Rio High Jump question

[noone]

When and how do the organizers decide which heights will be jumped, e.g. 2.20 -2.25-2.30-2.33-2.36-2.38-2.40 or whatever?
(Same for men's and women's, and PV.)

I need to know because I am entering a pool in which one has to guess the winning height in the Men's HJ and I don't want to guess for example 2.37 if that height will not be jumped.

[gh]

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the heights for the final aren't decided until after the Q round, based on number of qualifiers and the expected conditions.

Having said that, if you look at the progressions for the last decade for the OG/WC I'm guessing you'll not see a lot of variance.

[norunner]

I don't know when they decide the heights, but for Beijing they released them together with the start lists for the finals, could be found on the pdfs. The organizers don't set the heights, the technical delegates do.

[tandfman]

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the heights for the final aren't decided until after the Q round, based on number of qualifiers and the expected conditions.

That's my understanding as well. I believe they may also take into consideration the results of the Q round as well as the past performances of the qualifiers.

[jla]

That's my understanding as well. I believe they may also take into consideration the results of the Q round as well as the past performances of the qualifiers.

The height progressions are always decided in advance by the Technical Delegates and presented at the Technical Meeting the day before the whole Championships start. Thus unfortunately never (in modern times at least) the Q results can be considered.
This was clearly illustrated in Beijing where 2.29 was the actual Q height but also the third height in the final after which half the field (7 of 14) was already eliminated - and still the bar was raised another 4 cm (to be followed by a 3 cm)!
In the end the fourth height 2.33 turned out to be enough to be part of a jump-off for the gold. Obviously the progression was based mainly on the extraordinary happenings in 2014 and the clear letdown resultswise leading up to Beijing in 2015 was not considered.
Unless there is bad weather any three-way jump-off for the win happens for a reason and that reason is an insensitive progression pattern.

[Flumpy]

The London final was a complete mess because of ridiculous height choices.

Surely there should eb set rules for all competitions.

[gh]

The height progressions are always decided in advance by the Technical Delegates and presented at the Technical Meeting the day before the whole Championships start…..ree-way jump-off for the win happens for a reason and that reason is an insensitive progression pattern.

jla, you're rarely wrong about things, but in this instance looks like you are wrong and tandfman and I are right. I went right to the source, former IaAF Council member Bill Bailey of Australia, many times a TD at these things, including Beijing, when he was running the show:

<<We set the heights for the Qualifying Round after final entries have been received and announce these at the technical meeting. We then set the heights for the Final after the conclusion of the Qualifying Round and these are included on the start list for the Final.>>

[Per Andersen]

The London final was a complete mess because of ridiculous height choices.

Surely there should eb set rules for all competitions.

Absolutely! The 2.29-2.33 is too brutal a progression. In addition the surface in Beijing was slippery after rain. (kept Barshim off the podium)
In London, as well, there was some moisture involved and only Ukhov and Kynard managed 2.33.

[norunner]

I would like to know how much pressure is put on the technical delegates to consider other factors when setting the heights, especially to consider the requirements of broadcasters. The only reason i can come up with for the insane mPV progression last year in Beijing (5.65 - 5.80 - 5.90 - 6.00) was to make sure the competition doesn't go overtime for tv. Am i way off base with this?

[lonewolf]

Why not set the ultimate progression at (or one cm higher than) the WR and count back from there to start?

[jla]

jla, you're rarely wrong about things, but in this instance looks like you are wrong and tandfman and I are right. I went right to the source, former IaAF Council member Bill Bailey of Australia, many times a TD at these things, including Beijing, when he was running the show:

<<We set the heights for the Qualifying Round after final entries have been received and announce these at the technical meeting. We then set the heights for the Final after the conclusion of the Qualifying Round and these are included on the start list for the Final.>>

OK, I stand corrected. But that makes the steep progression chosen for the men's HJ final in Beijing even harder to explain rationally.
Other examples mentioned (men's PV in Beijing and men's HJ in London) underline the tendency to go for "insensitive" progressions in the finals. Just remember rainy Helsinki 2005 when Krymarenko's last attempt clearance of 2.32 saved us from a 3-way jump-off. Eight jumpers cleared 2.29 followed by 23 straight failures at the next height before Krymarenko surprised everyone by clinching it in the 24th attempt.
Or Sydney 200 with seven clearing 2.32 but only one of them making 2.35.
But the worst case ever of height progression is probably held by the pole vault in the 2000 World juniors. 5.10 was needed to reach the final, but only three made it with clean sheets. Still the final was run 5.00 - 5.20 - 5.30 - 5.40!
The effect was obvious: No athlete passed any height! 1st height: Only 5 made it on first attempt, 7 more later. 2nd height: Only 3 made it on first attempt, 2 in second and 2 in third. 3rd height: Only 2 made it on first attempt, no one in second or third. 4th height: No one made it. So the competition (consisting of 21 clearances and 53 failures) was decided on the third height.

[jla]

Why not set the ultimate progression at (or one cm higher than) the WR and count back from there to start?

I agree that the right way to construct a progression chart is to "begin at the end" although it seems that 99.9% are done the other way around (you begin by deciding the starting height and then see where that gets you).
However, the WR nowadays very seldomely is of any significance in the competition (i.e. two athletes remain with the bar raised to WR height). Rather what should be identified is the "key height" were it can be assumed (from the previous results of the main competitors) that the medal positions will be decided. Upwards from that height it shall be minimum increments (2 cm HJ, 5 cm PV), downwards it should be gradual increase of the increments E.g. in the HJ two x minimum + 1 cm followed by two x minimum + 2 cm followed by 2 x minimum + 4 cm etc). I.e. with let's say 2.33 identified as the probable "key height" it should be +2 cm upwards (2.35, 2.37, ....) and then it should be 2.30, 2.27, 2.23, 2.19 downwards. This principle will increase the probability to get "separation by height", i.e. that the significant placings will be decided by height cleared rather than by misses on the way at lower heights.
It will mean an extra height on the way but that doesn't necessarily mean any extra attempts. With a "softer" progress some top athletes will enter one height later and the number of failures on the way will likely be lower.

[norunner]

My idea for PV progressions: You take the qualifying standard, for Beijing that was 5.70m. You ALWAYS add 5cm and make that height on which you base the progression. Since everyone in the final has a PB of at least 5.70, a height of 5.75 gives them a realistic chance for a new PB. Below that height you go either 10cm or 15cm, so for example 5.50 - 5.65. Above the base height you go 10cm for the next height and then 5cm til the end. That gives the good athletes a chance to pass heights and improve.

[lonewolf]

Obviously, we could all do a better job of setting progression than what is going on now.

[Per Andersen]

Or Sydney 200 with seven clearing 2.32 but only one of them making 2.35.

Not sure that was due to "bad" progression. When Klyugin cleared 2.35 on his first attempt, as last jumper in the order, it was raining but the heavy rain very quickly made the conditions impossible after his jump. None of the 6 other jumpers (incl. Soto, Holm and Boswell) had a chance on 2.35 and would possibly not even have cleared 2.34 in those conditions. Soto had no misses until 2.35 but in the heavy rain he had no chance on that height. Klyugin lucked out!
Rain makes a huge difference. With a dry surface in Beijing we might have had about 4 guys over 2.36 despite the progression.