to count for a whole bunch.

Agreed; ultimately t&f is about being the fastest (jumping the highest, etc.) when the stakes are the highest, and that's the case at the Olympics.


And the Trials where the countries field is deep enough. The US 1500 scene now qualifies for that.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:10 pm

gh wrote:In a quick look at seasonal records I'm struck by the thought that it's not an impossible scenario where neither the silver (Manzano) nor bronze (Iguider) medalists will make the World Rankings.

Back to the original question: Within the existing criteria, shouldn't Monzano's honors won (at OG plus Trials) be enough to at least make the top ten?
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Daisy » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:21 pm

j-a-m wrote:Shouldn't Monzano's honors won (at OG plus Trials) be enough to at least make the top ten?

I think so, but probably not top three.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby Powell » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:50 pm

Flumpy wrote:
Powell wrote:The funny thing is if Manzano hadn't raced at all apart from the OT and OG, his ranking would be higher. Which illustrates one problem I have with the ranking process: athletes often end up getting penalized for competing more.


Only if they compete badly.


Sure. My point is that if you're of the 'peaker' type and are able to compete at your best level only a couple of times per season, you're better off not competing at all apart from that.
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: m1500 Rank: this could be a first....

Postby gibson » Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:41 pm

manzanzo will make the top 10 list at maybe #7 or 8.

most of know that the chances of seeing a good or bad leo odds come in at 50%.
fortunately for leo, all of his good races came when it mattered most.

good leo.
gold at trials beating centro.
silver at og - beating centro.
you have to add in what is it? 4 good races in the heats.

bad leo
crap in diamond league. normally he'd be good in half of them.

here is where GH makes his point.
http://www.tilastopaja.org/db/topevent. ... p=20&All=0

if time was the only criterion, manzanzo is out out out.

if good leo showed up for the willis 330 race, he'd very likely be top 10 in time too.
gibson
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:57 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beebee, Bing [Bot] and 14 guests