2021 multi-event

[olorin]

Cato ruptured his Achilles and had a bad ankle injury along the way. He also had trouble with the DT and JT and would have had to put in an awful lot of work on those to be as elite a decathlete as he was a heptathlete.

I don't see a whole lot wrong with Atherley doing what she is doing at the conference meet. She is already qualified for the NCAA meet and the Trials, so the multi at the ACC meet is just for team points.

It all depends on the individual athlete. Some can handle it, some can't. Miami has brought her along pretty steadily.

I don't care about her score in the ACC, but about the increase chance of an injury.

Atherley (or Gittens) may be special amongst specials that can add to their multi-event individual events and not increase (by a lot) their chances of getting injured. But even if this is the case, Atherley's coach is still in the wrong because his behavior is opening the door for other coaches to exploit their multi-event athletes.

In the past, there were several cases that both GK and myself complained about the overload of multi-events and shortly afterward there was a significant injury.
I never done the math, but it is my strong impression that multi-eventers, which are used very often to compete in individual events, are more likely to sustain injuries. To clarify - I don't think that most of the coaches in the NCAA exploit their athletes. Quite the opposite, I believe that most of them really care about their athletes and put their interest in first place. The problem is that the minority of coaches, those that their own career comes in first place, are likely to select multi-event athletes to their squad. This is making multi-events athletes more vulnerable and they should be protected both by rules that prohibit such exploration by the NCAA (e.g. no more than one event beside the Hep) and by other coaches that should resist the temptation to over use them, even if they believe that a specific athlete (Atherley/Gittens) can handle it.

[olorin]

Decathlon – Big 10

While Garland is obviously the most intriguing performance this weekend as he still does not have a qualification mark, the field in SEC is somewhat deflated so I will shift my attention to Big-Ten, which has a good depth this year.
After Erm injury Ayden Owens should be considered as the favorite for the Bronze medal in the NCAA final. Owens is the most “Eaton-like” decathlete in the current crop of NCAA. Very fast (10.43, 47.10, 13.76) good in the 1500 (sub 4:30). He is relatively weak thrower although not horrible (15-43-53) but his main weakness is the jumps (7.53-1.94-4.68) that are really not good enough for someone so fast. With a PB of 8130 in the decathlon and a qualifying mark this season Owens is likely to save his best to the NCAA finals, but an improvement in some individual events will be great (LJ-7.53).

Daniels (Iowa) is the second decathletes that have the qualified marks. He is a strong in the HJ (2.11) but his greatest assets is that he does not have a disastrous event. Issiah Martin is also in a good position to qualify with a PB of 7576. His best event in the JT (62m) while the weakest is the PV (4.40). No less than four decathletes have a chance to qualify for the NCAA final. The Freshmen Austin West (Iowa) is good in the JT but weak in the other throws. Needs to improve on his 7458 points in order to qualify. Noah Swaby (Penn State) is on the bubble with 7517. Swabi is likely to be the best thrower in the NCAA (15.6-50.5-59) but he is also one of the slowest (11.28, 50.27, 14.71). If he wants any chance in this event, he must improve his jumps. A lot of good throwers were also a good jumper and below 7m & 2m PBs is simply not good enough. Wade Walder a senior from Michigan State is also a recent transfer. Good in the PV (5m) and JT(59m) he should be able to squeeze in. Finally, Peyton Haack (Iowa) is furthest away from qualification mark (7,300). However, he is fast improving and I need to justify why I selected Big-10 over SEC.

So how is "my conference" is doing after day 1.
Aiden Owens is heaving a good meet and on his way to score ~8150. He had a PB in the 100 (10.40) but a mini-disaster in the HJ (1.85) is likely to prevent him from a really big-score.
Daniels (Iowa) is leading the competition. His second day is relatively weak but he still have an outside chance to score more than 8,000 points. Both Martin and West are also set to improve their PBs and both are on ~7650 pace. Swaby, Walder and Haack (NH in the HJ) are performing below par and are are well below their SB pace.
No disasters and four above 7500 will probably make the Big-10 as the best conference.

[gm]

I don't care about her score in the ACC, but about the increase chance of an injury.

Atherley (or Gittens) may be special amongst specials that can add to their multi-event individual events and not increase (by a lot) their chances of getting injured. But even if this is the case, Atherley's coach is still in the wrong because his behavior is opening the door for other coaches to exploit their multi-event athletes.

