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

Thanks Doc. So the obvious feature of this formula, which again is

points = A * (B - time)^2

is that it rewards points based on absolute improvement, not percentage improvement.

10.0 = 1206 points

9.90 = 1241 points (1% faster, 35 more points)

9.80 = 1276 points (2% faster, 70 more points)

9.70 = 1312 points (3% faster, 106 more points)

9.60 = 1348 points (4% faster, 142 more points)

7:35.0 = 1208 points

7:30.41 = 1237 points (~1% faster, 29 more points)

7:25.87 = 1266 points (~2% faster, 58 more points)

7:21.38 = 1295 points (~3% faster, 87 more points)

7:16.79 = 1325 points (~4% faster, 117 more points)

13:00.02 = 1210 points

12:52.16 = 1239 points (~1% faster, 29 more points)

12:44.39 = 1268 points (~2% faster, 58 more points)

12:36.71 = 1297 points (~3% faster, 87 more points)

12:28.85 = 1327 points (~4% faster, 117 more points)

So two questions. A, would you consider the 1200 points marker to be fair equivalent times? More exactly, 1206 points is 10.0, 7:35.32, and 13:01.11.

B, why does a 1% improvement in the 100m get more points than in the distance events? It's also a pretty wild coincidence, I think, that the points above line up so perfectly for the 3k and 5k.

fchj2 wrote:

The fact is Komen, Bekele, Geb, El G are every bit the athlete that Bolt was and I find it strange that so many don’t agree.

What we are trying to tell you that he is statistically a greater outlier than Komen, Bekele, Geb and El G.

It's very hard to comprehend outliers when we are talking the best runners in the world of the last 70+ years. Maybe Bekele, Geb, and Komen are like the Tyson Gay, Yohan Blake, and Asafa Powell of the 5k and we have yet to see the equivalent of Bolt. Remember how Ayana's 29:17 in Rio was so far beyond what anyone had done to that point (Tirunesh Dibaba 29:54 queen of the distance track races!).

People have run faster than 9.58 2nd half of a 200 m

People have run faster than 9.58 for their split on a 4x100m, too. Any other irrelevant nuggets of wisdom you want to throw out there?

I found this interesting so just put something together quickly. This is by no means meant to be rigorous. Essentially I took the top 3000 times for the 100m and the 5000m. To adjust for the times, I took the 5000m times and gave them "equivalents" based on the top 3000 100m times. So Bekele's 12:37.35 was given Bolts 9.58 time, the 3000th 5000m time was given a time of 10.08s and the rest were assigned calculated values inbetween. Bolt's time was just so much farther ahead not just his other 2 best times (which are 2nd and 3rd overall), but to the pack as well. Also, the density of faster "middle of the pack" times is much greater in the 5K than the 100m.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/hicdes/oc_top_3000_times_100m_vs_5000m_adjusted_to_100m/

mathman wrote:

So two questions. A, would you consider the 1200 points marker to be fair equivalent times? More exactly, 1206 points is 10.0, 7:35.32, and 13:01.11.

B, why does a 1% improvement in the 100m get more points than in the distance events? It's also a pretty wild coincidence, I think, that the points above line up so perfectly for the 3k and 5k.

A- I have a hard time with the idea of equivalent times. My gut reaction looking at those three is that the 13:01 is the best. But I think that largely has to do with the fact that I know most 5k's are not run for time; so if I see that so and so ran 13:01, I'm more likely to assume that it was with a slow start/hard close, rather than a kincaid style time trial.

B- Just speculating: perhaps the thinking is that because of the greater number of all out sprints, ie. greater number of legitimate chances to run fast, an improvement of x% is more difficult to attain and therefore worth more. Put another way, sprinters are theoretically banging against the ultimate limits of human performance on a more regular basis than distance runners, so a 1% improvement is probably easier for a distance runner to attain (through some combination of better fitness, better weather, better pacing, better competition, etc.).

It's difficult to judge the intent here without knowing how the parameters are recalculated every few years. I'd think they would try to fit elite performances to a bell curve, but that would mean determining what a mean 'elite' performance is.

I think they just want to highlight Bolt's greatness. He won World Juniors 200m when he was a month shy of 16 years old which is incredible. He went on to win 100m and 200m golds in 3 consecutive Olympics. It's hard to compare different events and even great athletes from different eras but Bolt has to be on the list of greatest track and field athletes ever.

Bolt, Komen, Bekele mentioned a lot on this thread.

If any of you for one second believe any of those guys were clean you are completely out of your minds.

The only logical reason I can find as to why someone would believe they are clean is the same one behind the millions and millions of "armchair experts" who would have given a kidney in vehement and passionate defense of Lance Armstrong, that he was clean in winning 7 tours in maybe the dirtiest sport there was at the time.

It's these weird quixotic beliefs driven by emotion - as if people watched Bolt run 9.58, Komen 7.20 and Kene 12.37, got excited and from that point could never look rationally at fact and logic, almost seeing at as a sign of personal weakness that they would and could get excited by someone comically cheating right in front of them, hence reverting instead to vehement and angry defense.

