I'm wondering if they are changing things to reflect the changing shoe technology. The article doesn't say anything - it just says they are updated. Do theynormally get updated?
Does anyone know how they compare to past editions?
https://www.worldathletics.org/news/news/scoring-tables-2022
Gideys HM went from 1326 to 1281.
Gideys 15k from 1319 to 1274.
Kiplimos HM from 1299 to 1288.
Kipchoge Marathon from 1316 to 1303.
Big changes that bring the road racing records back in line with the track records.
I reported on this 11 days ago.
Yes, as far as i know they do get changes and updates.
Maybe because of the shoes, maybe because of the evolution of the disciplines.
Road racing has shown amazing develepment for many reasons such as supershoes, number of athletes etc.
OozmaKappa wrote:
I reported on this 11 days ago.
Yes. I came to see what new comments had been added only to find that Rojo has caught up with the news. I look forward to next weeks thread: BREAKING NEWS: Titanic has sunk!!!!
[quote]rojo wrote:
I'm wondering if they are changing things to reflect the changing shoe technology. The article doesn't say anything - it just says they are updated. Do theynormally get updated?
Does anyone know how they compare to past editions?
They didnt change anything in the 800-1500-mile range but it looks like the true distance disciplines have some points reduction in comparison with the previous tables. probably because of the shoe technology indeed.
5k/10k track also remains the same. Only a change for road running.
They want each event to be comparable to the others. As one event pops off and has a ton of people putting up big marks they will adjust. The 400 meter hurdles will have been adjusted after 3 people went under the old world record last year.
The biggest change for the distance side has got to be the women's half marathon. If there's a woman running sub 63 then people running 66/67 shouldn't get nearly as high of a score as they used to.
runningfan87 wrote:
Gideys HM went from 1326 to 1281.
Gideys 15k from 1319 to 1274.
Kiplimos HM from 1299 to 1288.
Kipchoge Marathon from 1316 to 1303.
Big changes that bring the road racing records back in line with the track records.
Gidey HM seems light
They still need to fix the women's 1500 which is still totally warped by the Chinese champs of 1993 and 1997 (athletes who have since alleged they were forced to dope by their coach).
20th all time mens:
3:29.18 - 1256
20th all time women -
3:55.68 - 1240
A 1240 is only a 3:30.4.
Aka, Matt Centrowitz' Pb, 49th best in history, is worth the same as the 20th woman in history. Delete the "Ma's Army" times and it means 49th best is equal to the 14th fastest all time.
Ive seen people bring up the excuse that the scoring tables are skewed because theyre anchored by a fraudulent doped performance of a WR.
But... almost every event's crowd says the same thing, so doesnt that cancel out whatever bias youre alleging?
For instance, a lot of people think the womens 100m wr is fraudulent. Same for the 400m, 800m, and 1500m. At that point you might as welll ask which womens wr is NOT tainted. And people claim El G and Komen were doped to the gills too.
another perspective wrote:
They still need to fix the women's 1500 which is still totally warped by the Chinese champs of 1993 and 1997 (athletes who have since alleged they were forced to dope by their coach).
20th all time mens:
3:29.18 - 1256
20th all time women -
3:55.68 - 1240
A 1240 is only a 3:30.4.
Aka, Matt Centrowitz' Pb, 49th best in history, is worth the same as the 20th woman in history. Delete the "Ma's Army" times and it means 49th best is equal to the 14th fastest all time.
BTW, the scoring tables are not designed to compare performances across the sexes. It says that in the 4th page of the book. The scoring tables are effectively different for each sex, they just happen to use the same scale from 1-1400.
What is the point to scoring times? lol. Is it so they can say one record is “better, harder to attain or more meaningful” than other records?
If so then Bolt has to have the top score I’d hope.
Rojo where's my free pair of ON running shoes for my investigative journalism in breaking this story nearly 2 weeks before it became public?
hmmjustmaybe wrote:
What is the point to scoring times? lol. Is it so they can say one record is “better, harder to attain or more meaningful” than other records?
If so then Bolt has to have the top score I’d hope.
The purpose of the scoring tables is to systematically equate performances across the different disciplines, the need for which is primarily to lay the groundwork for competitive Decathlon to exist. Outside of the decathlon, these scoring systems also have the added benefit of providing general track enthusiasts with the means to gauge how impressive performances are. Your way of putting it is crude, but it's essentially right because you have to accept that not all records are created equal just the same as not all performances are equal. There's varying degrees of "impressive" and the scores are meant to assess just that.
As for Bolt, there actually is one performance rated higher than his. A certain Javelin throw from the 1960s. You may or may not have heard of it. But as far as running performances go he is very much in the top spot.
Some of the changes in the tables seem hard to understand. So we had Jonathan Gault take a deep look into the tables. During his deep dive into the matter, he talked to statisticians and it still seems hard to understand the rationale for some of the changes or lack thereof.
Yehualaw made the fastest marathon debut in history and you and other LR authors wrote nothing about that before or after.
WA changed tables, which decide nothing in athletic world. And you wrote a long post without any deep analyses and statistical calculations, only some obvious facts and a lot of repetitions of the same.
For me it's strangely and definitely a bigger problem than rationality of scoring tables.
Not talking about two others WR:
- the 100km World record (very recent)
- the 5km road 12:47' from Aregawi (you can see the whole race from start to finish and the overall time of the video of the winner is exactly 12:47') which is inexplicably rounded up to 12:52 (??).
rojo wrote:
Some of the changes in the tables seem hard to understand. So we had Jonathan Gault take a deep look into the tables. During his deep dive into the matter, he talked to statisticians and it still seems hard to understand the rationale for some of the changes or lack thereof.
It's quite easy to understand, women have been running 2:19 marathons consistently for decades, but frequent sub 66 min half marathons is a recent phenomena.
The article says they used yearly times that were ranked 10, 20, 50, 100, etc. Maybe you guys should look up those times yearly and analyze the spread and ignore the top times as indicated since they are considered outliers.
1 post was removed from this page.
