Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 145
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by bobguild76 View Post
    But, on the other hand, the harder the event, and I will posit the Decathlon or Heptathlon is the hardest of all, the nature off the event means only the most dedicated and the very best even make it to the event. In that case, one is dominating a much more elite group of athletes.
    Which is more or less what I was saying earlier, those events demand a degree of versatile talent and hard work that no individual event does. Well said.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by TN1965 View Post
    "The number of performers in an event" cannot be defined in a way that is comparable across all events. For example, 400m has a lot of performers who are primarily 100m, 200m, 800m, and 400mH competitors (or even a triple jumper like Christian Taylor). In men's 400m, many of the marks belong to decathletes. I don't think multis have such "casual" performers. And some events also have another kind of "casual" performers (i.e. random adults who compete in all-comer meets).

    So the fact that fewer people have official records in multi than a sprint event may not mean what you think. Do you want to draw a cut off? How can that line not be arbitrary?
    These are all very good points but I'm sure no one of this board doubts that there are a lot more elite 100 sprinters than there are elite decathletes. According to the IAAF scoring tables, a male athlete has to run 10.01 in the 100 to score 1200 while decathletes have to score 8585 to achieve the same score. In the history of the decathlon there have been 133 performances of 8585 or higher compiled by a total of 32 athletes. In the 100 there have been a total of 1256 wind-legal performances of 10.01 or faster run by a total of 181 men. And that doesn't take into account the wind-aided performances that would have been 10.01 or faster had the wind been legal. And of course wind doesn't negate the legality of multis.
    Last edited by jazzcyclist; 07-19-2019 at 01:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    One thing the multi-eventers have going for them with regards to the performance list is the nature of the event itself because it's a lot harder to fluke (eg. Bob Beamon) your way to the top of the performance list when your performance is a compilation of events than when it's a single event. In the single events there are a number of top 10 performances by athletes whose #2 performance is in the 200's and below. That's hard to do in the multis.
    Last edited by jazzcyclist; 07-19-2019 at 01:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    These are all very good points but I'm sure no one of this board doubts that there are a lot more elite 100 sprinters than there are elite decathletes. According to the IAAF scoring tables, a male athlete has to run 10.01 in the 100 to score 1200 while decathletes have to score 8585 to achieve the same score. In the history of the decathlon there have been 133 performances of 8585 or higher compiled by a total of 32 athletes. In the 100 there have been a total of 1256 wind-legal performances of 10.01 or faster run by a total of 181 men. And that doesn't take into account the wind-aided performances that would have been 10.01 or faster had the wind been legal. And of course wind doesn't negate the legality of multis.
    I have stated why I believe there are far fewer elite athletes doing decathlon and heptathlon. You need to be talented and ready to work really hard in 10 events, not one. The talent requirement is going to make a very large reduction in the number of qualified athletes right off the bat. Then there's the question of who is willing to do the work? That likely thins the field even more. So I find it in no way surprising that there are far more men doing the 100, which is the glamor event of the sport and requires at best 10% of the focus and work needed to do decathlon, and likely less.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    These are all very good points but I'm sure no one of this board doubts that there are a lot more elite 100 sprinters than there are elite decathletes. According to the IAAF scoring tables, a male athlete has to run 10.01 in the 100 to score 1200 while decathletes have to score 8585 to achieve the same score. In the history of the decathlon there have been 133 performances of 8585 or higher compiled by a total of 32 athletes. In the 100 there have been a total of 1256 wind-legal performances of 10.01 or faster run by a total of 181 men. And that doesn't take into account the wind-aided performances that would have been 10.01 or faster had the wind been legal. And of course wind doesn't negate the legality of multis.
    Do we know how many more elite sprinters there are than elite decathletes? Without knowing that, it cannot be used as a control variable.

    Since you brought up the scoring table, let's use that to measure dominance.

    JJK is 52 pts ahead of Kluft.
    Zelezny 58 pts ahead of Vitter.
    Wlodarczyk is 57 pts ahead of Heidler.

