4 to get to 40!

[26mi235]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

Economist use a measure called the 'four-firm concentration ratio to judge the concentration in an industry or industry segment (often involved in Anti-Trust rulings, etc). Here the 4-Nation ration is .74 (74% of the total). However, if you go to sub-9.90 you get almost 100%.

Also, in that list above with marks of 10.10 or better, only a few are better than 10.00 Basic. In addition, there is not a single mark with a wind less than -0.1, and the average wind is about 1. (Neither are there altitude adjustments here.)

[batonless relay]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

26, are you talking about the American list or the European list? And, technically it doesn't matter because as I stated in the beginning, we're operating off of very limited data points. What you're suggesting is highly technical, and to be honest, highly superfluous, imo. We would have to know all of the athletes 100m races, and then correct each for wind and altitude and lastly mark down the age when that "windless", "altitude-less" extrapolation of the actual performance occurred - and my guess is that it would LOWER the age, not raise it. Remember, we're talking about the age when sprinters peak. That's it. And looking at the European and American Lists that number is before age 26. If you look a the top 10 Jamaicans ever (Miller, Quarrie, Stewart, Powell, Bolt, Carter, Blake, Frater, Ashmeade, Forsythe) you see the same thing - only problem with the Jamaicans is that 7 of the 10 are still active. But if history is a guide and it is in nearly everything, certainly economics, then very few of the Jamaicans will improve after age 26.

[batonless relay]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

Now, when I glance at the women's list, I definitely get the sense that women peak later. How this contrasts with men COULD be due to natural testosterone production in men peaking pre-20's, but there are far better qualified people on this board than me to address that aspect.

Women's list

1	10.49	0.0	Florence GRIFFITH-JOYNER	21 DEC 1959 (28)	Indianapolis, IN	16-Jul-88
2	10.64	1.2	Carmelita JETER	24 NOV 1979 (29)	Shanghai	20-Sep-09
3	10.65 A	1.1	Marion JONES	12 OCT 1975 (22)	Johannesburg	12-Sep-98
8	10.76	1.7	Evelyn ASHFORD	15 APR 1957 (27)	Zürich	22-Aug-84
12	10.78 A	1.0	Dawn SOWELL	27 MAR 1966 (23)	Provo, UT	3-Jun-89
12	10.78	1.8	Torri EDWARDS	31 JAN 1977 (31)	Eugene, OR	28-Jun-08
14	10.79	-0.1	Inger MILLER	12 JUN 1972 (27)	Sevilla	22-Aug-99
17	10.82	-1.0	Gail DEVERS	19 NOV 1966 (25)	Barcelona	1-Aug-92
17	10.82	0.4	Gwen TORRENCE	12 JUN 1965 (29)	Paris	3-Sep-94
21	10.83	0.0	Sheila ECHOLS	02 OCT 1964 (23)	Indianapolis, IN	16-Jul-88
28	10.85	1.0	Muna LEE	30 OCT 1981 (26)	Eugene, OR	28-Jun-08
28	10.85	1.5	Tianna MADISON	30 AUG 1985 (26)	London (OS)	4-Aug-12
31	10.86	0.0	Diane WILLIAMS	14 DEC 1960 (27)	Indianapolis, IN	16-Jul-88
31	10.86	1.2	Chryste GAINES	14 SEP 1970 (33)	Monaco	14-Sep-03
31	10.86	2.0	Marshevet MYERS	25 SEP 1984 (26)	Eugene, OR	4-Jun-11
35	10.88	0.4	Lauryn WILLIAMS	11 SEP 1983 (21)	Zürich	19-Aug-05
36	10.89	1.5	Allyson FELIX	18 NOV 1985 (26)	London (OS)	4-Aug-12
39	10.90	1.8	Shalonda SOLOMON	19 DEC 1985 (24)	Clermont, FL	5-Jun-10
44	10.92	0.0	Alice BROWN	20 SEP 1960 (27)	Indianapolis, IN	16-Jul-88
44	10.92	1.1	D'Andre HILL	19 APR 1973 (23)	Atlanta, GA	15-Jun-96
50	10.94	1.0	Carlette GUIDRY-WHITE	04 SEP 1968 (22)	New York, NY	14-Jun-91
51	10.95	2.0	Me'Lisa BARBER	04 OCT 1980 (26)	Carson, CA	20-May-07
54	10.96	1.9	Kimberlyn DUNCAN	02 AUG 1991 (20)	Baton Rouge, LA	13-May-12
59	10.97	0.1	LaTasha COLANDER	23 AUG 1976 (27)	Sacramento, CA	10-Jul-04
59	10.97	-0.7	Sanya RICHARDS-ROSS	26 FEB 1985 (22)	Shanghai	28-Sep-07
59	10.97	1.8	Mechelle LEWIS	20 SEP 1980 (27)	Eugene, OR	27-Jun-08
59	10.97	1.2	LaShauntea MOORE	31 JUL 1983 (26)	Maringá	30-May-10
70	10.99	1.3	Valerie BRISCO-HOOKS	06 JUL 1960 (25)	Westwood, CA	17-May-86

[26mi235]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

I am aware that handling all of that data manipulation is a lot of work, with not always consistently available information. However, it is not " highly superfluous", it is more precise as a measure of the marks, although not a unique or necessarily the best measure.

