Is the scoring table too biased towards hurdles and sprints? When you compare scoring a mediocre hurdler is comparable to much better performances in other events.
Is the scoring table too biased towards hurdles and sprints? When you compare scoring a mediocre hurdler is comparable to much better performances in other events.
pidgeon wrote:
Is the scoring table too biased towards hurdles and sprints? When you compare scoring a mediocre hurdler is comparable to much better performances in other events.
The points scored are relative to the WR in that event.
The fact that more points are generally scored in sprints and hurdlers only means that most multi-eventers are better at those events than the other events.
It makes sense. An athlete with a world class Shot Put is hardly going to be able to Pole Vault at any level necessary.
Scoring tables are not based on the world record anymore. If they were, you would need to change them everytime someone set a world record. They are intentionally slanted away from the throws.
Absolutely. Combined events are the most contrived contests in the sport. If you want the best overall athlete, just pick the winner of your favorite event.
The points were based on the world record at the time. A specific mark is chosen as the best you can do and still get 0 points, then a straight line was drawn to the world record in that event at the time.
The only bias may have been the specific events chosen. I think dropping the 400 and switching in a 5000m could have a pretty substantial shift in the type of athlete who excels at the decathlon.
The poster who said the body necessary to have an elite throw will result in a mediocre pole vault was correct. However, it would also result in a mediocre long jump, 100m, hurdle, 400m, 1500, etc. They would only do well in the throws, nothing else.