It was a very good year for the men's

[Marlow]

100 - 10 under 9.90 for the first time.

and

10000 - 16 under 27:00, most ever.

so the longest and shortest events on the track and none in between (setting bests for 10th best performer).

[SQUACKEE]

Re: It was a very good year for the men's

100 - 10 under 9.90 for the first time.

and

10000 - 16 under 27:00, most ever.

so the longest and shortest events on the track and none in between (setting bests for 10th best performer).

So a track and field sandwich with a bunch of baloney in the middle?

[Ned Ryerson]

Re: It was a very good year for the men's

The Men's Marathon is better: 10 under 2:06 and 7 under 2:05 so far this year, compared to 10 sub-2:05 performances for all other years combined. And more than two months of marathoning left in the year.

[26mi235]

Re: It was a very good year for the men's

100 - 10 under 9.90 for the first time.

and

10000 - 16 under 27:00, most ever.

so the longest and shortest events on the track and none in between (setting bests for 10th best performer).

In both cases not only are there a lot under, but they are generally squeezed into a shorter interval that we have seen recently, with this being the first year since 2007 without a sub 9.7. Likewise, the 26:43 is not all that fast a time for the best mark taking the last ten or so years into consideration.

This year also has the fewest ever under 4:00 in the w1500 (but there are a lot of ties :lol: ).

[3]

Re: It was a very good year for the men's

Likewise, the 26:43 is not all that fast a time for the best mark taking the last ten or so years into consideration.

No, not at all . . .

26'43"16 is the 5th-fastest of Kenenisa Bekele's astonishing career. Moreover, this mark also bests Gebrselassie's 5th-fastest (26'43"53).

26mi235, let me make this easy for you: 26'43"16 as the 2011 season leader...

• tops 2010 by 13 seconds; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• is faster than the world-leading time in 2009, a championship year, by 3 seconds; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• would have been the 2nd-fastest in 2008, a championship season; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• tops 2007, a championship season, by 3 seconds; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• trails 2006 by 8 seconds; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• trails the world-record 2005 season, also a championship year; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• trails the world-record 2004 season, a championship year; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• trails WC season 2003 by 14 seconds; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• is 7 seconds faster than 2002; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• is 21 seconds faster than the WC 2001 season; [/*:m:1hp6s7rr]
• and, is 20 seconds faster than the 2000 Olympic season.[/*:m:1hp6s7rr]

I count 6 blues to 5 reds from 2000 onward. How many do you count? I apologize in advance if you are colour blind. Even listing season-best marks against each other isn't the best comparison to make.

26'43 leading the world in a world championships year is the fastest since the 2005 season --- the one when the current world-record was set.

[26mi235]

Re: It was a very good year for the men's

[list][*] is faster than the world-leading time in 2009, a championship year, by 3 seconds; [*]would have been the 2nd-fastest in 2008, a championship season; but 17 seconds slower [*]tops 2007, a championship season, by 3 seconds; [*] [*]trails the world-record 2005 season, also a championship year; 26 seconds slower[*]trails the world-record 2004 season, a championship year; 24 seconds slower[*]trails WC season 2003 by 14 seconds;

The data can be presented in ways that make both cases (without torturing the data) so it is probably not real big either direction (e.g., my comment on SB a bit over done, but still a little notable given the record number of sub-27s). Last ten years is 2002 through 2001; drop out the non-champ years and going from memory. So now we get -3, +17, -3; +26; +24; +14, for an average difference of +12.5. This in the season noted for the largest number, where we might expect a faster mark to go along with more marks.

[Double points to 3 here for good use of display and obtaining the data, and this is meant as a complement, not a dig]

In fact, it is a bit hard with the 10,000 because so few races are run at a high level, and typically one or two are at elevation in Kenya so top marks are tough to get. One more high-level race that draws a crowd can significantly affect the statistics, while the non-champ years may see little action because many countries might use top races to select athletes and that selection is absent. Add in the change in qualifying windows also throws in a factor altering comparability.

[berkeley]

Re: It was a very good year for the men's

... with this being the first year since 2007 without a sub 9.7.

Correction - this is the first year since last year without a sub-9.7