Most former Lance "lovers" and advocates now absolutely despise the guy even though he only really did what everyone else did, called a few people that are super rich because of him some bad things and created a foundation that gave $500 million bucks to cancer - because his eventual unveiling made them feel and look like utter idiots.

Luckily the only guy that might be dumb enough to get busted out of this trio is KB - but he's had so many years training on the good stuff it's highly likely that with some new 2.8% more economical shoes he doesn't need it.

seasoned ranker wrote:

fchj2 wrote:

The fact is Komen, Bekele, Geb, El G are every bit the athlete that Bolt was and I find it strange that so many don’t agree.

What we are trying to tell you that he is statistically a greater outlier than Komen, Bekele, Geb and El G.

Or, Komen, Bekele, Geb, and El G are the outliers, as much so as Bolt. Why do we assume that Bolt is the unique special one and only outlier? Maybe sprint is still catching up to distance. While there are plenty of talented sprinters they’re certainly not interested in track. I think talented sprinters get pulled in so many different directions.

If the distance equivalent of Bolt hasn’t yet shown up, where and when is this going to happen? Is there some secret, remote area that hasn’t yet been introduced to distance running?

Sorry, but I think 12:21 and 7:12 is beyond natural talent and PEDs. It is going to take something major. I’m still interested in hearing from a 3:51 miler about running that pace for 3000. There’s a thread about ‘what’s his face’ running 4:51 2k. Lol - a 4:51 2k would already put you behind running a 7:12 3000.

Someone has already brought this up, but if Bolt truly is as much of an outlier as everyone says, then it is almost certain that PEDs improve sprint performance more than distance.

Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:

Bolt, Komen, Bekele mentioned a lot on this thread.

If any of you for one second believe any of those guys were clean you are completely out of your minds.

What’s ironic is that this scoring emphasizes that thought.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

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

How many people would have thought 9.58 was possible pre-Bolt, when the record was 9.74 and the fastest time by someone who hadn't faced a drug ban was 9.79?

(not that Maurice Greene was scandal-free, but he at least hadn't tested positive for anything himself--and he did, that makes 9.58 look even more ridiculous)

Both times are absolutely ridiculous

You either didn’t read or didn’t understand the word “statistically” in his response. Bolt is statistically more of an outlier than the other runners that you named. That is a matter of fact.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but even without watching a video, I know this is way off. Tyson runs around 290spm, or just over .2s per step, and he lost by .13s. That being said, a 7:12 3000m is well within the realm of (current legal rules) possibility - I'd say much more than a 9.57. That's how much of an anomaly I think Bolt is.

boring, correct answer wrote:

There is no one on earth that could run 9.58 right now, and Gay was more than a step behind Bolt.

Fair enough.

the tables are pretty good.

but everything breaks down, at the extremes. mathematical functions, irregardless whether its track and field data or not.

basically at the extremes you only have a few guys, samples to peg the stats off.

then you have the fact that the best talent is not in track.

so it's a fluke to have the best talent run a 100m, but not necessarily marathon.

the limits appear to be around 9.50 for 100m

and aerobically something around 58x per lab for up to 3 miles.

800 has an apparent limit at 138 low no matter how you cut it.

400 is 42 low.

after that you need better drugs than they were using and a lot more talent.

i guess that for the 5000m the bolt equivalent time is about 59 mid a lap all the way

you do the math from here.

boring, correct answer wrote:

You either didn’t read or didn’t understand the word “statistically” in his response. Bolt is statistically more of an outlier than the other runners that you named. That is a matter of fact.

Yeah, I get it. Bolt is a (statistically speaking) a more special sprinter than any other sprinter more so than Bekele or Komen. We haven’t seen another Bolt, or two, or three because they’re not running track. If every player in the nfl suddenly became sprinters would we see another Bolt? If soccer didn’t exist and players went to track would we see another Bolt?

Distance doesn’t experience this on the same level. It’s not like distance runners are getting pulled to play other sports except for, maybe, soccer.

I agree that, statistically, Bolt is better. But this is no better than using Tom Brady as a benchmark to measure all football players. Is Tom Brady an outlier? Is he as much of an outlier as Bolt? Probably.

Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:

Most former Lance "lovers" and advocates now absolutely despise the guy even though he only really did what everyone else did, called a few people that are super rich because of him some bad things and created a foundation that gave $500 million bucks to cancer - because his eventual unveiling made them feel and look like utter idiots.

Five hundred million dollars bucks?

to really see what are humans possibilities in longer distances, we would need pacers relay the whole distance like for Kipchoge 1h59.

(Remember Bekele was left alone by the pacers after 2000m when he did 12'37 and that the pacing was a bit slow :12'42 pace)

In perfect conditions like Bolt's 100m, I'm sure Bekele would have ran 12'33-34'.

And I don't think Bekele is as superior to the rest as Bolt was. So I would say 9.58 is definitely worth sub 12'30. Maybe not 12'21 though.