Ok, so that raises the question of "is the point spread significant and is it the result of a bias in the scoring tables?" I don't want to get into road racing bc that leads to a whole other discussion. Let's stick to the 100m and 800m.
In the womens 100m, ETH's 10.54 corresponds to a score of 1302. Exceptional, all-time level performance.
A score of 1253 corresponds to a 10.77. Fast enough to medal at championships and, until very recently, fast enough to contend for Gold. But by todays standards, a touch slow for a Word Leading time.
For reference, here's a list of the World Leading times last season and their respective scores:
10,000m | 29:01 | 1303
100m | 10.54 | 1302
200m | 21.53 | 1288
400mH | 51.46 | 1286
1500m | 3:51 | 1278
400m | 48.36 | 1272
*5000m | 14:13 | 1255 (Gidey and Hassan couldve run faster)
800m | 1:55.0 | 1253
Mu's WL of 1:55 is rated at 1253. You tell me, is that underrated? A score of 1280 would be equivalent to a 1:53.6. A score of 1290 would require a 1:53.06. That's a significant difference, right? It's not exactly a small gap between these times and Mu's time.
There's no doubt that new technology has made many events faster in the last couple years. But the 800m has seemingly been left behind by the other events and has yet to "catch up." It could be that Mu just needs one more year to bring the women's 800m to the level of the other events. Or it could be that the scoring tables simply underrate 800m performances. Idk, but for now, theres a noticeable gap thats unaccounted for and I'm attempting to account for it with some sort of explanation.