Why on earth does IAAF considers Bolt's 9.58 equivalent to a 12:21.34 5k / 7:12.10 3k?

Because Bolt sells.

The IAAF scoring tables are created using statistics, it's not a popularity contest. Those marks in the other events are what would be needed to be as big of a statistical outlier as Bolt's sprint records.

Because they have no idea what it takes to run a 7:12. If anything, a 7:20 is beyond anything Bolt has run.

fchj wrote:

Because they have no idea what it takes to run a 7:12. If anything, a 7:20 is beyond anything Bolt has run.

It's pretty much that.

If you look at the scoring tables you'll see that pretty much any sprint perfomance is well overrated when compared to equivalent distance running performances.

That's the reason for the fact that whenever you look at the World's Overall Ranking, it's a sprinter who's on top. Even with Barega running 12:43, Kipchoge running 2:01:39 etc.

As stated above, these were not arbitrarily picked times, its all statistics. If you think they have no idea what it takes to run a 7:12, then you are the one confused about what it takes to run 9.58. Z-scores don't lie. Having said that, from using the same statistics to see just how many z-scores Bolt is ahead of his competition, its clear that he's a drug cheat. Its possible that drugs improve sprinting performance proprtionally more than they help distance running performance, which would account for your (and all of ours) incredulity. But make no mistake - the data set used here is enormous - 9.58 is absolutely equal to a 7:12.

Man, you have pointed out something I've never thought about. Maybe drugs improve sprinting performance proportionally more than in distance running. That together with the fact that sprinting is more competitive than distance running (you know, the 100m is a way more prestigous event even than the 1500m) would explain the fact that sprinting performance is always ahead of distance running performance in terms of equivalency.

Because one would think that the reality should be the exactly contrary, as humans have evolved to be better at distance running than sprinting (you know, the Endurance Running Hypothesis).

That's gotta be the explanation.

yeahmetoo wrote:

As stated above, these were not arbitrarily picked times, its all statistics. If you think they have no idea what it takes to run a 7:12, then you are the one confused about what it takes to run 9.58. Z-scores don't lie. Having said that, from using the same statistics to see just how many z-scores Bolt is ahead of his competition, its clear that he's a drug cheat. Its possible that drugs improve sprinting performance proprtionally more than they help distance running performance, which would account for your (and all of ours) incredulity. But make no mistake - the data set used here is enormous - 9.58 is absolutely equal to a 7:12.

This. I honestly thought Bolt's 9.69 was ridiculous. 9.58 is in a completely different universe from every other male sprinter ever to live. Given how underwhelming Bolt's performances were (relatively speaking) compared with his breakout year, I have to think it's impossible he was clean. I do have to wonder how he was able to be THAT much better than everyone else though given there are plenty of confirmed dirty sprinters who never approached his times.

I have always accepted that Bolt was the greatest Track and Field athlete ever in any event. In his prime, nobody could touch him. Bekele is obv the distance GOAT, but he always had legitimate competition. Bolt's records may never be broken, but Bekele's are within reach. Komen's 3000 is truly freakish though.

yeahmetoo wrote:

As stated above, these were not arbitrarily picked times, its all statistics. If you think they have no idea what it takes to run a 7:12, then you are the one confused about what it takes to run 9.58. Z-scores don't lie. Having said that, from using the same statistics to see just how many z-scores Bolt is ahead of his competition, its clear that he's a drug cheat. Its possible that drugs improve sprinting performance proprtionally more than they help distance running performance, which would account for your (and all of ours) incredulity. But make no mistake - the data set used here is enormous - 9.58 is absolutely equal to a 7:12.

There is not a single person on earth, even with the absolute best coaching and PED regime available that can run 7:12. Komen was already 1 In a billion. Seriously, 9.58 is the equivalent of stringing nearly 2, 3:51 miles together!?

Yes.

Bolt broke his previous WR by 0.11

About a tenth of a second.

