When Was the Last Time An American Born Distance Runner Ended the Season Ranked #1?

Alan WEbb only Number 6 in 2007?? Wow.

fix your post wrote:

Vertigo wrote:

Impressive? Yes. More impressive? No.

Impressive? Yes. More impressive? Yes also.

World Champion= Best in world on that one day

Ranked World No. 1= Consistently the best in the world throughout the entire year.

Lets see? One Day vs Whole Year? Which is more impressive?

Let's see. Winning a world championship by actually winning the race or being voted number one by a panel of voters. Which is more impressive?

The New UncleB wrote:

fix your post wrote:

Impressive? Yes. More impressive? Yes also.

World Champion= Best in world on that one day

Ranked World No. 1= Consistently the best in the world throughout the entire year.

Lets see? One Day vs Whole Year? Which is more impressive?

.

Let's see. Winning a world championship by actually winning the race or being voted number one by a panel of voters. Which is more impressive?

So you think Jenny B is a more impressive 1500m runner?

Vertigo wrote:

wejo wrote:

being ranked #1 in the world for a full year may be a more impressive accomplishment.

Impressive? Yes. More impressive? No.

Hard to tell you guys were actually competitive racers at one point in time. There is nothing that outshines winning a World or Olympic Championship. After that, there's only rationalizations from those who didn't to make themselves feel better for not winning.

I don't doubt for a second that Morgan would trade the world #1 for the World title. But I still think being world ranked #1 MAY be more impressive. I was trying to think of an analogy in another sport.

There is some chance involved in any any one race. Being the best 1500m runner in the world for a full year takes that away.

Tennis or Golf might be a decent analogy. Luke Donald is the #1 golfer in the World and has never won a major. Charl Schwartzel won the Masters.

Obviously with tennis or golf there are 4 majors instead of 1. But in a tennis tournament you have to win 6 matches to win the title and in golf you have to go through 4 rounds so that takes out some of the randomness but in track the favorite wins more often. Obviously not perfect analogies.

I'm assuming Deena was #1 in the marathon not the track.

I believe you get a certain number of points for each performance (the better the performance/ higher the meet, the more points you get) and highest total wins.

I mean, do you really think that world champ Jenny Simpson, 10th in Brussels and around that in Rieti a few weeks ago, is the best miler on the planet?

I think they usually get the rankings right.

Sometimes it's hard because no one stands out.

2007

Webb was ranked #6. He had the fastest time in the world in the 1500 and the mile. But really only had one quality win on the year. Finished 8th at Worlds

Lagat ranked #2- Won Worlds but didn't win any other major race that year. 18th fastest performer in the world

Daniel Komen ranked #1- didn't make it the finals at Worlds, only the 8th fastest in the world. But he won 4 major Grand Prix events

To get a #1 ranking you have to win a lot of races. Not just one.

In 2004, Lagat had a 2-1 record against El G and the fastest time in the world. 3 major wins on the year. El G had the Olympic victory and also had a couple of other major wins. Good argument to give El G number one because you heavily weight an Olympic Gold. Lagat was ranked #1

I thought Joe Falcon was headed to a #1 ranking in 1990 after winning the Dream Mile and the Goodwill Games. But Morceli won the big European races.

Uceny will be number one this year.

First man or woman American (natural born or not) to rank #1 in the 1500 since Mary Slaney in 1985.

Teg =/= 10k

The New UncleB wrote:

Let's see. Winning a world championship by actually winning the race or being voted number one by a panel of voters. Which is more impressive?

Read my post at the top of this page. The official world ranking are not based on opinion polls or votes. They are worked out via a points method. Points are calculated based on time, placing and the IAAF ranking of the meet. Obviously, a fast time and first place finish at WC is worth more than the same at a DL race.

However, an athlete's total score is calculated on the average of their five best races that season not just one race.

Its really not that hard to understand.

Timeline of US Distance #1s (M & F)

--800 and Marathon included--

1948: Mal Whitfield (800)

1949: Mal Whitfield (800)

1950: Mal Whitfield (800)

1952: Mal Whitfield (800), Horace Ashenfelter (3000 SC)

1953: Mal Whitfield (800)

1956: Tom Courtney (800)

1961: Dyrol Burleson (1500)

1963: Buddy Edelen (marathon)

1964: Bob Schul (5000), Billy Mills (10000)

1966: Jim Ryun (800 & 1500)

1967: Jim Ryun (1500)/Madeline Manning (800)

1968: Madeline Manning (800)

1969: Marty Liquori (1500)/Madeline Manning (800)

