So the issue is we still have competition. That is really the lesson. We can see performers in relation to their contemporaries. So competition is where it is at. These time trials are nice and all but if I am the 168th fastest miler in the country with a 3:59.95 deep down I know I am not all that…But the lesson here is that championships and head to head competitions take precedence over fastest times, especially in relation to runners from a different era.
If you look at the 2016 results for instance the guys in heat 2 would be in heat 6/7 nowadays with all the pros and college teams flocking to BU
Apologies for being so dismissive of your point above. Both my tone and my point were wrong. Let me try again:
Of course, you are right. Changes in the make-up of the field (what statisticians call "composition" effects) matter. And, as you point out, the composition of the field at the Hemery meet has changed dramatically in the last few years.
A quick look at this year's results shows that I was wrong to dismiss your point" ~17 of this year's sub 4 miles were run by pros; last year, 1 was. (I say ~ 17 b/c I counted the "unattached" as pros.)
That leaves 35 college kids running under 4. To your point, many of many of them probably weren't running this meet in 2016. Figuring out who would and wouldn't have will take some time. Until then, my quick look shows a lot (~10 college kids from the NE running under 4 this year).
Obviously, some of them got dragged along to faster times by pros or faster college kids.
The beauty of looking at times at BU is that we don't have to worry about the track being faster. But, as you point out, we still have to worry about the fields getting faster.
Again, my apologies for my earlier tone. Your point was a fair one -- even a quick scan shows that taking it into account makes the headline less impressive.
At the same time, it sure looks to me as if the bump isn't simply a composition effect. But it will take a bit more time to see if that hunch is correct.
Apologies for being so dismissive of your point above. Both my tone and my point were wrong. Let me try again:
Of course, you are right. Changes in the make-up of the field (what statisticians call "composition" effects) matter. And, as you point out, the composition of the field at the Hemery meet has changed dramatically in the last few years.
A quick look at this year's results shows that I was wrong to dismiss your point" ~17 of this year's sub 4 miles were run by pros; last year, 1 was. (I say ~ 17 b/c I counted the "unattached" as pros.)
That leaves 35 college kids running under 4. To your point, many of many of them probably weren't running this meet in 2016. Figuring out who would and wouldn't have will take some time. Until then, my quick look shows a lot (~10 college kids from the NE running under 4 this year).
Obviously, some of them got dragged along to faster times by pros or faster college kids.
The beauty of looking at times at BU is that we don't have to worry about the track being faster. But, as you point out, we still have to worry about the fields getting faster.
Again, my apologies for my earlier tone. Your point was a fair one -- even a quick scan shows that taking it into account makes the headline less impressive.
At the same time, it sure looks to me as if the bump isn't simply a composition effect. But it will take a bit more time to see if that hunch is correct.
It’s ok and it IS both. But the composition effect is a huge reason for BU in particular. The spikes undoubtedly amplify the effect. I ran at BU when it was cool but not reliable that anyone would break 4 in these meets. The track was just as fast and some of the races led to just as huge PRs. High schoolers are faster independent of the spikes, that begets faster collegians, this year is deeper with 5th or 6th year runners. I have no incentive to take a side on this, I’d love to think I’d be 5 seconds faster with the footwear and I couldnt even work out in spikes in my day because they’d destroy my calves.
Has anyone in the thread watched the Youtube recap? The announcer made it clear that one goal was to produce as many Sub 4s as possible; and had specific pace targets/rabbits for each heat.
Heck, if the last finishers in the fast heat had been in heats 2-4 there would've been even a few more sub 4s.
Given the purpose of the meet was to produce as many sub 4s as possible, this is not at all surprising. I wonder if the 800/3000 fields were weaker than past years (because they were all in sub 4 mile heats).
Anyway, if you haven't seen the coverage, it's on youtube, and pretty entertaining.