Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

another fun world ranking: women's 400H

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • another fun world ranking: women's 400H

    earlier we had a round of discussion on who would be No. 1 in the women's 200 (that can be found here if you havent' seen it/forgotten about it:

    https://trackandfieldnews.com/discus...s-Women-s-200m

    In looking at seasonal progressions, the women's long hurdles is far from clear at the top end. In alpha order:

    Carter wins WC, but is only 3rd at USATF and has only 2 DL meets (and no final), finishing 1st and 7th.

    Hejnová is 4th at WC and 2nd at DL Final, but her other DL meets are 1-1-1-4-4-5.

    Muhammad wins USATF and DL Final, but is 2nd at WC and her other DL meets are 2, 5 and 6.

    Carter and Muhammad are 2-2 in head-to-head, Carter and Hejnová are 1-1. Hejnová is 3-2 over Muhammad.

    In terms of average of 5 fastest marks, it's Carter 53.528, Muhammad 53.636, Hejnová 54.132 (which also leaves the Czech behind Little, Spencer & Moline in that department)

  • #2
    My two cents:
    1. Muhammad: winner of two big races, and second in the biggest race
    2. Carter: winner of one big race (the biggest)
    3. Hejnová: winner of no big races, and fourth in the biggest race
    Davidokun
    Senior Member
    Last edited by Davidokun; 10-21-2017, 01:04 AM. Reason: Phrasing; added highlighted clause

    Comment


    • #3
      The USATF has to be considered, quality wise, at least at the level of the WC and above the DL Final. Other DL meets had variable quality and DM was somewhat injured when she ran mid-season. Losing at the Trials is only half a loss because 'winning' is finishing top 3, especially in that race. Hejnova is clearly not on the level of the other two, despite the W-L scores; her Ws came in races that did not matter, and in the one race that really mattered for her she did not even medal. So, no way she gets there with no big races and no honors won.

      Comment


      • #4
        that's why I noted USATF finishes for both Carter and Muhammad.

        Comment


        • #5
          I concur w Davidokun's ranking, and would add for Muhammad that she also has the 2nd best top 5 average, as gh shared. Thanks for posting the data for our consideration, gh.

          Comment


          • #6
            The Marks Snob only looks at the elite meets, where numerous potential rankers meet. He also ranks the meets in descending order of importance in that regard.

            The only meets where the creme de la creme met were (in order)

            1. WC
            2. USATF
            3. Brussels
            4. Zurich
            5. Pre

            Given the results of those meets the top 7 are

            1. Muhammed - 1st USATF, 1st Brussels, 2nd WC
            2. Carter - 1st WC, 3rd USATF
            3. Hejnova - 1st Zurich, 2nd Brussels, 4th at WC and Pre
            4. Little - 2nd USATF and Pre
            5. Spencer - 1st Pre, 3rd Brussels, 4th USATF
            6. Sprunger - 3rd Zurich, 5th WC
            7. Moline - 3rd Pre, 5th USATF

            Comment


            • #7
              In a year where the U.S. so dominated the event, since there were none of said nationality in Zürich, that was decidedly crème lite. Can't possibly be rated ahead of Pre.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gh View Post
                In a year where the U.S. so dominated the event, since there were none of said nationality in Zürich, that was decidedly crème lite. Can't possibly be rated ahead of Pre.
                The MS also is concerned with the needs of 'peaking', and Pre was simply too early in the season, despite its prestige, to rank any higher.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                  The MS also is concerned with the needs of 'peaking', and Pre was simply too early in the season, despite its prestige, to rank any higher.
                  Pre was early in the season, but remember that the Americans had to peak for the US Nationals, and Pre was less than a month before Sacramento.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tandfman View Post
                    Pre was early in the season, but remember that the Americans had to peak for the US Nationals, and Pre was less than a month before Sacramento.
                    All the more reason NOT to be peaked at Pre. A whole lotta sharpening goes into those last few weeks.
                    There is no doubt that Pre is a huge date on the calendar for anyone who shows up, but US coaches know that there's much more at stake a MONTH later and, for the legit WC medal contenders (many in that field), there was even more at stake two and half months hence.
                    I further realize that the T&FN Rankings can't take all that into consideration, which is why the head-to-head criterion is so important, but the MS says that not all wins and losses are equal, and he DOES take that into consideration.
                    I (obviously!) give a little more credence to the T&FN Rankings than the Marks Snob Rankings, but it is an interesting different perspective (to me!).
                    Atticus
                    Senior Member
                    Last edited by Atticus; 10-22-2017, 03:48 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                      The MS also is concerned with the needs of 'peaking', and Pre was simply too early in the season, despite its prestige, to rank any higher.
                      prestige has nothing to do with it (except that's probably why you're overrating Z): I was going purely on your criterion of marks snob:

                      53.38, 53.44, 54.09, 54.50, 54.53, 54.85, 54.98, 56.21
                      54.13, 54.35, 54.66, 54.66, 55.09, 55.86, 56.15, 58.55

                      guess which of those is Pre and which is Z.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I saw that too.
                        The only reason I have Z before Pre (and I before E) is Z's proximity to the WC and the 'perceived' prestige of Z to the athletes (though I do believe that Pre has certainly passed Z in that regard in reality).
                        All that said, I do see your point. If Pre were just a little later in the season, it would indeed be a central point in everyone's season. As it stands, athletes can't afford to peak in early June for an August climax.
                        The WC can't be the be-all-end-all for a 'season' ranking, but meets closer to the peak count more to me (not you, which I say again, I understand). My biggest 'beef' is that the head-to-head criterion does not take into consideration that some meetings 'aren't as equal as other ones'.
                        Atticus
                        Senior Member
                        Last edited by Atticus; 10-22-2017, 04:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                          My biggest 'beef' is that the head-to-head criterion does not take into consideration that some meetings 'aren't as equal as other ones'.
                          Right. Pre was better than Zurich, specifically in the women's 400H. No other qualifiers needed.

                          In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to rate the DL final meets lower, just because they weren't very good.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by gm View Post
                            Right. Pre was better than Zurich, specifically in the women's 400H. No other qualifiers needed.
                            Which I clearly understand. But that doesn't make it more central to my ranking. Peaking for August is a real thing in athletes' training today. That must be taken into consideration (IMO). Others' mileage may vary.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Davidokun View Post
                              My two cents:
                              1. Muhammad: winner of two big races, and second in the biggest race
                              2. Carter: winner of one big race (the biggest)
                              3. Hejnová: winner of no big races, and fourth in the biggest race
                              This would be my vote.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X