Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jelmini =HSR in discus, now HSR plus #2 shot

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Jim Rorick
    replied
    By the way, tc, you were correct with your Jesse Bradford answer. 18.5 was his mark. He ran a year at Bakersfield JC and nothing thereafter, to my knowledge.

    Leave a comment:


  • balzonia
    replied
    You consider a mark based on it being a Record, I base it on it's value vis a vis other marks.

    The issue you raised the flag on (hyperbolically as gh said) was: "Is she the greatest T&F athlete in US high school history? I think she might be... " merits a "hardly counts" when best of said marks was #64th in world last year, and at least 2 of HSR's would have ranked 10th last year. I am not demeaning her performance, I am simply putting it in it's place: Good, not great.
    Following your logic, Jordan Hasay must suck... she didn't even crack the IAAF list at over 140 athletes deep who ran faster than her 4:14 in the 1500... She may not even be in the top 150.

    Poor girl... She might as well quit...

    Leave a comment:


  • balzonia
    replied
    I am not demeaning her performance, I am simply putting it in it's place: Good, not great.
    Wow.

    :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

    Leave a comment:


  • jeremyp
    replied
    Originally posted by balzonia
    FYI... HS women throw the exact same implement as international and collegiate female athletes... the list I see here:
    http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/lis...id=W&year=2008
    puts Jelmini as the #10 DT in the senior division with 6'4 and 50.6 also 10th...
    My bad about the weight of the Discus. However it still would have put her #64 World wide in the event, while the 50.6 and 6'4 would have been top ten in World. So, again, a mark that is #10 in world beats out a mark that is #64th What is hard to understand about this.

    I don't know on what list you see 50.6 and 6'4 as 10th and 58m (190'4") as 45th. I guess my gut feeling was dead on! I love it when that happens...
    Don't get too cocky too soon! The lists I refer too are the TF/IAAF world lists for seniors. I count 64 athletes with a better mark than 57.98.

    I completely agree the intrinsic mark is what matters. That is why I have no idea why you would opine that:
    "Having two top ATB in events that the US is traditionallly weak in hardly counts."
    Since one of her marks would have put her as #64 in world last year, while HS records 6'4/50.6 would have been ranked #10, having a HSR by itself is not comparable to the marks intrinsic worth. You consider a mark based on it being a Record, I base it on it's value vis a vis other marks.

    You demeaned Jelmini's marks by saying they "hardly count." Another patronizing comment that clearly illustrates a lack of appreciation for the magnitude of these performances likely due to ignorance of the events contested. Fair enough...
    Stop being pompous. The issue you raised the flag on (hyperbolically as gh said) was: "Is she the greatest T&F athlete in US high school history? I think she might be... " merits a "hardly counts" when best of said marks was #64th in world last year, and at least 2 of HSR's would have ranked 10th last year. I am not demeaning her performance, I am simply putting it in it's place: Good, not great.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by balzonia
    The abundance of SP/DT doublers on various lists comes from the fact that they are the only 2 throwing events contested in HS in most states. In colleges it is almost impossible for a thrower to specialize.
    Dunno about colleges, but in the last 4 years Rutger Smith won WCh medals in both SP and DT.

    Leave a comment:


  • balzonia
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Half Miler
    Originally posted by balzonia
    Additionally, the Shot and Discus are... as similar as the Long Jump and the High Jump.
    :!:
    I appreciate the difference between the SP/DT and HJ/LJ, but you'll find many more SP/DT combos than you will HJ/LJ. It's more akin to LJ/TJ. Scan the HS and college results and you'll often see the same names on the leaderboard of the SP/DT and LJ/TJ, but far fewer on the HJ/LJ.
    I get what you are saying... And I thought about that, too. But honestly, there are many more similarities between LJ/TJ than SP/DT.

    SP/DT might have slightly more in common than LJ/HJ but not by much. And that assumes the SP'er spins (which Jelmini does)

    The abundance of SP/DT doublers on various lists comes from the fact that they are the only 2 throwing events contested in HS in most states. In colleges it is almost impossible for a thrower to specialize. All SP'ers are expected to throw discus (and often hammer) and vice versa. If a thrower is elite in one event, they are usually at least solid in another throw. Just like any 7'5" Hj'er could likely LJ 24' and be ranked on multiple lists

    I hope that makes sense :lol:

    I think we could argue nuance here for quite some time and never come to an agreement, but I appreciate your point of view.

    Leave a comment:


  • balzonia
    replied
    If we're assumedly comparing a HS Discus, then there is a big difference. 50.6 would have been 10th best last year for Senior women, while 6'4 would have also have been 10th best (performance) for seniors. A 57m discus senior throw wouldn't have been in top 45. So a HS implement puts her way down.
    FYI... HS women throw the exact same implement as international and collegiate female athletes... the list I see here:
    http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/lis...id=W&year=2008
    puts Jelmini as the #10 DT in the senior division with 6'4 and 50.6 also 10th... I don't know on what list you see 50.6 and 6'4 as 10th and 58m (190'4") as 45th. I guess my gut feeling was dead on! I love it when that happens...

    A mark can be compared to other marks in the same age range. A 10th best mark in an event beats a 50+ mark.
    I have no idea what you are saying here...

