Brian Oldfield via Facebook wrote:Brian Oldfield Nov 08 6 p.m. I was wondering if anyone has a decathelon tables and does it go up to 76 feet in the shot . The reason is the shot putters seem to always rank pretty high in the grand prix standing each year . E. Garry Hill help list some of the top events . It goes up to 1200 points & would that include most world records.

There are functions for the scoring tables; mine are on another hard disk on an old computer running software a bit different from this one or I would do it right now. However, you can look for that thread from last winter or so and get the link that gives the function parameters (there is just one function, the parameters differ for the 29 different events (men 10+7; women 7+5).

I doubt if that's what he is referring to. His message mentioned decathlon tables. Those tables are different from the scoring tables that your message links to.

I doubt if that's what he is referring to. His message mentioned decathlon tables. Those tables are different from the scoring tables that your message links to.

Sorry for the confusion! You've got a computer technological semi-literate, neo-Luddite on your hands here!!

All I did was type "IAAF decathlon scoring tables" in my search browser. That brought me to a book-size scroll of maybe 100 pages of scoring tables for, in order, the decathlon and pentathlon for men, then the women's heptathlon.

Pages and pages and pages of times, distances, heights in each of the events, with their point allotment!! So I copied the MOST or ULTIMATE point totals available in each event of the dec and hept, and posted them above!

Those are not the limits of the points tables, just what is listed in that document. Again, they have a function that is the same for all events but with different parameters in each event.

26mi235 wrote:Those are not the limits of the points tables, just what is listed in that document. Again, they have a function that is the same for all events but with different parameters in each event.

18.99s wrote:

aaronk wrote:Here's the IAAF 2000 Scoring Tables MAXIMUM point totals for Dec and the Hept (for women):

9.50 is 1223 but 12.00 in the 110H is only 1249!!!??

Those (the marks I listed above) are NOT the MAX or ULTIMATE marks/point totals for those events??

WOW!!

So, in the year 2000, they (the IAAF) were thinking in terms of a guy running even FASTER than 41.47 in the 400??

Amazing!!

I mean, here we are, not even accepting the possibility of Usain BOLT running, say, a 42.50....and here the IAAF is talking about a 400 more than one whole second faster than that!!

Again, just WOW!!

Look at ALL of those marks....the MAX'es listed above.

Which ones do you think MIGHT have even a TINY chance of being reached....say, in the next 50 years??

My choices would be:

9.50....Bolt might get that!! Or Blake?? Or, eventually, Gemelli?? Or that Japanese kid?? 3:22.23...Rudisha, maybe?? That's a 67.41 500 pace, or a 1000 in 2:14.82. I think Rudisha could run a sub-2:10 eventually, or right at 2:10 or 2:10.20. So a 2:14 would be a relative cruise for him. Could he finish at the same pace?? 23.99.....The only putter around who MIGHT have a chance at this mark is Jacko Gill. 1:51.71...I'm one of those who believe Kratochvilova's WR should have ALREADY been broken!! Take a 49 or even a 50.0 400 woman, and train her for the 800. If she went out in 54 (5 or 4 seconds slower than her 400 PR), she'd be pretty much cruising. Attach a 56 or 57 last lap, and VOILA, she's run 1:51!!

aaronk wrote:Which ones do you think MIGHT have even a TINY chance of being reached....say, in the next 50 years??

My choices would be:

9.50....Bolt might get that!! Or Blake?? Or, eventually, Gemelli?? Or that Japanese kid?? 3:22.23...Rudisha, maybe?? That's a 67.41 500 pace, or a 1000 in 2:14.82. I think Rudisha could run a sub-2:10 eventually, or right at 2:10 or 2:10.20. So a 2:14 would be a relative cruise for him. Could he finish at the same pace?? 23.99.....The only putter around who MIGHT have a chance at this mark is Jacko Gill. 1:51.71...I'm one of those who believe Kratochvilova's WR should have ALREADY been broken!! Take a 49 or even a 50.0 400 woman, and train her for the 800. If she went out in 54 (5 or 4 seconds slower than her 400 PR), she'd be pretty much cruising. Attach a 56 or 57 last lap, and VOILA, she's run 1:51!!

Maybe a two-stepper could scare 12-flat in the 110H ... with women's hurdles heights!

26mi235 wrote:Those are not the limits of the points tables, just what is listed in that document. Again, they have a function that is the same for all events but with different parameters in each event.

So, in the year 2000, they (the IAAF) were thinking in terms of a guy running even FASTER than 41.47 in the 400??

Amazing!!

No, they do not have to think about ANY of those numbers, they just have a function, and you plug in a time and it will give you a point total. If I had the function I could give you a point value for a 2.00 100m mark; that does not mean that people anticipate anyone running that time. [To be clear, I am talking about the Decathlon Tables, not the IAAF points tables.]

Of course, any regression-style modelling of a relationship as a function is only really applicable over a finite domain. My personal opinion is that the extreme upper end of the tabulated values are applying the functions outwith their domains. So yes, of course the function could be used to extrapolate beyond what's been published; but at the point when that becomes necessary another iteration of the modelling would almost certainly take place and new parameters would be calculated. Typically, once a domain becomes sufficiently extended two or more functions will be used to model the relationship over different parts of the domain.

This is the point structure of the multi-events. It is not explicitly a model of anything.

The question is how many points would a really long SP get (78 feet?, I cannot remember, but the specific value is not really the issue) and was prompted because the table that is provided does not go as high as the cited effort. Some concluded that the published value was the upper limit. However, it is mistaken idle speculation; the answer is that the multi-events scoring system has points that are a function of a couple of parameters applied to all of the events, with points assigned as those functional values indicate.