In the past, there were several cases that both GK and myself complained about the overload of multi-events and shortly afterward there was a significant injury.
I never done the math, but it is my strong impression that multi-eventers, which are used very often to compete in individual events, are more likely to sustain injuries. To clarify - I don't think that most of the coaches in the NCAA exploit their athletes. Quite the opposite, I believe that most of them really care about their athletes and put their interest in first place. The problem is that the minority of coaches, those that their own career comes in first place, are likely to select multi-event athletes to their squad. This is making multi-events athletes more vulnerable and they should be protected both by rules that prohibit such exploration by the NCAA (e.g. no more than one event beside the Hep) and by other coaches that should resist the temptation to over use them, even if they believe that a specific athlete (Atherley/Gittens) can handle it.

Are you now or have you ever been a coach of elite multi-event athletes?

[olorin]

Are you now or have you ever been a coach of elite multi-event athletes?

No - but which part of my answer (or this topic) needs the expertise of a coach?

[jb2]

Daniels (Iowa) is leading the competition. His second day is relatively weak but he still have an outside chance to score more than 8,000 points.

Think you’re selling Daniels short here, he has an excellent chance to break 8,000. In his 7,649 earlier this year, he scored 4,039 on Day 1 and 3,610 on Day 2. Yesterday, he set PRs in four events (SP of 14.13 missed his PR by 0.02), to score 4,344, over 300 points higher than in April.

Even if he doesn’t continue at that pace, just matching his April Day 2 gets him to 7,954. With Owens as competition, there’s probably another ~100 points to be had in the 1500 if needed, as his April mark was only 5:01 (he ran 4:48 in 2019).

[miketandf]

Missed a good multis day Friday:

SEC:
- Garland: a solid 8196 for his first senior deca. His 10.89 PR was into a 1.5 headwind, so some promise there... and a 1500m PR after 4 years of strength development was nice to see. The only thing I'd really like to see is a 48-49 400m, but the poor guy must never get much rest after likely being the last HJer to finish in every deca he'll compete in.
- Gittens: 6418 with a SP that was 129 points off her PR (and 127 off her SB) - just imagine.. and as olorin expanded on in his comments, yes, her 6418 will jump her from 31st to 20th on the Road-to Tokyo list, but with so many Europeans yet to compete, those 2 extra points would have been nice. Sitting 20th is good, but I hope she'll want to solidify her Tokyo slot at the NCAAs. I'd bet none of the non-Q women on that list are as qualified as her, but that's the ranking sytem for you.

Big 10: looks like a great competition.
- Owens rises to the challenge with a 46.78 400 PR and Will Daniels setting PR after PR (an inch short in SP of going 5 for 5 on Day 1, as jb2 mentions). I don't think anyone here is selling him short - this is a great conference competition. Those Iowa kids are impressive.

Big 12:
- Nuegebauer w/ a 4189 after day 1, but is capable of so much more. I hope he'll put one together soon.

Off the radar at Azusa:
- Ashtin Zamzow-Mahler having a good meet, 3699 after day 1 (no bad events and 1 PR), and on track to go over 6200

Add: 4279 Day 1 for Hunter Price at Azusa and 4268 for Hakim McMorris (Cal) at Pac12s, but both need better-than-PR type day2s to approach 8000.

[Atticus]

Are you now or have you ever been a coach of elite multi-event athletes?

If that were the criterion to offer any opinions on this forum, it would be nothing but crickets and tumbleweeds.

[gm]

No - but which part of my answer (or this topic) needs the expertise of a coach?

I just wanted to know where you were coming from on this one. The opinion of a trained and experienced elite coach would carry a bit more weight with me on this particular subject (number of events competing in at a single meet) than that of a fan. You are obviously an exceptionally informed and passionate observer/fan, which is great. We need more of those.

[gm]

If that were the criterion to offer any opinions on this forum, it would be nothing but crickets and tumbleweeds.

I never said it was.

[Atticus]

I never said it was.

I beg your pardon. I too was wondering why you were asking that of olorin, who obviously has great command of the esoterica of the multis

[gm]

Blazevica wins a very deep Big 12 hept with a 5947 PR. 6th was 5513.