    Is there anyone else more than 50 pts ahead of the 2nd place? Wlodarczyk may still be the WR holder 20 years from now, but I seriously doubt Heidler will still be #2. And Zelezny might be a beneficiary of the spec change. How does Uwe Hohn's 104.80 compare to the new standard? (I really don't know. I am totally ignorant about JT.)
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by TN1965 View Post
    Do we know how many more elite sprinters there are than elite decathletes? Without knowing that, it cannot be used as a control variable.
    Of course it can be defined, I just did. Some folks might chose a performance standard higher or lower than 1200, but the main point is to draw a line and do the math, and in this case we get 181 elite sprinters vs 32 elite decathletes.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    Of course it can be defined, I just did. Some folks might chose a performance standard higher or lower than 1200, but the main point is to draw a line and do the math, and in this case we get 181 elite sprinters vs 32 elite decathletes.
    Or you just drew an arbitrary cut-off line. If you change the cut-off from 1200 to another equally arbitrary number, the ratio between the two will change.

    A measurement like the one I presented in #120 is not influenced by the differences in depth in each event, and I don't even have to estimate the depth difference.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by TN1965 View Post
    Or you just drew an arbitrary cut-off line. If you change the cut-off from 1200 to another equally arbitrary number, the ratio between the two will change.

    A measurement like the one I presented in #120 is not influenced by the differences in depth in each event, and I don't even have to estimate the depth difference.
    Your whole system is arbitrary. What's so special about the difference between the #1 and #2 performer? Why not use the difference between the #1 and #3 or #5 performer? Or why not double the difference between #1 and #2 to find the cutoff below #2? Since there's no objective definition of elite, any system chosen will be arbitrary, but I'll bet a lot more thought and analysis went into the creation of the IAAF scoring tables than went into your system. By the way, using your system there have only been 8 elite male 100m sprinters in the history of the sport (Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay, Yohan Blake, Asafa Powell, Justin Gatlin, Nesta Carter, Maurice Greene, Christian Coleman). Does this sound right to you or anyone else on this board?

    EDIT: Your system would also give us 3 elite male 1500 runners (El G, Lagat and Kiprop) and 3 5000 runners (Bekele, Gebrselassie and Komen). These examples should crystallize how much deeper track events are than the multis.
    Last edited by jazzcyclist; 07-21-2019 at 02:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by jazzcyclist View Post
    Your whole system is arbitrary. What's so special about the difference between the #1 and #2 performer? Why not use the difference between the #1 and #3 or #5 performer? Or why not double the difference between #1 and #2 to find the cutoff below #2? Since there's no objective definition of elite, any system chosen will be arbitrary, but I'll bet a lot more thought and analysis went into the creation of the IAAF scoring tables than went into your system. By the way, using your system there have only been 8 elite male 100m sprinters in the history of the sport (Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay, Yohan Blake, Asafa Powell, Justin Gatlin, Nesta Carter, Maurice Greene, Christian Coleman). Does this sound right to you or anyone else on this board?

    EDIT: Your system would also give us 3 elite male 1500 runners (El G, Lagat and Kiprop) and 3 5000 runners (Bekele, Gebrselassie and Komen). These examples should crystallize how much deeper track events are than the multis.
    1. I didn't write anything about the definition of elite. So you can forget about that straw man you created.

    2. The difference between #1 and #2 is the essence of domination, which is what I am trying to measure.

    3. My measurement is entirely independent of the talent depth. If greater talent depth makes the gap between #1 and #2 smaller, the gap between #2 and #3, between #3 and #4, and so forth will all be affected in the exact same way.

    4. Following your logic will mean there is more depth in 1500 and 5000 than in 100. Does that make any sense to you? Or does it make more sense that Bolt was more dominant than Bekele and El G?
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by TN1965 View Post
    2. The difference between #1 and #2 is the essence of domination, which is what I am trying to measure.
    So I ask you why the difference #1 and #2 is more significant the difference between #1 and #3 and you talk about "the essence of domination"? What the hell does that mean? Come on man, you can do better than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by TN1965 View Post
    3. My measurement is entirely independent of the talent depth. If greater talent depth makes the gap between #1 and #2 smaller, the gap between #2 and #3, between #3 and #4, and so forth will all be affected in the exact same way.
    I would suggest that you google "bell curve" also known as "normal distribution curve" and get back to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by TN1965 View Post
    4. [b]Following your logic[b] will mean there is more depth in 1500 and 5000 than in 100. Does that make any sense to you? Or does it make more sense that Bolt was more dominant than Bekele and El G?
    Following my logic? You mean following your logic because I've already rejected your system as making any sense, so I won't use it to draw any conclusions.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •