John Nunn gets A standard

[MJR]

May 8, 2004
Birstonas, Lithuania

The Army World Class Athlete Program's John Nunn was the class of the field in today's A. Milkeno Racewalk Competition on the streets of Birstonas, Lithuania.
Nunn bettered his personal best and achieved the Olympic 'A' time standard with a 1:22:31 for the 20km racewalk.

Under cloudy skies and blustery winds, Nunn, American Curt Clausen and Lithuanian Gintaras Andriuskevicius led the field to a well-paced 5km split of 20:43.
From there, it was all Nunn as he accelerated through 10km in 41:16 and 15km in 1:01:58. His 1:22:31 puts Nunn #3 on the U.S. all-time list for the 20km event.

Cool conditions and a great tune-up race the previous weekend in Naumburg, Germany, at the World Racewalk Cup contributed to Nunn's confident stride as he met all challengers and practically assured himself a spot on the 2004 US Olympic Team with only the second Olympic 'A' standard registered in the men's 20km racewalk. Nunn now joins Kevin Eastler of the US Air Force as a favorite at July's Olympic Team Trials in Sacramento, California.

"It was a wonderful race for me," Nunn commented afterwards. "The crowd was very supportive and the conditions were great. I couldn't have done it without the help of the U.S. Army, my Coach Enrique Pena, and my teammates, Curt Clausen and Philip Dunn, who joined me in Lithuania after last week's race in Germany."

Clausen expressed his excitement for Nunn and his own second place finish: "We really did well as a team.
John had a phenomenal race and I was able to meet my goal of hitting the Olympic 'B' standard, too. It was a perfect day."

18th Annual A. Milkeno Racewalk Competition May 8, 2004, Birstonas, Lithuania

Official Results, Men’s 20km

1. John Nunn 1:22:31 (A)
2. Curt Clausen 1:24:18 (B)
3. Gintaras Andriuskevicius 1:24:29 (B)
4. Daugvinas Zujus 1:27:25
5. Linas Bubnelis 1:27:39
6. Anatolijus Launikonis 1:29:37
7. Vilius Mikelionis 1:31:10
8. Philip Dunn 1:33:32
9. Aleksandras Danulevicius 1:35:11
10. Laurynas Okockis 1:35:11
11. Juris Konisevs 1:36:01
12. Ignas Brasevicius 1:38:52
Valdas Marcinkus DNF
Darius Tamosiunas DNF

[Tustin Flash]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

I not really a race walking fan, but I am amazed how fast they can go! I'd be thrilled to RUN back to back 41:15 10K's.....

[15mph]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

Damn I thought you made a typo and meant Jason Lunn. I thought US 1500meter running was turning the corner.
I just saw Nunn and thought you meant Lunn. Of course Lunn's first name is not John. I guess I am just another desperate US mile fan looking for any small positive sign concerning US mile running.

So far there has not been much to be positive about. That is unless you think a bunch of 3:40+ performances is interesting.

[MJR]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

I think there are more male race walkers w/ A's than 1500 & 5000 runners combined. OUCH!

[Powell]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

>I think there are more male race walkers w/ A's than 1500 & 5000 runners
>combined.

It may be so, but you also have to look at the relative toughness of the standards. The A qualifier in the 20k walk is 107.5% of the world record - an equivalent in the 1500 would be 3:41.5. In the 50k, the A standard is 111.1% of WR - an equivalent of 3:48.8 ! It's just much easier to qualify for the Olympics in the walks, as well as the marathon, than in other events. The standards were set up this way, since big fields in road events don't cause the events to last longer (unlike in other events).

[MJR]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

I love when people use % of WR as a valid statistic for how good people are. Its complete horsecrap, just like age grading for masters. Just finishing a 50km race in itself is infinitely tougher than the 1500/5000 events. Add the judging aspect and that only makes it even tougher. Simply no excuses for the poor performances of our men in these events. They just aren't doing enough of the right training to make it to the top and the walkers are.