    [/quote] I could care less how much someone wins by. It's the intrinsic mark that matters.[/quote]

    I completely agree the intrinsic mark is what matters. That is why I have no idea why you would opine that:
    "Having two top ATB in events that the US is traditionallly weak in hardly counts." (sic)

    You demeaned Jelmini's marks by saying they "hardly count." Another patronizing comment that clearly illustrates a lack of appreciation for the magnitude of these performances likely due to ignorance of the events contested. Fair enough...

    BTW, I appreciate all the comments in this thread even if I disagree with many.

    Leave a comment:


  • AS
    replied
    Originally posted by jeremyp
    If we're assumedly comparing a HS Discus, then there is a big difference. 50.6 would have been 10th best last year for Senior women, while 6'4 would have also have been 10th best (performance) for seniors. A 57m discus senior throw wouldn't have been in top 45. So a HS implement puts her way down.
    I presumed HS women threw a senior discus (as do junior women globally): 1 kg.

    The 2009 US lists would seem to support this:

    http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/lists/ ... &year=2009

    Leave a comment:


  • jeremyp
    replied
    Originally posted by balzonia
    [
    Really? Forgive my skepticism but 190'+ isn't better than (or at least equal to) 6'4" in the high jump? or 50.6 in the 400? Someone with more time than I have (or a great memory) can look at the results of major international competitions and see where 190' would have placed relative to 6'4" or 50.6
    If we're assumedly comparing a HS Discus, then there is a big difference. 50.6 would have been 10th best last year for Senior women, while 6'4 would have also have been 10th best (performance) for seniors. A 57m discus senior throw wouldn't have been in top 45. So a HS implement puts her way down.

    n "relative terms" it is also important to realize that the field events (the technical events) will always trail the running times for "relative strength." It takes nearly a decade to build any highly substantial technical proficiency in the field events. Efficient running takes much less time to develop so the women who run will have distinct advantage in any "relative comparison" in regards to stopwatch events vs. tape measure events at the HS level.
    Subjective, irrelevant argument. By this argument a "developing" athlete is better than an "arrived" athlete. We're dealing with the here and now not the future.

    Traditional weakness has nothing to do with the ultimate mark. For arguments sake, let's say the girls' Hammer is the "weakest" record on the HS books. If a girl throws 220' (which would be comparable to the 190' DT mark), that takes nothing away from the new HT record.
    A mark can be compared to other marks in the same age range. A 10th best mark in an event beats a 50+ mark.

    By your logic, the level of competition should be considered when a record is set. If a girl runs 10.8 in the 100m and second place runs 13.4 in the same race, the 10.8 would be less impressive than if the second place runner ran 11.1. I don't agree.
    Have no clue what your arguing here. I could care less how much someone wins by. It's the intrinsic mark that matters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Miler
    replied
    Borrowing your pet phrase, zackly!

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Miler
    Originally posted by balzonia
    Additionally, the Shot and Discus are... as similar as the Long Jump and the High Jump.
    :!:
    I appreciate the difference between the SP/DT and HJ/LJ, but you'll find many more SP/DT combos than you will HJ/LJ. It's more akin to LJ/TJ. Scan the HS and college results and you'll often see the same names on the leaderboard of the SP/DT and LJ/TJ, but far fewer on the HJ/LJ.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Miler
    replied
    Originally posted by balzonia
    Additionally, the Shot and Discus are... as similar as the Long Jump and the High Jump.

    :!:

    Leave a comment:


  • fizbin
    replied
    I see she rates a wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Jelmini

    Leave a comment:


  • AS
    replied
    Putting it into the global context Jelmini's 57.40m (or thereabouts) would have ranked her in the following positions in recent years for juniors (i.e. under 20) and amongst HSers (i'm going with anyone who isn't 19 or over):

    2008: 1, 1
    2007: 4, 2 (top marks: 60.47, 57.58)
    2006: =4, =2 (60.63, 60.63)
    2005: 4, 4 (58.88, 58.88)
    2004: 5, 1 (58.85, 56.06)
    2003: 3, 3 (60.20, 60.20)
    2002: 4, 2 (62.54, 58.85)
    2001: 5, 3 (59.97, 58.65)

    She is worth getting excited about, and what also becomes apparent from the lists is that junior success in this event has translated pretty well in recent years. Two of the more prominent early achievers on these rankings have kept it up as they transitioned to senior ranks (although moreso with with the first one):

    Dani Samuels (born 26 May 1988
    2009 62.69
    2008 62.95 9th OG
    2007 60.47 13th WC
    2006 60.63 3rd CG, 1st WJ
    2005 58.52 1st WY

    Xuejen Ma (26 March 1985)
    2009 60.55
    2008 61.92 23rd OG
    2007 62.57 9th WC
    2006 65.00
    2005 61.87
    2004 57.85 1st WJ
    2003 60.20
    2002 58.85 1st WJ
    2001 58.65 1st WY

    The SP (16.58) is less impressive, just cracking #9 last year (#5 amongst 18yos) and almost 3m down on #1, and 2m on #2...

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Story from the Bakersfield paper:

    http://www.bakersfield.com/news/sports/ ... n-shot-put

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X