1971: Marty Liquori (1500), Frank Shorter (marathon)

1972: Dave Wottle (800), Frank Shorter (marathon)

1973: Rick Wohlhuter (800), Frank Shorter (marathon)

1974: Rick Wohlhuter (800)

1975: Bill Rodgers (marathon)

1977: Marty Liquori (5000), Bill Rodgers (marathon)

1979: Bill Rodgers (marathon)

1980: Don Paige (800)

1981: Henry Marsh (3000 SC), Alberto Salazar (marathon)

1982: Henry Marsh (3000 SC), Alberto Salazar (marathon)/Mary Slaney (10000)

1983: Mary Slaney (1500 & 3000)

1984: Joan Samuelson (marathon)

1985: Henry Marsh (3000 SC), Bruce Bickford (10000)/Mary Slaney (1500 & 3000), Joan Samuelson (marathon)

1990: PattiSue Plumer (3000)

2002: Khalid Khannouchi (marathon)

2006: Deena Kastor (marathon)

You sure about that? Here's a quote taken directly from the 2010 TFN Womens World Rankings issue (http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/special-article-right-ad-only/515) (which, by the way, was linked earlier in this thread, and very easy to find with a basic 2 minute search through Google)

Is it really to hard for you to understand that you were completely wrong about how the rankings work? It's a panel of people and subjectively judged based on the criteria listed: honors won, win-loss record, sequence of marks. Hence why things happen like Webb in 2007 where he was clearly the fastest of the year, but sucked in real major competition, thus no #1 for him.

Even the panel place the highest emphasis on head-to-head competition, especially at major championships: "In our system marks are worth much less than either of the other two categories. And honors alone can outweigh the other two criteria. We reward people who have proven themselves against other people, not against themselves." This is why, Wejo, that in this sport, the #1 ranking isn't the more impressive accomplishment. This sport is about head-to-head competition and being the best on that one day.

Lets retool this to another sport -

Being ranked the number 1 collegiate basketball team that loses the national title (Uceny), or winning the national title being unranked (Simpson). Which is more impressive?

Not to be that guy wrote:

Lets retool this to another sport -

Being ranked the number 1 collegiate basketball team that loses the national title (Uceny), or winning the national title being unranked (Simpson). Which is more impressive?

That's different. To win the tournament, you need to win 6 games in a row. Worlds is only one race (not counting prelims, where winning is not necessary).

Who the F is PattySue Plumer??

I am not 'completely wrong' about how rankings work. I have already stated that I don not know anything about what ranking system TAFN use. Evidently it is complete rubbish. Thank you for pointing it out

I use All Athletics as they are the official statisticians of the IAAF Diamond League amongst many other high quality meets. They calculate rank according to the IAAF scoring tables of athletics. It is a mathematical method not based on opinion or votes. I find it gives a much fairer representation of an athlete's season

You will still tell me I am wrong but thats my opinion on the matter

A link to the current women's 1500m rankings according to AA. Note they have not yet been updated to include the results from Brussels:

http://www.all-athletics.com/en-us/current-rankings?arg1=28

Simple mistake. But the rankings that most everyone uses, and the rankings being talked about here, are the TFN Rankings.

fix your post wrote:

Impressive? Yes. More impressive? Yes also.

World Champion= Best in world on that one day

Ranked World No. 1= Consistently the best in the world throughout the entire year.

Lets see? One Day vs Whole Year? Which is more impressive?

World Champion - demonstrated superiority on the one day that all agree is the THE day.

Ranked World No. 1 - subjectively chosen based on no fixed criteria.

Hmmmm...Let me guess. You were always a great time trialer, no?

unholy cumulus wrote:

Who the F is PattySue Plumer??

You need to turn in your Man Card if you don't know PSP.

Morgan Uceny had a great season, but there was definitely something off with this season 1500m for women.

No woman went sub4 this year? That is weak.

unholy cumulus wrote:

Not to be that guy wrote:

Lets retool this to another sport -

Being ranked the number 1 collegiate basketball team that loses the national title (Uceny), or winning the national title being unranked (Simpson). Which is more impressive?

That's different. To win the tournament, you need to win 6 games in a row. Worlds is only one race (not counting prelims, where winning is not necessary).

Who the F is PattySue Plumer??

Its not really that different. You have to advance in prelims and finals at the US champs, then prelims and win the final at the worlds. Yeah, you don't have to win every one, but you definitely have to be up there. Just saying. It really isn't that bad of an analogy. Nobody cares in basketball or whatever sport who wont he regular season. Everyone cares about the playoffs, or the championship game.