[Powell]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

>They just aren't doing enough
>of the right training to make it to the top and the walkers are.

Are they indeed ? Let's take a look at the performance of the US team in the recent World Cup:

Men's 50k: 3 non-finishers, thus team not ranked. The two who did finish were 53rd and 54th out of 54 finishers, 73 and 81 minutes behind the winner.

Junior men's 10k: 15th and last place in team standings, individually finished 48th, 49th and 54th out of 54 finishers. Best American finished 8:28 behind the winner (that's over a mile behind)

Women's 20k: 14th out of 15 in the team event, individually 65th, 71st, 76th and 77th out of 78 finishers. Best American was nearly 3k behind the winner.

Junior women's 10k: 14th out of 16 teams. A relatively better performance compared to the 3 events described above, but the best American was still not within the first 50% of finishers (29th out of 50) and finished some 1.4k behind the winner.

The only event with a decent-ish performance by the US team was men's 20k... but really, with the team finishing in 9th place out of 20 and best individual finishing 26th, can you honestly say they are doing better than the US distance runners ?

[RMc]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

>I love when people use % of WR as a valid statistic for how good people are.
>Its complete horsecrap, just like age grading for masters. Just finishing a
>50km race in itself is infinitely tougher than the 1500/5000 events. Add the
>judging aspect and that only makes it even tougher.

Rating performances relative to the current absolute world record is NOT simply a bunch of crap. For one thing, two of the most important events in track & field are scored using precisely this method-the decathlon and heptathlon. Are you saying that the performances of these athletes are a "bunch of crap?"

Second, age grading is a COMPLETELY different process in which a statistically-invalid assessment is made about the relative importance of the SAME performance by two individuals of different ages. It's very different to compare two sets of elite athletes and assume that the probability distributions of both populations should be the same if they are drawing equally from a larger talent pool. On that assumption, the percentage difference should be the same bases on the assumed equal variances in the population. If the variances are NOT the same, then you can statistically say that one pool is more talented than another. There need be no subjectivity on this question.

As for the which event is the toughest, this was obviously written by someone WITHOUT an adequate range of experience across events. I ran everything from the 400 to the marathon in my earlier career. The event that I found most painful and most likely to drop out of was the 800. Plus, whether someone drops out of an event doesn't necessarily measure how tough an event it is. The level of effort and how spent an athlete is at the end is the true measure, and in most cases, each of these events are equally tough.

BTW, the Olympic men's marathon A standard is 8% slower than the WR, and the women's is 16% slower, which isn't too far out of line with the walk standards. On the other hand, these are still relatively soft compared to the track standards.
http://www.usatf.org/assoc/ut/standards2004.htm

[Powell]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

BTW, the Olympic men's marathon A standard is 8% slower than the WR, and
>d the women's is 16% slower, which isn't too far out of line with the walk
>standards.

Look at my post above - this is exactly what I said:
'It's just much easier to qualify for the Olympics in the walks, AS WELL AS THE MARATHON, than in other events.'

[MJR]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

RMc said "....assume..."

That's the whole problem! It entails bringing in your own bias onto a 2 dimensional examination of a 3 dimensional problem.

On an aside, I've got you beat on range, having competed in every event from the 50m to the marathon and currently looking to go to 50km. You can add in every field event except the hammer, weight and pole vault.

;.p

[MJR]

Re: John Nunn gets A standard

Look at my post above - this is exactly what I
>said:
'It's just much easier to qualify for the Olympics in the walks, AS WELL
>AS THE MARATHON, than in other events.'

See my post about 2-D vs 3-D viewing of the problem. Sure, on paper it might look easier, but the physiology involved in the training and competing in the longer events makes their achievements no less significant. If they were as easy to do as you say, the athletes would be able to compete in those events much more frequently during a year, but they cannot. I'm not saying that the shorter events are easier, they're not. But to use a % graph to say one is harder than another is poppycock, just like all other statistics - they can be made to say whatever you want them too.