New topic

After Beijing

1 2 
1-20 / 29
Latest post: Hannu, Feb 08, 2009
Viewed 3321 times

NB! Topic is locked

Posted: Aug 26, 2008
Hi, guys, I´m a bit disappointed about decathlon´s numbers in Beijing. Clay is very far from the rest of the athletes, and its acting in Beijing was superb in nine events, but I don´t like to see that year after year, 1500 metres is not important (less each year) for the big champions. I still remind of Daley thompson intending to break the world record in LA84, below 4:35 in 1500 minutes: he didn´t succed, and he was considered a mediocre runner in that event. More than twenty years ago, the olimpyc champion is over 5 minutes, and the scoring table is, in my opinion, the guilty, because he could run till 6 minutes for going on as champion. The actual tables are forgeting one of the characteristics of a complete athlete: endurance.

And second question, after my deception with Clay´s 1500, I recognise he still goes on in the tradition of americans like O´Brien, Jenner or Johnson, he´s young to get more victories. But, to get the fourth position in an Olympic championship with 8300 points is really bad. I don´t want to be nostalgic, but in the eighties you would have Daley, the three occidental Germans (Hingsen, Wentz, Guido), one or two of the other Germany (Freimuth, Voss, Schenk, Pottel), and also some Russians and French. The level of the decathlon at the moment is not good. Sebrle (chapeau his career) is at the end, and we cannot expect much more from Drozdov, Smith, Sysoyev, Karpov or Pogorelov: 8600 is an unaffordable barrier for them. Papas or Macey close to retirement.



My only expectations could be about three guys growing firmly in the next two years: Krauchanka, Hardee and the Cuban Leonel, but I still remember the big impression of Busemann in Atlanta, no to be continued in next years.



I don´t know, I would like more opinions to be shared with mine,
Posted: Aug 28, 2008
Pablo,

I am sorry to say but you are sadly wrong the decathlon is not an endurance event unless you are talking speed endurance. Also that is one event of the ten. One more thing I can not believe you are comparing this field of athletes that had so many guys injured or no height that you could hardly compare to the other years. I also can not believe you brought the Germans up because everyone knows those guys were using the juice back in the day.

I have no idea what you were trying to say about Jenner and Johnson who were great at the 1500. One thing you are also forgetting is that when Clay has to run he runs just like in the 2004 Olympics where he ran 4:41.

Also it is disturbing to me how people get on here and bash people for not being able to run the 1500. Why don't you go bash guys for running 11.20 in the 100. It makes me very angry that people point and pic on a guy when yes everyone knows that is his weak event and even when he does not have to run. Another thing he does not have to run the 1500 just to please someone else if he wants to run 6:00 then that is fine who cares as long as the guy wins.

Posted: Aug 28, 2008
I think that decathlon this year was a battle for 2nd, 3rd and 4th place...

First place was known from the begining, because Andrei couldn't compete with Clay. So, he concentrate and focused to folow Suarez until the end....

Maybe, if Clay was at the road to 8700pt. maybe the whole Olympic Decathlon would be different.

First day was rainy, and the weather was bad, so it took them at less 150pt.


I had WCC for Juniors this year, and I was 3rd. I scored 7663 because I didn't took the risk for better results second day. I knew that I don't have a chance so I did my best without any risks.So the point is that, If I had a bigger chance there maybe I would score 7750pt. for gold, but I didn't!


P.S. It was on Clay to chose will he run a race for 4.45.00 or 5.45.00 because I think that he wanted to break USA record, and he saw that he is far behind.


Mihail Dudas


Bye


Posted: Aug 28, 2008
Calling this year's Olympic Decathlon disappointing is crazy. Even by way of a tight competition (2-4th) it had all the drama of the best decathlons, and did come down to the 1500m. Just because Bryan did not have to run a PB for the gold is no reason to get down on him.


The fact that Clay scored nearly 8800 points, despite headwinds, rain, a long jump competition where a significant percentage of total jumps were slips/fouls - is nothing short of incredible. Better than his performance in bad conditions in Helsinki, and definitely better than similar scores in meets set up purely for the decathlon.


Of course, we'd all have loved to see Bryan run a 4:26 and break the WR... But, when Bryan breaks the record, I would guess it will be in a contest where he only has to run 5:00 to do it.


Imagine Bryan deciding to go for a WR, needing a 4:26 or so. He goes out in 68 seconds, 800 in 2:19, 1200 in 3:30 and cramps up and is forced to walk/crawl across the finish line, possibly losing his gold medal. Taking it easy was a smart strategic play in a meet where the medal is the only thing that matters.


Consider the fact that in Beijing, he only had 1 PB (shot put by only 2 cm), similar to Eugene where he scored 8832 with no PBs. The man is unbelievable, and has not put himself in the record books as among the best 3-5 in history.


