Best Marks For Place

[Marlow]

I see on the front page that this compilation has been updated. It's always a fascinating set of data. The one that stands out for me is this one:

Mile
8. 3:50.97 José Luis González (Spain) Bislett 91

not only for the quality of mark, but that it's almost 20 years old!

[26mi235]

Re: Best Marks For Place

I see on the front page that this compilation has been updated. It's always a fascinating set of data. The one that stands out for me is this one:

Mile
8. 3:50.97 José Luis González (Spain) Bislett 91

not only for the quality of mark, but that it's almost 20 years old!

Deep Mile fields are rather rare over the last 10-20 years; mostly they run just 1500s as the top guys are neither Brits nor Americans.

[Marlow]

Re: Best Marks For Place

Deep Mile fields are rather rare over the last 10-20 years; mostly they run just 1500s as the top guys are neither Brits nor Americans.

But Bislett still has the same Dream Mile that this was run in - with deep fields also.

[gh]

Re: Best Marks For Place

Pretty sure even Oslo went to the 1500 for a few years

[7-sided]

Re: Best Marks For Place

Marlow, I absolutely agree that it is fascinating data and that thanks are in order for the tfn.com crew, but -and this takes NOTHING from your observation- an 8th place performance in the mile/1500 is not as strong as an 7th/8th place performance in an 8 person final (as you are obviously aware). Anyway, I picked out some of my favorite marks for place in an 8 person race (I had to leave out some great field marks and distance marks) and I more heavily weighted championships where athletes had to run rounds. Btw, I moved the womens '88 200m to the top of the list as ALL 8 lanes had best ever performances - 22.42 was last!

1. 21.34 Florence Griffith-Joyner (US) OG 88
2. 21.72 Grace Jackson (Jamaica) OG 88
3. 21.95 Heike Drechsler (East Germany) OG 88
4. 21.99 Merlene Ottey (Jamaica) OG 88
5. 22.09 Silke Möller (East Germany) OG 88
6. 22.17 Gwen Torrence (US) OG 88
7. 22.33 Maya Azarashvili (Soviet Union) OG 88
8. 22.42 Galina Malchugina (Soviet Union) OG 88
m100m
7. 10.00 Marc Burns (Trinidad) WC 09
8. 10.03 Doc Patton (US) OG 08 (10.03 at the Olympics!)
m400m
6. 44.52 Iwan Thomas (Great Britain) WC 97
7. 44.57 Pettigrew WC 97
m4x400m
4. 2:58.81 Great Britain OG 08
5. 2:59.37 Belgium OG 08
6. 3:00.02 Australia OG 08
7. 3:00.32 Poland OG 08
8. 3:01.45 Jamaica OG 08
note: USA set OR in that Beijing race and Russia set a NR for bronze
w100m
4. 10.86 Gwen Torrence (US) OG 92
5. 10.88 Merlene Ottey (Jamaica) OG 92
6. 10.97 Christine Arron (France) WC 99
w400m
3. 49.10 Fali Ogunkoya (Nigeria) OG 96
4. 49.28 Pauline Davis (Bahamas) OG 96
5. 49.55 Jearl Miles-Clark (US) OG 96
6. 49.77 Fatima Yusuf (Nigeria) OG 96
w100h
4. 12.49 Donkova WC 87
5. 12.55 Virginia Powell (US) WC 07
6. 12.62 Glory Alozie (Spain) OGsf 04
Lolo Jones (US) WC 07
7. 12.64 Vonette Dixon (Jamaica) WC 07
8. 12.66 Angela Whyte (Canada) WC 07
9. 12.87 Dixon WC 03

[Marlow]

Re: Best Marks For Place

Marlow, I absolutely agree that it is fascinating data and that thanks are in order for the tfn.com crew, but -and this takes NOTHING from your observation- an 8th place performance in the mile/1500 is not as strong as an 7th/8th place performance in an 8 person final (as you are obviously aware).

Zackly right - I did think of it, and you're right to point it out as significant.

[Fielding Melish]

Re: Best Marks For Place

Marathon Women, 10th place. What about 2:26:16 by Mara Yamauchi at London last April.

Was that initially reported time adjusted slower? Was there a dq that was not reported? Anybody know??

[beebee]

Re: Best Marks For Place

Come on Track and Field News, you ban the performances by the Chinese women in the nineties and yet give the Russians and Germans passes. Not right.

[gh]

Re: Best Marks For Place

we did not ban Chinese women's performances; we list performances from the National Games (and only those two meets) of '93 and '97 as being made under questionable circumstances. There's a world of difference.

[bman]

Re: Best Marks For Place

we did not ban Chinese women's performances; we list performances from the National Games (and only those two meets) of '93 and '97 as being made under questionable circumstances. There's a world of difference.

With apologies for my ignorance, what precisely are those "questionable circumstances" other than a pack of other-wordly times and rumors of athletes using exotic (but legal) substances from traditional Chinese medicine? I think I once heard talk of a possibly short track, but that seemed to be pure speculation based on the times, not any direct evidence. Is there something more substantial?

Didn't they claim it was cordryceps? If that is what you are referring to than I lol at you sir.

[7-sided]

Re: Best Marks For Place

gh, or anyone else, do you have a list of FENQ's (fastest ever non-qualifiers) for WC and Olympics? Thanks in advance if you do.

[TrainerPhil]

Re: Best Marks For Place

I'm going to plead ignorance here.

What exactly does "best marks for place" ? I looked at the list and I couldn't figure out what the results represent.

[nevetsllim]

Re: Best Marks For Place

I'm going to plead ignorance here.

What exactly does "best marks for place" ? I looked at the list and I couldn't figure out what the results represent.

The best time/performance for each finishing place e.g. first will always be the world record-holder, third would be the best ever time for third place etc.

By the way where are the lists? I can't see them.

[Marlow]

Re: Best Marks For Place

By the way where are the lists? I can't see them.

Link is up top under 'Archive'.

Here's men:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archive/mBEMFP.pdf

[TrainerPhil]

Re: Best Marks For Place

I'm going to plead ignorance here.

What exactly does "best marks for place" ? I looked at the list and I couldn't figure out what the results represent.

The best time/performance for each finishing place e.g. first will always be the world record-holder, third would be the best ever time for third place etc.

By the way where are the lists? I can't see them.

Thanks, now I understand.