POM Discussion

[SprintsFTW19]

Since one poll was entirely distance biased due to ignorance, and the other was entirely sprint/jump biased due to me being a jack-ass, discuss your top 3 picks for top performers/performances of the meet. Check both polls for the best performances and discuss here.

Now, I know everyone is jizzing in their pants over Fitzsimmons going 1:47.15 and 4:05 for relays splits, but I like to look at performances a little differently than most here, obviously.

Fact is, those are relay splits. True, an 800m relay split is less impacted by the running start than a 400m (even more true for the 1600m split). 1:47.15 is fast, even if it were a little slower in an open, it's fast. For America.

We are so used to seeing fast sprint times in America, great ones barely get noticed. We see impressive distance times less often, so we go crazy over them, even when there were more impressive sprints at the same meet.

Looking at Purdy, the 800 split, if open, would be worth 959.57 points.
Mance's OPEN 400m win at 46.21 isn't even a national leader, and it's still worth more at 970.48.
But the Purdy converter I'm using doesn't take into account female performances or jumps and throws and hurdles, and Purdy is odd sometimes, so I'll switch to the IAAF tables:

Mance's 46.21 is worth 1105 points
McLean's 10.41 is worth 1069, Brown's 21.07 is worth the same.
Lovett's 13.61 in the 110s is worth 1137
Savage's 400h win in 51.85 is worth 1038
41.16 4x100 is worth 999 points.
An OPEN 1:47.15 is worth 1109 points. Just looking at other boys marks, we have one that is clearly superior and a 400m mark that is very comparable, though I would say superior since it was open.

So on the boys side, Fitzsimmons was definitely one of the best marks, though not the best in any dominating fashion.

looking at the women..
Freeman's 11.27, which was a meet record, is worth 1150 points. 23.24? 1134. That's an 1150/1134 double.
William's 13.71/59.01 is worth 1065/1051, and she's only a FRESHMAN!
Wilson's 2:00.59 split, if open, would be worth 1143.

So that's at least two female performances definitively better than Fitzy's at least one male better, and a few that are arguably on the same level.

If I had to make a list, it would go like this:
1. Freeman. Two world-class marks, two titles, and she didn't even have to run PRs in either to accomplish those feats.
2. Wilson. Hitting a mark that impressive as a sophomore is crazy. She has the potential to do big things.
3. Williams. The hurdles take just as much technique as speed, to have mastered both so well enough to be national champ in the 100 and 400 hurdles by the end of her freshman year is ridiculous.
4. Fitzsimmons
5. Lovett

[sebcoe]

ignorance? Thanks.. I intentionally ignored sprints and field events because I expect most of this site cares about distance. In hindsight I should have mentioned that in the title to avoid upsetting a couple people.

[sebcoe]

To respond to your thread, iaaf points are largely inflated for shorter events for high school athletes. Compare the records. This may be because longer events require an aerobic base that develops over years while talent accounts for most of the shorter performances.

William's freshman status still makes her marks incredible.

Ajee's 2:00 blows my mind.

Fitzsimmons two performances a lot as longer events and because mens running is deeper than womens.

I'd say Ajee and Fitzsimmons impressed me about equally, and I feel more excited about Fitzsimmons.

[Michael Johnson]

There are plenty of us on this site that care about sprinting and field events.

I agree with what you're saying Sprints, Freeman's marks are without a doubt the best marks of the meet. However, it isn't always about who technically did the best. I personally think that Fitzsimmons performances were the most impressive of the meet because of the circumstances in which they were run. He came from behind, starting in around 7th place i believe, to win the 4x8. He then did the exact same thing in the DMR to win the race.

Using IAAF scoring tables, while the "fairest" way of comparing marks in different events, does seem to favor sprints, and this is coming from a sprinter who hates the distance bias of this site. I do decathlon once a year, and it's a widely known fact there that it's easier to score points in the 100 than anything else. I ran 11.66 in the 100, for 719 points. I ran 52.19 in the 400, for 716 points. Though the 400 scored less, I think it's a lot more impressive.

Fitzsimmons had the most exciting performances of the meet, he was clutch for his team. You can call the sprinters victims of their situation. For example, Mance won his race rather easily, without even beating his best time. Had he had better competition and been pushed to his limit through the finish line, not only would he have ran a faster time, he also would have excited people more. This is in no way Mance's fault, but people will look at that race and dismiss it as an easy victory for him, compared to having their minds blown watching Fitzsimmons come from behind to win twice.

[SprintsFTW19]

Originally posted by sebcoe@Jun 20 2010, 10:07 PM
To respond to your thread, iaaf points are largely inflated for shorter events for high school athletes. Compare the records. This may be because longer events require an aerobic base that develops over years while talent accounts for most of the shorter performances.

William's freshman status still makes her marks incredible.

Ajee's 2:00 blows my mind.

Fitzsimmons two performances a lot as longer events and because mens running is deeper than womens.

