Run-Down Forums

Distance_Guru · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 10:31 am Post subject:

You're right about those guys but my stats were for the 1500. Maree was running well in the early to mid 80's.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Dan · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 10:54 am Post subject:

Ah, I guess you did say middle distance. I missed that, sorry.

Did you look up the same stats for 5k, 10k, and marathon?

Dan

Conway · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:09 am Post subject:

Comparing times is nice ... But I think I would want to taek a look at how competitive each country has been ... For example in each of the major world championships and Olympics how far through the rounds are people getting ??? For example how many are making it to the semis ?? How many to the finals ??? How many medallists ??

Another measure might be how well folks are doing in the major Euro races ... For example Meb lead the world but could beat no one !!! (I realize that the numbers you used did not include the 10,000) ...

Dan · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:21 am Post subject:

Conway · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:39 am Post subject:

Distance_Guru · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:16 pm Post subject:

I'm not even sure how well using making finals in Olympics or Worlds is as an indicator. After all Krumenacker made finals in the 1500 in the last worlds. And as much as I'd love to say that that's a sign that he's one of the 15-20 best runners in the world I know that isn't true.

I didn't check the 10k but in the 5k we've only had a runner in the top 10 in the world 2 times (both Kennedy) since 1990. Crying or Very sad

. On the other hand no countries not named Kenya or Ethiopia had many.

Britain=1
Italy=2
Germany=4 (all by Deter the cheater)
France=0
Spain=0
Ireland=0
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Dan · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:33 pm Post subject:

I agree that it's very difficult to find any one standard by which to measure performances, especially with a couple of countries dominating all the lists. Same reason Conway and I have argued that Olympic titles should not be the be all end all for determining the greatness of one's career.

That quandry lends some credence to the IAAF scoring system, which takes into account performances and the meets in which they occurred. Obviously not an exact science, but a step in the right direction.

Having said all that, I'm not sure we know any more than when we began... Maybe the women's lists would be more enlightening? Actually, a nice fella named Roger Ruth has put together lots of 'national depth' lists for the t-and-f list by compiling all the top 100 athletes per event. I could inquire with him if he would be interested in posting his lists here for further discussion.

Dan

Distance_Guru · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:43 pm Post subject:

I looked up the 10k we didn't do as well there. Also for some wierd reason they didn't have Meb listed in last years rankings.

US=1 (Todd Williams)

Britian=3
Italy=0
Germany=3 (2 by Deter the Cheater)
France=2
Spain=4
Ireland=0
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Dan · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:53 pm Post subject:

What lists are you going by?

Dan

Distance_Guru · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 5:57 pm Post subject:

Track and Field News World Rankings by Nation. Which is on the Track and Field News web site.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Dan · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 6:04 pm Post subject:

Strange that T&FN wouldn't have listed Meb. They've got some of the [allegedly] best statisticians there.

Dan

Distance_Guru · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 6:07 pm Post subject:

I've seen some wierd things with there rankings, one of the coaches here threw the Discus 194' and his athletes sent in his performance with official meet results and the whole nine yards and they didn't list him. Although that is still a long way from not listing an American record.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Conway · Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 9:00 pm Post subject:

Track and Field News has its biases just like everyone else ... And some arrogance to go with it ...

I agree with Dan that the variables are a problem when trying to determine the best in events ... But we need to agree on some sort of criteria in order to continue the conversation ... Wink

Micah Ward · Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2002 3:01 pm Post subject:

This sounds similar to a discussion we have had before. Just looking at times will give some idea of how good a runner is. But the ultimate criteria for me is wins. It really doesn't matter how fast some one is running if they finish out of the medals. The true test is did you go to the big meets and did you beat the people you lined up against?

Fire away!!! Very Happy

Distance_Guru · Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2002 4:38 pm Post subject:

You know what Micah I love your guts for saying what you really think and more than that I agree with you.

I still put more value in an Olympic gold medal than a record set in a time trial. Maybe it just goes back to my cross country roots where time is about as important as the color of your uniform. Race to win, race for a medal the hell with running a good time.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New