Track and Field News US Rankings

I gotta agree with Manzano's #1 ranking in the 1500m. 3:32 PB/SB and 3(?) top 3 finishes in major races.

What strikes me is the continued lack of depth. In the international arena it is hard to take seriously American men ranked lower (in the US) than:

#2 in the 800

#4 in the 1500

#3 in the 5000

#2 in the 10000

#2 in the marathon

I guess it is a start.

Hoping 4 better days wrote:

What strikes me is the continued lack of depth. In the international arena it is hard to take seriously American men ranked lower (in the US) than:

#2 in the 800

#4 in the 1500

#3 in the 5000

#2 in the 10000

#2 in the marathon

I guess it is a start.

Please let us know how many countries have more depth across the board than the U.S.--Kenya, Ethiopia, who else?

is there anywhere I could see a list of all americans who ran under 2:30 in 2010?

knower of things and stuff wrote:

is there anywhere I could see a list of all americans who ran under 2:30 in 2010?

Bump, yes, there is a guy that usually compiles the top 500 individual times each year, last year the cut off was about 2:35. Hopefully someone will see this as im interested as well.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Hoping 4 better days wrote:

What strikes me is the continued lack of depth. In the international arena it is hard to take seriously American men ranked lower (in the US) than:

#2 in the 800

#4 in the 1500

#3 in the 5000

#2 in the 10000

#2 in the marathon

I guess it is a start.

Please let us know how many countries have more depth across the board than the U.S.--Kenya, Ethiopia, who else?

Personally I am hoping for days when something more can be said about American distance running than "The best of the also-rans".

Naturally I cannot speak for your hopes. But I think that this makes mine plain.

Very disappointed that you guys aren't doing them this year. Mainly because it's a non championship year. I've been looking forward to it since the Solinsky shattered the 10k record.

Can someone please explain to me how these rankings were decided. When you look at the womens marathon rankings it list Magdalena Lewy Boulet first followed by Shalane Flanagan for 2nd, then 3rd is Desiree Davila. How is Davila 3rd when she 1. ran the fastest time this year, and 2 beat Magdalena in Chicago by a good amount. Last time I checked I thought the fastest time always won, guess that doesnt matter in our sport any more.

Thank god that these don't mean anything. They are opinions.

The fastest time has not "always won" in rankings, and Shalane's NYC performance, in which she actually contended for the win and came in 2nd on a tougher course than Chicago, is clearly worth more than what Desiree did in Chicago.

Maybe, Maybe not. Most thought that Chicago was a slower day than they had in New York this year, but it doesn't matter. Our sport is always answered in head to head competition.

[quote]Man in the Iron Mask wrote:

The fastest time has not "always won" in rankings, and Shalane's NYC performance, in which she actually contended for the win and came in 2nd on a tougher course than Chicago, is clearly worth more than what Desiree did in Chicago.[/quote}

Then why did Magdalena get the nod over Shalane? Was her Rotterdam clearly more impressive than Shalane in Ny?

I think Wheating is also penalized for not racing USATF to go with not having a heavy European schedule.

He was 2-0 against Manzano in the mile/1500 with fantastic times while Manzano bombed in both of those races.

The great NCAA season helps Wheating's cause but of course Manzano can't compete in those races.

Manzano was second at USATF and finished top 3 in a handful of Diamond League events where Wheating chose not to compete.

I don't blame Wheating for his schedule, he certainly ran plenty of races during the year.

If there was one thing that tilted the top spot to Manzano, it was Wheating sitting out USATF to rest for Pre.

Of course the rankings are subjective.

That 3:30 at the top of the US list for Wheating is not.

The criteria for ranking:

1) Honors Won

which means placing high, with an emphasis on actually winning, in the deepest races.

2) Head-to-Head

which means win-loss record versus your peers.

3) Series of marks

which means more than just your best single time (except possibly in the 10k and marathon).

The World and US rankings are a compilation of an athlete's accomplishments, rather than the hypothetical outcome of some sort of idealized race. The "best" isn't always first.

In the example of the men's 1500, I think most of us would say that Wheating is a "better" runner than Manzano. But Manzano's three 3rd place finishes in Diamond League races plus a runner-up at USATF give him a pretty big leg up on Wheating in "honors won", and that's what matters most in these rankings. And while Wheating ran one really fast time, Manzano comes out ahead when you compare their three best times.

I almost always take issue with the voting for Athlete of the Year, but rarely the World & US rankings as they usually adhere well to the criteria laid out above. I'm not saying it's right (or wrong), I'm just saying they usually follow the rules they set out for themselves.

Lane Pryce wrote:

knower of things and stuff wrote:

is there anywhere I could see a list of all americans who ran under 2:30 in 2010?

Bump, yes, there is a guy that usually compiles the top 500 individual times each year, last year the cut off was about 2:35. Hopefully someone will see this as im interested as well.

bump, anybody have that list?