The WR of 9.7 (basically) was run when 12:37 was still the 5k WR as it is today.

A 5k is 50 times 100 meters.

50 times 0.1 seconds is 5 seconds.

How can you say one WR is superior to another? Very difficult unless it's clear the competition in one event is vastly less than another. Women's Pole vault (off the top of my head) saw vast WR progression because it was a new event. You couldn't say when the event was brand new that their WR was the same as other female WR's. Now, maybe it's a bit more comparable as time has elapsed.

Back to Bolt's time.

I can appreciate the sprints, but lets get real. The 5k WR is basically 4:02 mile pace for over 3 miles. Something like that.

Bolt's WR shattered his previous WR. Maybe it's like a 12:32, shattering the current 5k by 5 seconds?

Definitely not in the 12:20's. Laughable, I agree.

2 x 3:36 1500s is impossible. 9.58 isn't.

Rupp fan wrote:

I have always accepted that Bolt was the greatest Track and Field athlete ever in any event. In his prime, nobody could touch him. Bekele is obv the distance GOAT, but he always had legitimate competition. Bolt's records may never be broken, but Bekele's are within reach. Komen's 3000 is truly freakish though.

Hmmm.. Bolt is/was a great sprinter. WR's, olympic golds, took the sport to a new level.

But in 2 events and then the relays. Carl lewis showed more versatility simply by doing the long jump.

Ashton Eaton's Decathalon WR is quite impressive as is Meyer's.

Bolt greatest track and field athlete ever?

Best sprinter of the 21st century so far.

9:58 is a crazy time, and might be better than the WRs in the events you listed, but it’s no secret the scoring tables in general are biased against the more competetive events (like all running events from sprints to long distance). Also, they overrate female running performances relative to the male ones. And I’m saying this as a left-winger.

They're out of their minds wrote:

fchj wrote:

Because they have no idea what it takes to run a 7:12. If anything, a 7:20 is beyond anything Bolt has run.

It's pretty much that.

If you look at the scoring tables you'll see that pretty much any sprint perfomance is well overrated when compared to equivalent distance running performances.

That's the reason for the fact that whenever you look at the World's Overall Ranking, it's a sprinter who's on top. Even with Barega running 12:43, Kipchoge running 2:01:39 etc.

Current #1s: Armand Duplantis + Sifan Hassan

It has more to do with humans have a short attention span. Less than 10 seconds and you’re done. Let’s go celebrate! On the other hand, a marathon is over 2 hours unless you’re Kipchoge who can run a marathon in 1:59:40. Too bad he didn’t run 1:59:35 so he could have been a second a minute faster instead of a second a minute slower in his breaking2. Just listen to the American marathon broadcast, they can’t even keep an eye on the elite when they make a move but have to fill in with feel good stories. But running 26 miles at that pace is a lot harder than running at a pace for 10 seconds.

You can not compare 100/200 sprints and the others running events.

There is no pacing in these short sprints, all of the races are basically completley all out efforts with no strategy. There is the start, the technical part of the sprint, the timing, the accelration, the flat out sprinting trying to be fast and relaxed enough and the end.

They gave the best of their shape at each race. What is surprising is that Bolt was able to beat the world record at the biggest stages of the world each time.

Longer sprint and even more middle distance and distance running are not all out efforts. Even in time trial or world record attempts there is a strategy and pacing.

I disagree with the people saying that "they have computed so much data the comparison are real".No, the comparisons are useless and zero amount of data are going to change that.

It's their way of tipping us off on just how much better stuff Bolt was on compared to Bekele.

The other factor this measure does not capture is the difficulty of doing it solo vs with competition in distance running. Bolt was a huge outlier but not having anyone close to him does not impact your ability to run your fastest in sprinting like it does in distance running.

You would not only need a guy capable of 7:12, which we've never seen. But a second guy close to or at that level to push him. Or at least rabbit them through 6 laps.