BJ makes a great point that nobody gets down on other guys for 11.2 100m, or a 13m SP or a 45m discus or 55m javelin, etc. Nobody is going to be a rock star in all 10 events. Guys who are solid at all of them are never good enough in enough individual events to muster a huge score.


The issue of scoring tables is worth exploring, and has had some healthy discussion over the past few years. Even with proposed scoring table changes, however, Clay is still the best in the world today.
Posted: Aug 28, 2008
I have to say I also disagree with your opinion.

Although I might be a little too young to judge – but I think it’s not really appropriate to compare today’s results in the decathlon, or also other athletics disciplines to the results of the 80s. I might be a little prejudiced there, but not everything was done right at that time. So I’m rather glad that results in the decathlon are not exceeding our expectations as in other disciplines at the moment.

As to Beijing: the conditions, especially on the first day, were really difficult. When I turned on the TV and saw the rain I didn’t expect very much from the whole competition. So I was positively surprised by the results of the 100m – Bryan Clay running a 10.44 in this weather is just great. The long jump results were okay, but I think many athletes lost some points there, due to the conditions. The second day in contrast was, for the decathletes, almost too warm - so I think running the 1500s in that kind of weather is difficult in general, especially if you don’t like it very much anyway.

The long distance just is Clay’s weakness – and actually it would be pretty boring to have an athlete without any weakness. It just looks very bad if he’s running behind all the time, especially as it’s the last discipline and you just expect more. If he only had a javelin throw of 58 metres for example, which would also lose him a lot of points, it wouldn’t look that bad at all and less people would complain about it. Instead of blaming him for his weak 1500s, everybody should rather appreciate his other results.

As for the results on the places behind Clay: after some research I see that they are about the same level as those of the 80s Olympics – e.g. in 1984 Kratschmer was on 4th place with 8357 points. So I can’t really see the huge problem there. And 14 athletes with a score over 8000 is pretty good in my opinion, again concerning the competitions and the dropout of some, who would certainly have been able to score a good results like Pappas, Karpov, Hardee or Sysoyev (mere speculation of course). And you also need to see the achievements of Krauchanka and Suarez – they are both still really young, they delivered a great 1500m race for the second place and the final score of >8500 points is great in my opinion.


Best wishes,

Jessica
Posted: Aug 28, 2008
One more quick stat 13 guys over 8100 the highest total ever in Olympic decathlon history I would say the field was pretty stacked.
Posted: Aug 28, 2008
sorry to disappoint you there - but the 1996 Atlanta decathlon was even more impressive concerning the scores - with 19 athletes exceeding 8100 points. though i'm definitely not trying to make this year's field look bad
Posted: Aug 29, 2008
People,

Decathlon was very good this year,my girl and I were watching it for 2 whole nights so...It doesnt matter what score it was, it matter how some positions where given.

Posted: Aug 29, 2008
My mistake please forgive I mus have completely skipped that one.

However it is very hard to compare to the other years because of the scoring table difference along with the jav rule change.


I also would like to know what is meant by saying that about changing the scoring tables. I think they are great the way they are right now.
Posted: Aug 29, 2008
I respect everybodies onpion, but in my opinion I think they need to change the way they note or give points on the 1500m, it is not fair that one runs it in 4:30 and one runs it in 5:05 and they still get pretty close points on that, a lot of people even not runners can run 5 mins in 1500m, but not anyone can jump over 220 cm in high jump or 13:30 in 110mh, do u know what I mean, so yeah, I wish they look it up more and come up with a good result. thx everyone, sorry for the terruble English.
Posted: Aug 30, 2008
that is almost a 200 point difference i don't know how much different you would like it.

if you change that table then you need to change the jav table the disc and shot table as well.

Posted: Aug 30, 2008
exactly - the 1500s can make a huge difference - look at Pogorelov who was tied in 3rd place with Suarez before the running but fell behind with almost 200 points. Clay doesn't have to put more effort into his running than he's already doing because of his performance in the other events, giving him a huge lead.

If you really think about changing the tables I think it should also be the shot or the discus, which give few points compared to others in my opinion. But actually I don't see the whole point there about changing anything..
Posted: Aug 30, 2008
Sorry but,


I think that everything should stay as it is, because in 1500m 1 sec is about 6-8 points,so believe me 10 sec is 70pt and 20sec is 140pt. and that is about 10m in javelin so...

We had Attila from Hungaria, I don't know which year winning the bronze medal, was that in Athens or somewhere, by running much better than Russian decathlete.

In WCC for Juniors this year, near the victory for gold was Mihan Eduard that run 17,35 sec better than Jan Felix Knobel...and still he was 2pt. behind him after the last event.And If I wanted to beat this 2 guys i would have to run at least 27 second better than Mikhan, and about 44sec better than Felix, so...


