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

[gh]

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.

[Marlow]

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.

[Daisy]

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?

[Marlow]

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?

[nevetsllim]

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!)

[dukehjsteve]

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 !

[Marlow]

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!

[Daisy]

Or am I just being my usual contrarian self?

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.

[Marlow]

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.

[Powell]

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.

[lionelp1]

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 ; 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

[j-a-m]

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]

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]

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.

[Marlow]

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.

[j-a-m]

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.

[mump boy]

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

[lonewolf]

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.

[Marlow]

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'.

[kuha]

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.

[mump boy]

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

[j-a-m]

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]

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.

[Marlow]

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.

[j-a-m]

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.

[kuha]

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.

[bushop]

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.

[j-a-m]

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]

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?

[bushop]

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]

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.

[kuha]

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?

[j-a-m]

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]

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.

[Flumpy]

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.