Stuczynski Stats 2007: Bitter/Sweet

[gh]

We already have Rankings prepared that way: they're called the yearly list.

[30yrs-coaching]

WOW! Didn't realize I hit such a personal nerve with GH!

I simply saw the stats on a site and threw out a quick opinion without thining it through. I figured I better do some research to see how wrong I was. Turns out that last year American Track and Field ranked Stuczynski 4th in the world while T and F ranked her 6th.

She was behind Rogowska which she met head to head only 1 time and beat.. This made me come to notice that Track and Field News seems to rank Pole vaulters very well if they get injured during the season. Ex. last year Rogowska... Year before Dragila. These athletes did not have the IAAF rankings even close to what Track and Field News ranked them.

Reason was simple--- T and F news knew these two athletes were top 5 jumpers in the world. Every promoter and coach around p.v. in the world would take Isinbayeva 1. 2nd would be a close choice b/w Jenn S. Feo. Pyrek. and maybe Bad...after that big drop off. those are clearly the top 5. However, anyone can rank anyone with any number with any system.

Track and Field News may rank a different american #1 in the Amer. Rankings, or they may not rank her in the top 5. It's their credibility on the line nobody elses. Sequence of marks is a criteria as defined by t&f in their "ranking systerm"...for that reason alone the american is up there.

Bruce said it best when he said he could justify putting 4 gals in front of her....but I guess in the end rankings don't mean that much lists are factual J.S. is #2 all time ever in the world I guess that ends the arguement...but now if she's out of the top 5 , 10, 15 or 20 we know where it came from... (Mr. G.H. who must have some personal dislike for Jenn. S).... I can't imagine an American magazine ranking an American lower than the IAAF would. Jenn S. was better off never going to Europe and sitting on the 84 and 88, that might have given her a second or 3rd ranking but instead competed in every meet injured while most would of stayed home.

[tafnut]

We already have Rankings prepared that way: they're called the yearly list.

Ah, how quickly we forget the transcendent beauty of the MS Rankings, which are NOT anywhere near the same as an Annual List. Obviously I will have to work on a couple of events in the next few days to demonstrate the sheer genius of its concept!

[gh]

..... Jenn S. was better off never going to Europe and sitting on the 84 and 88, that might have given her a second or 3rd ranking but instead competed in every meet injured while most would of stayed home.

Au contraire! If she makes it into the top 10, a significant part of the reason will be the good collection of international scalps she takes in finishing 3rd in London.

[tafnut]

C'mon now, admit it, you guys usually go soft and mushy on the injury issue!

[Powell]

I can't imagine an American magazine ranking an American lower than the IAAF would.

Why's that? Are you saying T&FN are US-biased in their rankings (which non-US posters here occassionally claimed, but GH always argued was untrue) or that they ought to look more favorably at US athletes?

[tafnut]

Thinking about the last 40 years of rankings I've seen, it really does seem as though they DO bend over backwards NOT to favor USAians.

[26mi235]

We already have Rankings prepared that way: they're called the yearly list.

The Yearly List is only max[mark1, mark2, ... markn].

Related to this, is the question: where on the US rankings will our 14-year old Jav phenom rank. Now that is the epitome of a mark 'out or (or into) the blue'?

[gh]

....Speaking as one who has been there, I would say that vaulters place a very high premium on marks. I think most vaulters, in most meets, would value a PR more than a win. I certainly did and know that many others feel the same way. Winning would be more important only in a big championship meet, of which there might be one or two each year.

Marks are a very big deal to vaulters. It's a lot of what they're geared towards and aiming for in competition. For many, probably most, winning with a sub-par vault is not nearly as satisfying as "losing" with a PR......

I can assure you that vaulters are no different than anyone else in this regard. All athletes (and most coaches and fans) place marks as the No. 1 criterion.

[tandfman]

FWIW, Jenn's current (and thus year-end) world ranking by Spiriev (the former IAAF ranking system) is 8.

[tafnut]

I think gh is playing with us, devil's advocately. Jenn will rank, just not where we Marks Snobs (which, as gh just admitted, is . . . oh yeah . . . ALL OF US!!!) would like her too.

[gh]

I don't play when it comes to the Rankings. The original poster said she could end up anywhere from 2nd to 5th and my response was a straightforward, "She could end up not ranked at all. Only 3 appearances internationally: 3rd, =7th, 10th. With zero appearances in Golden League meets in a year in which the wPV was part of the program."

It was true when I said it and it remains true. The Rankings are not done at this point, but I'm giving you the benefit of my considered opinion on what the landscape looks like to me at first glance.

[tafnut]

I made a matrix of the top meets:

A. Osaka
B. Stuttgart
C. London, Brussels, Zurich, Berlin, Rome, Paris
D. Stockholm, Madrid

and looked at where everyone finished. The bleeding for Jenn stops no lower than # 7.

The top 10 (with top 3 marks):
1. Isinbayeva – duh (4.91-4.90-4.87)
2. Feofanova just as clearly (4.82-4.80-4.76)
3. Pyrek edges Badurova on head-to-head in major meets (4.82-4.75-4.72)
4. Badurova (4.75-4.70-4.65)
5. Golubchikova – lots of quality 3-6 places (4.70-4.70-4.70)
6. Polnova – just a little below Golub in Big Meets (4.72-4.67-4.65)
7. JennS – the London 3rd (4.70 - beating Golub, Badurova and Polnova) does the trick with these marks: (4.88-4.84-4.73)
8. Boslak – 5th at Osaka was about it; great stuff, but clearly not up with JS (4.70-4.62-4.60)
9. Murer – =6th in Osaka (4.65-4.60-4.55!)
10. Spiegelburg – OK in the big meets, but 4.60 best!

N.B. Jenn could easily rank above Golubchikova and Polnova, except they had better "depth" of performance in more Big Meets. Notice that the Marks Snob has 'allowed' lesser marks to rank higher, because performance in BMs DOES matter!