Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lausanne m400

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Wariner can forget about being ranked no. 1.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bruce Kritzler
      Wariner can forget about being ranked no. 1.
      You're probably right. It's tough to beat the Olympic Trials and Games winner, but if Merritt has indeed called it a season, then Wariner may have a case.

      Honors Won
      LSM: Berlin, OT, OG
      JW: Oslo?, Rome, Paris, Zurich, Brussels?, WAF?

      Head-to-Head
      LSM: 3
      JW: 3

      Sequence of Marks (average of top 5)
      LSM: 44.05
      JW: 43.98

      For what it's worth, Wariner also leads the World Athletics Tour standings: 100 to 88.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Davidokun
        Originally posted by Bruce Kritzler
        Wariner can forget about being ranked no. 1.
        You're probably right. It's tough to beat the Olympic Trials and Games winner, but if Merritt has indeed called it a season, then Wariner may have a case.
        Funny, I would have seen it the other way around: By quitting now, LM
        secures the number one spot. Head-to-head is one of the main criteria,
        and if JW had managed to go e.g. 5-3 _and_ have an SB several tenths
        faster, he might have had at least some chance. As is, he cannot win
        the head-to-head and would have to run several outrageously good times
        to be a contender---which he will hardly be able to do.

        Comment


        • #19
          Is your assumption on inability to run outrageously fast times at this point in the season due to 1) Never having run near his PB in september? 2) Not having enough races left? 3) Showing no signs this season of being able to do so? 4) Not having the competition? 5) Something else?

          I:d venture to say all of the above, with #4 being less of a factor. He:s had many time-trials under 44,00 - time-trial meaning his margin-of-victory has been so great over his competition.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by imaginative
            Funny, I would have seen it the other way around: By quitting now, LM secures the number one spot. Head-to-head is one of the main criteria, and if JW had managed to go e.g. 5-3 _and_ have an SB several tenths faster, he might have had at least some chance. As is, he cannot win the head-to-head and would have to run several outrageously good times to be a contender---which he will hardly be able to do.
            As I understand it, the three criteria I listed are in descending order of priority. That is, honors won significantly outweighs head-to-head record, which significantly outweighs sequence of marks. Clearly, Merritt is presently ahead of Wariner in the former, so the latter two are not especially relevant. Nevertheless, by quitting now, Merritt may allow Wariner to close that gap. It all depends on how the committee defines major competitions. Will Oslo, Brussels, and the WAF count if Merritt is absent? If so, then their head-to-head record is a push, and Wariner has a slight edge in sequence of marks.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Davidokun
              Originally posted by imaginative
              Funny, I would have seen it the other way around: By quitting now, LM secures the number one spot. Head-to-head is one of the main criteria, and if JW had managed to go e.g. 5-3 _and_ have an SB several tenths faster, he might have had at least some chance. As is, he cannot win the head-to-head and would have to run several outrageously good times to be a contender---which he will hardly be able to do.
              As I understand it, the three criteria I listed are in descending order of priority. That is, honors won significantly outweighs head-to-head record, which significantly outweighs sequence of marks. Clearly, Merritt is presently ahead of Wariner in the former, so the latter two are not especially relevant. Nevertheless, by quitting now, Merritt may allow Wariner to close that gap. It all depends on how the committee defines major competitions. Will Oslo, Brussels, and the WAF count if Merritt is absent? If so, then their head-to-head record is a push, and Wariner has a slight edge in sequence of marks.
              Ok, I see your point. My interpretation of honors won was more limited
              than yours, with the OGs and (for Americans) the FOTs being the only
              really relevant. Dispite your listing, I did not think to include
              non-championship meets. (Even so, I do not see how JW could catch up
              in honors won, so he would still need the head-to-head.)

              Comment


              • #22
                I see no scenario where Wariner moves past Merritt and becomes No. 1 for the year, he has lost the most important race by a second. At this point Wariner doesn't even have the SB and the average of his five fastest times (43.96) is only slightly better than Merritt's (43.98). The latter could still change, but their season accomplishments outside of Beijing has been pretty even and Wariner would have to be a lot better to be considered No. 1 for the year.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by imaginative
                  Ok, I see your point. My interpretation of honors won was more limited than yours, with the OGs and (for Americans) the FOTs being the only really relevant. Dispite your listing, I did not think to include non-championship meets.
                  Here's how our hosts define honors won:

                  This means scoring high places (with emphasis on actually winning) in major international competitions...

                  ...the importance of a meet is relative to who competes in it, not how much stock an athlete might place in it...

