Women's discus - They have fallen even farther!

[nmzoo]

An examination of the all-time list for the women’s discus throw reveals the following (this is from a list maintained by Peter Larsson with 522 entries going down to 68.00m/223’1”, and excludes indoor marks and 2nd/3rd etc. best marks from the same series):

The women’s world record at the present time is 76.80m/251’11” by Gabriele Reinsch (GER) 1988 (20 years ago). The American record is 67.67m/222’0” by Suzy Powell-Roos in 2007. The 2008 Olympics were won with a throw of 64.74m/212’ 4-3/4”, a throw more than 40’ under the world record. If I could find a list that went that far, it would probably rank somewhere over 1500th on the AT list. The best throw since 2000 is 68.70m/225’ 4.5”, 26’ 6” off the WR.

There have been 10 additions to the top 163 marks on the list since 1990, and 6 of those were by Cubans or Chinese. No throws from 2008 make the list of 522. Since 1990, the closest anyone has come to the WR is 5.12m/16’8”. And the 10th best throw since then is more than 20’ off the record.
As with the women’s shot put, there are no non-Asians in the top 522 marks of all time with the exception of Germany and athletes from 5 other countries, notably Cuba. Of the 522 marks on the AT list, only 42 pre-date 1980 and only 12 pre-date the Olympic year of 1976.

My solution - make the diameter of the ring the same as the shot/hammer.

[26mi235]

Re: Women's discus - They have fallen even farther!

...and excludes indoor marks and ...

I sure hope so :wink:

On a more serious note, the comparison is even worse because the top marks now are often in 'aided' wind tunnel locals. Strip those out and the marks are typically worse (as shown by the OG mark).

[croflash]

Re: Women's discus - They have fallen even farther!

...and excludes indoor marks and ...

I sure hope so :wink:

On a more serious note, the comparison is even worse because the top marks now are often in 'aided' wind tunnel locals. Strip those out and the marks are typically worse (as shown by the OG mark).

However, the men's competition was at a much higher level. 67 meters did not get you a medal which has only happened once before in Sydney.

[mcgato]

I put this breakdown together for an Olympic thread. It is the number of marks on the all time women's discus list by year.

Year Number appearing in list
1973: 1
1974: 10
1975: 3
1976: 10
1977: 5
1978: 11
1979: 9
1980: 15
1981: 15
1982: 26
1983: 26
1984: 65
1985: 28
1986: 44
1987: 55
1988: 91
1989: 21
1990: 19
1991: 13
1992: 21
1993: 1
1994: 3
1995: 6
1996: 4
1997: 4
1998: 2
1999: 6
2000: 3
2001: 2
2002: 0
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 0
2006: 1
2007: 1

Or by decade.

1970s: 49
1980s: 386
1990s: 79
2000s: 10

[26mi235]

A couple of comments

First: 1) the 4-year 'shoulder from 1989-1992 is interesting. It seems to imply two possible things. a) there were places where the OOC testing was not very complete (and the OG bump in 1992 provided added incentive) and/or b) the strength effect lasted a while after testing curtailed usage substantially.

Second: the second drop occurred after 1999 and would be more visible with a lower threshold.

Third: the testing also seems to imply a reduction in the 'arms race'; you did not need to dope a lot to be competitive

Fourth: the drop also coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I was at a nephew's wedding last weekend and the bride was born in Russia several years before the Wall fell. Her father said that the fall of the Wall was the biggest event of his life (he now works at the US Patent Office in biochem, along with several other Russians at the wedding).

[nmzoo]

Actually, there have been indoor marks reported for the discus over the years (also the Javelin), although none that would have made the list. U of Idaho comes to mind.

Perhaps the 1980's was a decade of particularly favorable winds for discus throwers! :wink:

[catson52]

Re: Women's discus - They have fallen even farther!

An examination of the all-time list for the women’s discus throw reveals the following (this is from a list maintained by Peter Larsson with 522 entries going down to 68.00m/223’1”, and excludes indoor marks and 2nd/3rd etc. best marks from the same series):

The women’s world record at the present time is 76.80m/251’11” by Gabriele Reinsch (GER) 1988 (20 years ago). The American record is 67.67m/222’0” by Suzy Powell-Roos in 2007. The 2008 Olympics were won with a throw of 64.74m/212’ 4-3/4”, a throw more than 40’ under the world record. If I could find a list that went that far, it would probably rank somewhere over 1500th on the AT list. The best throw since 2000 is 68.70m/225’ 4.5”, 26’ 6” off the WR.

