The 2018 T&FN World Rankings

Our eager-beaver first attempt at World Rankings many decades ago featured a 1-time experiment with a 20-deep format.

WELCOME TO EDITION No. 72 of the Track & Field News World Rankings. Our Rankings made their debut by chronicling the 1947 season in the magazine’s first-ever edition, February ’48. The whole purpose of our Top 10 ratings since their inception has been to establish relative merit for the entire calendar year in question. The Rankings are not reflective of how the compilers feel athletes would finish in any kind of idealized competition. Ergo, the “best” athlete isn’t always No. 1.

A frequently asked question we get is, “How did the voting go in the World Rankings this year?” Unlike the process for choosing the Athletes Of The Year, there is no “voting.” Our Rankers use an involved process of argu­mentation to arrive at their decisions, so it’s not possible to say that Usain Bolt beat Justin Gatlin by some specific point total, like 103–78.

Our 3 Ranking Criteria

Under our system, athletes are judged on 3 weighted criteria. The all-encompassing factors, in order of importance:

1. Honors won
This means scoring high placings (with emphasis on actually winning) in major international competitions. For ’18, with no Olympics or World Championships, major emphasis was placed on the 14 meets of the IAAF’s Diamond League (DL). The IAAF World Challenge (IWC) meets were generally on a lower scale. In the non-DL events—hammer, walks and multis—the IAAF Challenge Series meets are given extra consideration. In field-event disciplines where it is relevant, the World Indoor packs some major weight. For the marathons, the WMM series races are of prime import. The only road performances which carry any weight are the marathon and 20 & 50K walks. Note that we decided—even before the meet was held—that the Continental Cup, with its abnormal setup in some events, wouldn’t be counted in the win-loss records of athletes in the steeplechase, horizontal jumps or throws.

It should also be noted that the importance of a meet is relative to who competes in it, not how much stock an athlete or their fans might place in it, so not every DL meet is given equal weighting. And all events are not created equal within a given meet. As important as major meets are, we should also note that no competition, not even the Olympic Games, is the be-all, end-all. We’re looking for people who maintain high standards over a whole year.

2. Win-Loss Record
Simply put, this an analysis of how athletes fared in head-to-head competition with their peers. But a win in a major competition might outweigh losses to the same person in a multiple number of minor ones. Overall win-loss sequence against all Ranking contenders is also factored in.

3. Sequence Of Marks
More concisely, performances. How fast you ran or how high or far you jumped or how far you threw something. Typically, the compilers weigh athletes based on the average of their 5 best performances. It’s very easy for the casual observer—and most athletes and coaches—to place the most consideration on this last factor, when in fact our methodology says it should be the opposite. Thus, in our system marks are worth much less than either of the other two categories. And Honors alone can outweigh the other two criteria. We reward people who have proven them­selves against other people, not against themselves.

Nothing But The Facts

A quickie guide to the actual Rankings material:

The Top 10 in the World are listed in each event, with their birthdate/height/weight. In a major upgrade from the handling of seasonal records in the print version, where space constraints allowed us, generally speaking, to give the full seasonal record for just the winner, now that we’re in the electrons-are-free digital world you get complete seasons for everyone. And that’s not all! Note that 2 more columns have been added, providing not only the dates of the marks but also data on to whom the athlete lost in non-winning efforts.

The Top 10 in the U.S. follow, with those who are also in the World Rankings indicated by an asterisk. It is important to note that the U.S. Rankings follow the order of the World where they overlap.

And another upgrade for digital! Instead of Top 40 lists, there are now links with each event to the Top 50s for both the World and U.S.

Who Done It?

Our World Rankings Panel—a wide-ranging bunch representing four different nationalities—likes to maintain a low profile, but credit (blame?) should be given where it is due. The team is Garry Hill, Richard Hymans, Dave Johnson, Nejat Kök & Jonathan Berenbom.

Shawn Price & Glen McMicken tackled the U.S. Rankings with special help from Sieg Lindstrom, and Bob Bowman coordinated the walk-event ordering with assistance from Jack Mortland & Pierce O’Callaghan.

Choices In Viewing The Rankings

And now, please enjoy the ’18 Rankings.

Clicking here will take you to a page listing all the World Men’s No. 1s, presented as links to the event’s full detail.

If you prefer a quick take, clicking here will take you to a just-the-basics composite of the World Men’s Top 10s stripped of all detail (currently locked down for subscribers only).

Clicking here will take you to a page listing all the World Women’s No. 1s.

Clicking here will take you to a just-the-basics composite of the World Women’s Top 10s (currently locked down for subscribers only).