[miketandf]

Neugebauer (Texas) 7793 PR wins Big 12. Big 10, after 9: Ayden Owens (Michigan) 7451, needs a PR ~4:29 (PR=4:29) for 8200 (PR=8130)... Will Daniels (Iowa) 7362, needs sub 4:47 (PR=4:48+) for 8000 (PR=7649)

Add: Owens finishes with big 4:23.57 PR in 1500, scores 8238 PR. Daniels didn't go for 8000... finishes in 5:10.26 for 7864 PR over his teamate West 7805 PR

[olorin]

I just wanted to know where you were coming from on this one. The opinion of a trained and experienced elite coach would carry a bit more weight with me on this particular subject (number of events competing in at a single meet) than that of a fan. You are obviously an exceptionally informed and passionate observer/fan, which is great. We need more of those.

I agree that a coach should be more informed about the specific athlete(s) they train.
The overall risk level of the (mis)use of multievent athletes in individual events is a data question. The problem is that this strategy is used exclusively in the collegiate system. Furthermore, even in the collegiate system using an athlete for so many events as Atherley/Gittens is rare. For example, the most successful program in the NCAA (Georgia) seldom use their multi-eventers for individual events. As of now Hall competed less than half of the competitions that Atherley/Gittens competed.
So there are very few data points.

I am coming for this only from only one place. The observation (and the intuition) that heavy use of a multi-event athlete increases the probability of an injury. If all NCAA coaches were putting their athletes' health in first place then I would never even raise this concern. However, while I am not a coach, I am heavily involve in another sport (for family reasons) at the highest level. My observation is exactly what I posted. Most coaches really love their athlete(s) and will never put them in unnecessary risk. But there are those coaches that exploit their athletes - as their success is the only important thing in their life. Are the collegiate coaches more novel than my experiences - let me doubt it.
Since I doubt very much that even in this magazine there is enough interest to follow up this question you are "stuck" with my data-based one. The only consolation I could offer you is that even if I am wrong (and obviously I don't think so) my intention are good, while the coach that will offer you his opinion may be part of the exploiters.
Back to weekend conferences.

[miketandf]

Ashtin Zamzow at Azusa, at 5437 after 6 events. A good chance she could exceed her PR of 6222, with a sub 2:23 (PR=2:17, SB=2:24). A new PR in the 800 would give her 6300.

[olorin]

Think you’re selling Daniels short here, he has an excellent chance to break 8,000. In his 7,649 earlier this year, he scored 4,039 on Day 1 and 3,610 on Day 2. Yesterday, he set PRs in four events (SP of 14.13 missed his PR by 0.02), to score 4,344, over 300 points higher than in April.

Even if he doesn’t continue at that pace, just matching his April Day 2 gets him to 7,954. With Owens as competition, there’s probably another ~100 points to be had in the 1500 if needed, as his April mark was only 5:01 (he ran 4:48 in 2019).

The Big-10 competition was even more exciting that I thought it will be with the top six (and nine of the first ten) setting PBs.
Owens with a big 8238 show that he will be able to challenge the power house due from Georgia. I think that Bronze is the most likely outcome for him but if either Tilga or Garland will be slightly off form he may improve. Note that Owens is another decathlete that will probably need to Auto-Q the qualify for Tokyo.
The Iowa due (Daniels and West) performed to their best and Daniels is part of the "potential 8000" I keep following. However, I am (much) more excited about West. His marks of 7805 includes a 4.00 PV. Assuming that he will be taught to jump in the next year or two he can join the elite in the NCAA (every 10cm are ~30 points). Note that he also underperformed in the 1500, suggesting that it may be a coach decision not to push too hard and conserve for the NCAA final.
Martin improved to 7708 and the fifth place Heath Baldwin (another freshman) had a qualifying mark of 7611. I have to admit that this is the first time I came across Baldwin's name as his previous PB was below 7300 points.

Finally - was I too harsh on Daniels? In order to break 8000 you need to:
a) perform well in the first four events of the second day
b) have the motivation to push through pain in the 1500
This reduces the probability of all athletes as for every Owens that push himself in the conferences weekend to a new 1500 PB we have three or four big names (those that are assured of qualification) that take it easy. If Daniels will score similarly in the NCAA final I will write a fair chance. Regardless, I am glad that there are some interest in the "second tier" athletes and looking forward for the Iowa-boys in the NCAA final. As mike wrote they are the best surprise of 2021.