                  ...no competition, not even the [OG], is the be-all, end-all. We're looking for people who maintain high standards over a whole year.
                  So it's difficult for outsiders to say precisely what constitutes a "major international competition" to the committee (other than the OG and WAF), and how such events are weighted. Nevertheless, we can speculate to our heart's content. Suppose, for example, that Wariner had won in Berlin, and, furthermore, goes on to win in Brussels and Stuttgart. Then Merritt will have the OT and OG, while Wariner will have the GL and WAF. If the committee judges this to be a push, and I think that would be a reasonable conclusion, then Wariner would probably get the overall nod with a better head-to-head record and sequence of marks. This scenario is interesting to consider, because I think it means that in the real world Merritt will probably get the top ranking, but the tipping point will be his victory in Berlin!

                  Originally posted by imaginative
                  Even so, I do not see how JW could catch up in honors won, so he would still need the head-to-head.
                  Again, if Wariner can't catch up to Merritt in honors won, then their head-to-head record is probably irrelevant.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by croflash
                    I see no scenario where Wariner moves past Merritt and becomes No. 1 for the year, he has lost the most important race by a second. At this point Wariner doesn't even have the SB and the average of his five fastest times (43.96) is only slightly better than Merritt's (43.98). The latter could still change, but their season accomplishments outside of Beijing has been pretty even and Wariner would have to be a lot better to be considered No. 1 for the year.
                    I don't think either margin of victory in the OG or SB is a criteria. As for sequence of marks, according to the IAAF, their top five marks are:
                    • LSM: 43.75, 43.98, 44.00, 44.03, 44.12 (Average = 43.98)[/*:m:351yc3ld]
                    • JW: 43.82, 43.86, 43.98, 44.07, 44.15 (Average = 43.98)[/*:m:351yc3ld]
                    (Note that my previous average for Merritt did not include his Lausanne mark.) So Wariner will have to run 44.14 or better in either Brussels or Stuttgart to reclaim a slight edge in sequence of marks.

                    Again, it won't do him any good unless he wins both remaining meets, and the committee judges (Olso + Rome + Paris + Zurich + Brussels + WAF) at least equal to (Berlin + OT + OG).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      You are right about about the marks, I don't know how I got 43.96 as an average for Wariner.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        You should take the top ten marks not the top five - they represent the totality of a season much better than the top 5.

                        As it stands right now:

                        LM if done = 44.20

                        JW w/ 2 races to go = 44.17

                        In my book this is no difference over 10 races. For Jw to get # 1 in my book he would have to run his last 2 races faster than his avg. and one would have to be a PB (<43.45) and of course a WL time. I don't think that will happen. And even if it did I would still think to lean towards LM for consistancy when it counted in the two Major races - U.S. (OT) and International (OG). The new #1 400m Man is LM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Merritt has the honors won element hands down. JW will have to settle for number 2 this year.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
                            You should take the top ten marks not the top five - they represent the totality of a season much better than the top 5.

                            As it stands right now:

                            LM if done = 44.20

                            JW w/ 2 races to go = 44.17

                            In my book this is no difference over 10 races. For Jw to get # 1 in my book he would have to run his last 2 races faster than his avg. and one would have to be a PB (<43.45) and of course a WL time. I don't think that will happen. And even if it did I would still think to lean towards LM for consistancy when it counted in the two Major races - U.S. (OT) and International (OG). The new #1 400m Man is LM.
                            It's not clear, but I guess your post is addressed to me. Frankly, when it comes to what I should or shouldn't do, you should mind your own business.

                            That said, we're speculating whether or not it's still possible for Wariner to earn the top ranking from T&FN, not you or me. Again, as I wrote initially, Merritt probably has it wrapped up based on the primary criterion, honors won, because it carries significantly more weight than the other criteria. Nevertheless, I think it is still possible for Wariner to pass Merritt, but only because it's not explicitly clear to outsiders what constitutes a major international competition to the committee.

                            If, and only if, Wariner is somehow able to close the gap in honors won, then head-to-head record would become relevant. As we all know by now, this secondary criterion is a push between Merritt and Wariner. Therefore, in this scenario, sequence of marks would become relevant.

                            Now, how many marks should we consider? You are correct in stating that ten marks would be more representative than five. But, again, we're not discussing how you or I would rank Merritt and Wariner, but speculating on how T&FN will do it. When it comes to sequence of marks, here's what they say:

                            Typically, the compilers weigh athletes based on the average of their 5 best meets.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              As an additional concern, the 400m is a distance where a winning
                              athlete is often content to win, irrespective of time. I would not be
                              surprised if the likes of JW and LM simply did not have ten all-out
                              races in a normal season. From this angle, five is the more sensible
                              number. (I would even go as far as rating a hypothetical 43.18, 43.6,
                              44,5, 44.6 ... series above a 43.6, 43.7, 43,8, 43.9, ... series.)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                42.98 perhaps
                                why don't people pronounce vowels anymore

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X