Right, because social media and strava weren’t around 10 years ago. If knowledge were the reason, we would have seen 100+ US runners sub 4 in 2013, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. But we didn’t. US sub 4 averaged was around 60 for those years - then in ‘22 it hit 100 for first time ever. ‘20 was Covid. ‘21 although there was a big jump in times, sub 4 was 60 (not everyone was using the shoes). By ‘22 everyone had them. If they don’t make a difference, why pay for them?
They weren’t around 10 years ago nearly to the degree they are now. They have exploded exponentially over the last 10 years, along with the power and ubiquity of the smart phone, and the knowledge being decimated to high school athletes has exploded exponentially, raising their performances, which in turn, becomes reciprocative and reinforcing.
What is the exact knowledge that is being passed around on social media that allows for the drastic improvement over the last 5 years?
They weren’t around 10 years ago nearly to the degree they are now. They have exploded exponentially over the last 10 years, along with the power and ubiquity of the smart phone, and the knowledge being decimated to high school athletes has exploded exponentially, raising their performances, which in turn, becomes reciprocative and reinforcing.
What is the exact knowledge that is being passed around on social media that allows for the drastic improvement over the last 5 years?
I think it’s competition and bragging rights on social media that has increased engagement and competition and desire for online attention. However, I think this impacts the high school level more than other levels.
This might help better illustrate what I'm talking about regarding there not being an overall surge in senior representation amongst the top 95 performers, post COVID. The "freshman" class of 2021 is actually having the most impact on the performance makeup overall.
Thank you. And yes, correct, TFRRS does not distinguish between 4th, 5th, and 6th year seniors, but you’re making my point without realizing it, I think?
This is data of the top 95 performances in the men’s and women’s 1500m, 5000m, and 10,000m for 2019 vs 2021. If the ‘super senior’ effect is driving the drop in times we see, you would then expect to see more seniors making up the top 95 than previous years, but you don’t.
If, instead, what people mean by ‘super senior’ is the sliding scale across ALL classes where now a classified freshman would have been a sophomore and seniors are 4th, 5th, and 6th year performers… that I can see contributing to a temporary overall faster average of the list, but there is not a large shift in the senior makeup of the top 95 performers. Yes, they may all be a year older than they otherwise would be and thus the times are reflective of that. However, you’re not seeing 4th, 5th, and 6th year seniors disproportionately making up the top times as a ‘super senior’ phenomena would seemingly imply.
My initial thoughts were similar to many, that super spikes and super seniors, would be the two big contributors to the sudden drop in NCAA performances, but the latter doesn’t seem to be the case? Maybe we are saying the same thing though, just thinking of the terminology differently?
You're right! I thought I was contradicting you but I was making your point. Now your data is a mystery. Your graph clearly shows runners DO NOT improve in their 5th and 6th years so the rejo "super senior" does not contribute to the faster times. This is somewhat off topic but what do you think the reasons are? This is a horrible result for example graduate students running in their sixth year - your graph shows they will not get better. (We should start a separate thread to gets ideas on this mystery. I feel like all upper class runners need to know this info before deciding on their 6th year).
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
You mean the last 4 years. There is practically no change in times from 2010 until 2019. In 2020 shoes were introduced and it got crazy because, well, we all know why.
Can you explain how the throwing events also improved? Are the shotputters also wearing the oingy boingy foam spikes?
Because, as we all know, training required to throw a metal object is not that dissimilar to training required to run long distances. In short, they have nothing in common. Might as well compare increase in mlb homeruns the last few years. You don’t really care about the throws. You’re just looking to explain away distance time improvements for reasons other than shoes.
Even still, when comparing #40 top marks, US men’s shot put hasn’t improved since 2014 and women’s shot put hasn’t improved since 2011.
I believe someone earlier asked for comparisons among the top 10, 25, 50, etc. To make it more complete and comparable, I pulled the top 95 performances from IAAF for men and women at 1500m, 5000m, and 10,000m to compare to the same NCAA data. The first link plots the average time of the top 95 and fits the trend line for 2010-2019, for both NCAA and IAAF datasets. The second link breaks down the average time by each tier (5 tiers so by 20% or 19 runners per tier) through 2010-2023 for both NCAA and IAAF.
You're right! I thought I was contradicting you but I was making your point. Now your data is a mystery. Your graph clearly shows runners DO NOT improve in their 5th and 6th years so the rejo "super senior" does not contribute to the faster times. This is somewhat off topic but what do you think the reasons are? This is a horrible result for example graduate students running in their sixth year - your graph shows they will not get better. (We should start a separate thread to gets ideas on this mystery. I feel like all upper class runners need to know this info before deciding on their 6th year).
To be fair, Rojo isn't wrong that there is the "class slide" where a would be senior in 2021 is classified as a junior, since 2020 basically didn't happen haha, but that applies across all classes. So the time drop could be a result of the top 95 being made up of people who are all a year older than they would be in previous years. That's reasonable. The super senior effect though, and by that I mean suggesting more 5th and 6th year seniors are contributing to the time drop, thus making up a larger percent of the top 95, doesn't seemingly manifest as the senior class representation stays in the low-mid 30% range for 2021-2023.