I'd say Ajee and Fitzsimmons impressed me about equally, and I feel more excited about Fitzsimmons.
Comparing the HSRs for sprints vs distances wouldn't prove anything in the way of inflation.. Of course the 100/200/400 records are going to be worth more than the 800/mile/2mile, America as a whole is much much much more dominant in the sprints than the distances, so if the sprinting records were worth less points something would be very wrong. 10.01(WJR)/20.13/44.69 are the HSRs in the sprints, and our Junior records in the 200 are 20.07 and 43.87 (WJR). While we have the top junior sprint marks in the world, our HSR in the 800 doesn't even make IAAFs all-time list, though Ryun's 1:44.3 from 1966 does.

And I've always found the talent argument to be a cop-out. I remember reading a post on Dyestat a long time ago where someone looked at the top performances of the best All-time sprinters and distance runners and found that the ages they hit their best performances is almost identical.

It also completely ignores the fact that there are plenty of Africans who are capable of competing with our top distance guys before they even hit 20 years old.

Also, look at Tyson Gay, when he was 18 his PRs were 10.56 and 21.27. If it was talent that accounted for most of his performances, why was he someone who wouldn't have even been in a discussion for a national title when he was 18, but after 9 more years of training at the age of 27 he's putting down his PRs at 9.69 and 19.58? Hell I'll never be a pro or anything near it, but my first track meet was only four years ago and I ran a 14.4/32.8 100/200 double. Clearly I had a lot of raw talent ;P It took four years for me to get down to 10.94.

Regardless of arguments of inflated scores, the All-Time lists show that American sprints at the HS/JR level are the best in the world consistently whereas it takes a HSR or JR national record just to make the AT list in the distances, in effect showing that even sprint performances that are only "good" by our standards are more than likely "great" when viewed on a larger (world) scale, whereas just the opposite is true for our distance events. It's why I found it so ridiculous when German's 8:34 was considered better than Demps' 10.01, when the 10.01 tied the WJR and German's 3k mark (7:59, also a HSR) was a full 20 seconds off even making the global AT list, not to mention 31 seconds off the WJR itself..

Fake Edit:
I looked at the scores for the WJRs of the 100/200/400 and the 800/1500/5000 to see if you were right about the sprints being inflated:

10.01 - 1211
19.93 - 1239
43.87 - 1254
Avg - 1234.6

1:42.69 - 1241
3:30.24 - 1242
12:52.61 - 1237
Avg - 1240

Well, so much for that theory.

[sebcoe]

I was thinking of the American records because the East Africans sometimes peak at around 19, but that's a good point about US sprinting dominance vs US distance lagging. hmm..

[xcrunna]

Just one nitpick:
The high hurdles are probably inflated in score because the high school heights are lower. Taken at face value without accounting for this, Wayne Davis III's recent hurdle times would have killed everything.

[Ecliptica]

Originally posted by xcrunna@Jun 21 2010, 08:56 AM
Just one nitpick:
The high hurdles are probably inflated in score because the high school heights are lower. Taken at face value without accounting for this, Wayne Davis III's recent hurdle times would have killed everything.
The high school 110s are different on the IAAF scoring tables, but it's not untrue to say that was probably one of the all-time best high school performances. In my opinion, only the shot put and MAYBE the long jump were better performances. I know the hurdle heights are different and he hasn't done much over 42s yet, but the guys he passed on that high school 110h list is absolutely absurd.

I think I argued this a few years back when he actually ran that race about how ridiculous a time it actually was and tried to put it into perspective. It's probably archived somewhere.


Freeman was the performer of the meet. Fitzsimmons certainly in 2nd. Then let the arguments begin from there.

[KKreme15]

Bump.

[SprintsFTW19]

The more I think about it, the higher I would potentially rate Fitz. I still don't know though. To me, Freeman definitely takes the top spot.

I'm moving Wilson from 2nd to 3rd. AMAZING time, but a split time and it was one race.

For 2nd it's a tie between Williams and Fitz. Running 1:47.low is obviously something ridiculous, even as a relay split. With Williams, the fact that it isn't uncommon for young girls to run fast sprint or distance times takes a little away from the fact she's a freshman. However, I don't think you generally see people with "natural" hurdle ability like you do with the sprints or distances, so I find her mastery of a technical event like the hurdles more impressive. I don't think I can decide.

[matthewxcountry]

Originally posted by SprintsFTW19@Jun 22 2010, 03:43 PM
The more I think about it, the higher I would potentially rate Fitz. I still don't know though. To me, Freeman definitely takes the top spot.

I'm moving Wilson from 2nd to 3rd. AMAZING time, but a split time and it was one race.

For 2nd it's a tie between Williams and Fitz. Running 1:47.low is obviously something ridiculous, even as a relay split. With Williams, the fact that it isn't uncommon for young girls to run fast sprint or distance times takes a little away from the fact she's a freshman. However, I don't think you generally see people with "natural" hurdle ability like you do with the sprints or distances, so I find her mastery of a technical event like the hurdles more impressive. I don't think I can decide.
I agreed with your old reasoning. Wilson, although it was only a split time was practically at the high school national record (beat everyone on the all time list by over a second except for Gallagher). While Fitz was close to the national record pace, there have been about 10 guys within a second of his time. Yes he ran another race, but I think Wilson was the most impressive of the two (especially if we go by the 800 alone). Plus Wilson is a sophomore.