As for the 4-country concentration ratio, when I saw the data the similarity with that index struck me immediately, it is something that is used in important legal settings, and it is probably not well-known here. The highest concentration figures are probably in the steeple and the marathon, although the 10,000 might be pretty high as well. One way to look at different events might be to look at this measure for the top X (e.g., 100, 50, etc) marks in each event and see which ones are most evenly distributed and which are most concentrated.

[batonless relay]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

I am aware that handling all of that data manipulation is a lot of work, with not always consistently available information. However, it is not " highly superfluous", it is more precise as a measure of the marks, although not a unique or necessarily the best measure.

As for the 4-country concentration ratio, when I saw the data the similarity with that index struck me immediately, it is something that is used in important legal settings, and it is probably not well-known here. The highest concentration figures are probably in the steeple and the marathon, although the 10,000 might be pretty high as well. One way to look at different events might be to look at this measure for the top X (e.g., 100, 50, etc) marks in each event and see which ones are most evenly distributed and which are most concentrated.

You're going to have to explain that a bit more...WAY over my level. Concentration by country in the top 50, 100? Concentration by age in the top 50, 100? or both? or neither?

[26mi235]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

The 4-country concentration rate is the frequency for those four divided by the frequency for all. If you are taking the top 100, then it would be the fraction of the top 100 that come from those four countries. There is nothing magical about 4 countries, but it often is not a bad value to use for the concentrated subset.

One application would be to calculate, by event, what fraction of the top 50 performers come from the top four countries in each event and then look at the fractions across events and look at how they changed over time. You can use any time interval to define the top X performers; one year is the most natural, but you might also use Olympiads or decades (the longer the interval the deeper I would tend to go).

Batonless relay: Note, none of this is meant to dispute anything that you have been saying in this thread, it is just a potential analysis tool. I might have an advantage in some analytical techniques but you clearly have an advantage in knowledge of the sport and the basic underlying data.

[batonless relay]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

The American sprinters most likely to join the much the more elite fraternity this spring, imo, are (based upon previous years results of course):

-Charles Silmon
-Keenan Brock
-Marcus Rowland
-Cordero Gray
-Prezel Hardy
-Zye Boey
-Aaron Earnest
-Dentarius Locke

Isiah Young, who was NOT on my list, is the newest member of the sub-10 club. Yup, wrong again. :lol:

East finalists?
1 Isiah Young UMS 09.99 +0.3 3 Heat
2 Anaso Jobodwana JKST 10.14 +0.8 6 Heat
3 Diondre Batson UAL 10.16 +0.1 2 Heat
4 Tevin Hester CLEM 10.21 +1.3 4 Heat
5 Aaron Ernest LSU 10.22 +1.9 1 Heat
6 Reggie Lewis CLEM 10.22 +1.9 1 Heat
7 Harry Adams AUB 10.22 +1.4 5 Heat
8 Darrell Wesh VAT 10.23 +1.4 5 Heat
9 Warren Fraser CLEM 10.24 +0.3 3 Heat

West finalists?
1 Silmon, Charles SR TCU 10.03Q 1.7 5
2 Brown, Aaron JR USC 10.11Q 2.0 6
3 Webb, Ameer SR Texas A&M 10.14Q 1.6 1
4 Woodson, Markesh FR Missouri 10.20Q 2.4 2
5 Hardy, Jr., Prezel JR Texas A&M 10.31Q 2.4 3
6 Larney, Josh SR Iowa 10.31Q 0.6 4
7 Austin, Justin SR Iowa 10.22Q 2.4 2
8 Horsley, Carl JR Cal St. Northridge 10.23Q 2.0 6
9 Bryan, Michael JR Texas A&M 10.30Q 1.7 5

[gh]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

the next choice at this point is perhaps Diondre Batson.

[batonless relay]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

the next choice at this point is perhaps Diondre Batson.

I agree. Silmon and Brown would be my next choices.

[gktrack]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

Brown is from Canada I believe, but you can replace him with Dentarius Locke (on your initial list) who just PR'ed 10.05 (1.6) in the East Region.

[gktrack]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

the next choice at this point is perhaps Diondre Batson.

Yes, saw him run for the first time today, he looks good... and he appears to be one of the taller sprinters, listed at 6' 2". Also, according to Alabama website, supposedly split 46.2 in the 400.

http://www.rolltide.com/sports/c-xctrack/mtt/diondre_batson_836559.html

[olorin]

Re: 4 to get to 40!

the difference between a mile list and a 100 list is that you know the mile list probably doesn't have any marks on it that were achieved through the aid of wind and/or altitude and/or questionable starting.

I roughly corrected the list for wind/altitude (using 0.1 for +2.0 and 0.1 for altitude).
Of the original 39 Americans.

We lose 11 because there adjusted marks is higher than 9.99
Isiah Young
Kareem Streete-Thompson
Phil DeRosier
Marcus Brunson
Rodney Martin
Rakieem Salaam
Harry Adams
Joshua J. Johnson
Mark Jelks
Mickey Grimes
Jim Hines

We gain three athletes that didn’t have a legal sub10 but have an adjusted sub 10:
Calesio Newman
Curtis Johnson
Steve Riddick

So we end up with 31 Americans that have adjusted sub10 performance.
Of these only 18 have a second sub10 adjusted performance. Another seven have a second performance of sub 10.05, and six can regarded as one off or questionable marks.
Hope there are no mistakes as I am trying new software