There have been 10 additions to the top 163 marks on the list since 1990, and 6 of those were by Cubans or Chinese. No throws from 2008 make the list of 522. Since 1990, the closest anyone has come to the WR is 5.12m/16’8”. And the 10th best throw since then is more than 20’ off the record.
As with the women’s shot put, there are no non-Asians in the top 522 marks of all time with the exception of Germany and athletes from 5 other countries, notably Cuba. Of the 522 marks on the AT list, only 42 pre-date 1980 and only 12 pre-date the Olympic year of 1976.

My solution - make the diameter of the ring the same as the shot/hammer.

As you said, inclusion of secondary marks makes the matter far worse. Adds another 300-500 marks that is not being remotely approached today. Not casting aspersions on anyone, but I note that two big names from the 1970s - Melnik and Jahl - together make up ~50 of those marks.

[nmzoo]

mcgato wrote:

"I put this breakdown together for an Olympic thread. It is the number of marks on the all time women's discus list by year."

"Or by decade: 1980's 386"

The five years from 1984 thru 1988 account for 54% of the marks on the 522 deep list . The 20 years since account for only 21% of the marks.

(Very nice breakdown , mcgato!)

[RMc]

A couple of comments

First: 1) the 4-year 'shoulder from 1989-1992 is interesting. It seems to imply two possible things. a) there were places where the OOC testing was not very complete (and the OG bump in 1992 provided added incentive) and/or b) the strength effect lasted a while after testing curtailed usage substantially.

Second: the second drop occurred after 1999 and would be more visible with a lower threshold.

Third: the testing also seems to imply a reduction in the 'arms race'; you did not need to dope a lot to be competitive

Fourth: the drop also coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I was at a nephew's wedding last weekend and the bride was born in Russia several years before the Wall fell. Her father said that the fall of the Wall was the biggest event of his life (he now works at the US Patent Office in biochem, along with several other Russians at the wedding).

I made much this same point in an earlier post a couple years ago, and earlier on the darkwing list when I saw this pattern in several related events.

[26mi235]

A couple of comments

First: 1) the 4-year 'shoulder from 1989-1992 is interesting. It seems to imply two possible things. a) there were places where the OOC testing was not very complete (and the OG bump in 1992 provided added incentive) and/or b) the strength effect lasted a while after testing curtailed usage substantially.

Second: the second drop occurred after 1999 and would be more visible with a lower threshold.

Third: the testing also seems to imply a reduction in the 'arms race'; you did not need to dope a lot to be competitive

Fourth: the drop also coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I was at a nephew's wedding last weekend and the bride was born in Russia several years before the Wall fell. Her father said that the fall of the Wall was the biggest event of his life (he now works at the US Patent Office in biochem, along with several other Russians at the wedding).

I made much this same point in an earlier post a couple years ago, and earlier on the darkwing list when I saw this pattern in several related events.

mikli organized data on the average of the top 50 marks for each year. We did some initial analysis that had significant dummies at 1990 and 2000 (as well as dummies for OG years). The improvement curves where then estimated were the residual in this estimate, with almost zero rate of improvement by the 2000s decade. The preliminary regressions were just for the sprints. Eventually, we will run more sophisticated models (such as seemingly unrelated regressions across the sprints and also across the distances, and filed event groups. It will be interesting to compare the values of the temporal dummies across types of events and between men and women. But I still need to get to that (and I need more sophisticated software at home to do it).

[RMc]

A couple of comments

First: 1) the 4-year 'shoulder from 1989-1992 is interesting. It seems to imply two possible things. a) there were places where the OOC testing was not very complete (and the OG bump in 1992 provided added incentive) and/or b) the strength effect lasted a while after testing curtailed usage substantially.

Second: the second drop occurred after 1999 and would be more visible with a lower threshold.

Third: the testing also seems to imply a reduction in the 'arms race'; you did not need to dope a lot to be competitive

Fourth: the drop also coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I was at a nephew's wedding last weekend and the bride was born in Russia several years before the Wall fell. Her father said that the fall of the Wall was the biggest event of his life (he now works at the US Patent Office in biochem, along with several other Russians at the wedding).

I made much this same point in an earlier post a couple years ago, and earlier on the darkwing list when I saw this pattern in several related events.

mikli organized data on the average of the top 50 marks for each year. We did some initial analysis that had significant dummies at 1990 and 2000 (as well as dummies for OG years). The improvement curves where then estimated were the residual in this estimate, with almost zero rate of improvement by the 2000s decade. The preliminary regressions were just for the sprints. Eventually, we will run more sophisticated models (such as seemingly unrelated regressions across the sprints and also across the distances, and filed event groups. It will be interesting to compare the values of the temporal dummies across types of events and between men and women. But I still need to get to that (and I need more sophisticated software at home to do it).

This leads to an interesting thought of publishing the results in the journal that keeps publishing those weird forecasts that show women's performances surpassing men's in the next few decades.

Economists unite!!!

[lapsus]

"Don't trust anyone over 34"?