# Thread: The 1000th best performers

1.
In the 1500m, the IAAF list stops at 3:38:00 with 3 tied for the #962 performer.

2.
Originally Posted by Tuariki
Not sure if this is in the right section, but

Given the statistician expertise on this board, I was wondering if anyone has, or can, publish the list of the 1,000th all time best performer for all events.
My curiosity was to do with using the scoring tables to see how the events compare

3.
Originally Posted by Tuariki
My curiosity was to do with using the scoring tables to see how the events compare
I think the answer to your original questions is, "No", nobody has a list or can produce one, given the current state of publicly available data collections.

Some of the events are much less deep than others, on both pela's and WA's websites, and neither has a list available of how deep each one goes.

However, you could always email pela and ask him nicely if he can run a report on his database to produce the 300th or 500th or whatever maximum performer number he has across all events.

You'd have to score the events yourself.

4.
If marks include ancillary marks, then field events have an advantage getting to 1000. Also, given the decreasing frequency with distance, the sprints have more advantages, and especially the 100/110h/100h have the advantage that top marks often come with aiding wind.

5.
Originally Posted by 26mi235
If marks include ancillary marks, then field events have an advantage getting to 1000.
More like a disadvantage in that the top 1000 performances would be held by a much smaller set of performers if ancillary marks are added in, making it significantly harder to get into that top 1000.

But the thread is about the top 1000 performers, so ancillary marks wouldn't affect that.

6.
But wind does, as does the frequency that you can compete in an event, especially under good conditions (e.g., not hot for the distances). However, you also knock out races and horizontal jumps with w>2.00.

7.
What's the advantage, then? Whatever the event, there are 1000 athletes in the all-time top 1000 performers. Frequency of competing doesn't affect that in any way.

8.
Originally Posted by Powell
What's the advantage, then? Whatever the event, there are 1000 athletes in the all-time top 1000 performers. Frequency of competing doesn't affect that in any way.
It is fundamental, since the purpose underlying the question is to compare across events.

9.
Originally Posted by Powell
What's the advantage, then? Whatever the event, there are 1000 athletes in the all-time top 1000 performers. Frequency of competing doesn't affect that in any way.
I agree with you Powell.

26mi365 is a statistical junkie (not meant as a criticism, just an observation) and IMO sometimes tends to over complicate the uncomplicated.

And this is IMO one of those occasions.

10.
So you are going to compare the 1000th best 10,000 mark with the 1000th best 100m mark via some scoring table? Really? There are many dozens of opportunities for the sprinter's to get their best mark; the 10,000m guys may never get good conditions.

It is well known that the nth order statistic, especially where n is large, is not reliable in such a case. And so the asserted purpose of the statistics is not valid; other things are not held constant in obtaining the observations. Yes, that might seem like a technical statistics thing, but since we are talking about statistics, it goes to the core of a comparison.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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