Good marks for both Pearson & Jenneke in the 100h. Of course, Pearson has bested 12.59 many times, but that equals her best from 2014, so I will take it as good indicator of another good season to come (I realize the wind is different, but I'll leave it to others to fine-tune the analysis). As for Jenneke, these two sub-13 marks signal a big step forward for her. She has run her six best ever so far this year. Hope she continues this progress.

Here is a trivia question related to Pearson & Jenneke on Australia's all-time 100h performer & performances list: Jenneke's 12.82 puts her #2 a-t performer on AUS 100h list, behind Pearson, of course. And with that significant accomplishment for Jenneke noted, it also is a means to show Pearson's long-term excellence, because Jenneke's 12.82, even while it makes her #2 AUS performer in this event, makes her just =#80 on the performance list. Can anyone think of any other nation's all-time performer/performance lists (in any event) in which the number of performances by the #1 performer places the #2 performer so far down on the performance list? (As for the possible answers, I have no idea.) Perhaps such things are everywhere, but this one really jumped out at me when I looked at the lists.

(ps. OK, given a couple of minutes of thought, I came up with one, which means there are probably quite a few, if I can think of one. But -- in the off-chance that this question is of any interest at all -- I don't want to clutter this thread, so I will move the question to the Historical forum.)

Here is a trivia question related to Pearson & Jenneke on Australia's all-time 100h performer & performances list: Jenneke's 12.82 puts her #2 a-t performer on AUS 100h list, behind Pearson, of course. And with that significant accomplishment for Jenneke noted, it also is a means to show Pearson's long-term excellence, because Jenneke's 12.82, even while it makes her #2 AUS performer in this event, makes her just =#80 on the performance list. Can anyone think of any other nation's all-time performer/performance lists (in any event) in which the number of performances by the #1 performer places the #2 performer so far down on the performance list? (As for the possible answers, I have no idea.) Perhaps such things are everywhere, but this one really jumped out at me when I looked at the lists.

(ps. OK, given a couple of minutes of thought, I came up with one, which means there are probably quite a few, if I can think of one. But -- in the off-chance that this question is of any interest at all -- I don't want to clutter this thread, so I will move the question to the Historical forum.)

## Comment