TABLES ARE TABLES...good or bad the law is the law no matter everything,


Mihail :C
Posted: Sep 10, 2008
hello, again, happy about all the contributions to my email, really interesting all of you, but please, don´t be so hard with me ("sadly wrong" or "crazy"), it´s only my opinion, I mean I´m not trainer or decathlete but I´ve loved decathlon from I was a child in the eighties, reading lots of things about. First of all, BJ, I´m sorry if I´ve not explained myself right about endurance, I´m Spaniard, so English is my second language: what I wanted to tell it´s that a decathlete must be the most complete athlete in the track and nowadays the actual score tables are very unballanced, in favour of jumps and sprints, and we are forgetting that a complete superathlete (as Clay, of course, no doubt) must have also endurance (or speed endurance, BJ, I´m sorry).


Clay is in a very similar level to Thompson or O´Brien in most of the events, but sadly, 1500 has no impact in scoring tables, so he doesn´t mind to have a BAD time in that last event. Worse than usual O´Brien, and of course, much worse than average Thompson, Hingsen or Jenner.


One of you, guys, samir, was telling something similar to me. With the scoring table of this great web, 5.05, 1500´s time of Clay in Beijing, was 531 points.


Well you can get that amount of points with:

100 m: 12.64

Long jump: 5.74 (I jumped that when I was 15)

Shot put: 10.75

High jump: 1.68

400m: 56.70

110m hurdles: 17.93

Discus: 33.35

Pole vault: 3.68

Javelin: 46.00



anyone of those numbers are really low, but they get t you the same amount of points than Clay´s core. It´s not Clay´s fault, it´s about the scoring table not rightly ballanced. In my opinion, I´m sorry, BJ and Matt and Jessica, Clay is playing fine, focusing to the most profitable events in the scoring table.


Well, I would like to listen more opinions, ciao

Pablo
Posted: Sep 11, 2008
I am still having a hard time understanding what everyone is saying about the scoring tables. Are you saying that you would have 5:06 count for less points than it counts for now or what I am not sure please explain.

I have a question for everyone what is harder to do? run 10.4 in the 100 or under 4:30 in the 1500? I know that sounds like a crazy question but I would like to hear everyones opinion I have still not made my mind up on which is harder. keep in mind this would be for a decathlete!
Posted: Sep 11, 2008
But I wouldn’t say Clay is „choosing“ the 1500m as his bad or weak event because it gets you few points, but because he is just not the endurance type. And I suppose he could have run a little faster, it’s just that he didn’t have to. You could also blame Erki Nool then for choosing the pole vault as his strong disciplines, because it awards a lot of points. I think it’s a general trend to have an average 1500m time. I haven’t looked that up, but it feels like 1500m times 20 years ago were a little better than nowadays overall– it’s only few athletes now that run constantly 4:20. It seems everybody’s concentrating more on speed and strength, and that just makes your endurance go down.


I must admit your numbers giving the results needed to score 530 points have shocked me a little. Probably I can understand this whole discussion about changing the tables a little better. I suppose you mean that instead of getting about 30 points less for running 5 seconds slower than someone else you should get let’s say 50 points less. So this event could make a bigger difference overall. Well, I can see the point, but I still think it should stay as it is. First of all it would mean that it would be more difficult to compare previous results to new ones. And then it would mean that you could do simply great in 9 events like Clay does and everything could be taken away from you just because of this one last event, I don’t know, but that would feel a little unfair for me (just my personal opinion..)


@BJ: in general I’d say running 10.4 in the 100 (that’s about the time our top-sprinters in Germany can run at the moment…). But imagining having 2 days of competition behind me, probably also in difficult weather conditions, I’d consider it very difficult to run a 4:30 in the last race. I’d be happy just to get through the race and finish it.

Posted: Sep 12, 2008
I agree with you jessica and this is what i said in an earlier statement.

lets say you change the 1500 tables and when you run 4:37 instead of getting 700 points you get 750 while the guy who ran 4:53 gets 600 points now we should only give him 550 points.

if you do this then you should also change the 100 say when Clay beats a guy in the 100 by .80 seconds how do you justify he only beats him by 183 points

i think if you beat a guy by .80 in the 100 it is way more impressive than beating someone by 20 seconds in the 1500


however this is just my opinion i would like to hear others.
Posted: Sep 12, 2008
BJ - to 2 of your questions:


1 - What is harder - 10.4 or 4:30? I'd say 10.4 is a lot harder, as it is contingent upon the genetic makeup you're born with. I could never run a 10.4, regardless of how long or hard I trained for it. However, at 28, and only 1 year of training again (after 6 years off) I can run sub 4:30. Probably most decent athletes could run a 4:30. I would even say that Bryan could run a 4:30 if that's what was needed to win.


2 - Regardinig the scoring tables - See attached link for article by Wim Westera - on the tables. This is what I referred to for revised tables: http://www.athleticscoaching.ca/UserFiles/File/Spo... Science/Theory & Methodology/Combined Events/Decathlon/Westera Redefining the decathlon scoring tables.pdf


The short of it is he proposes creating tables based on event by event averages of the top 100 decathlons of all time, and using decathletes as the benchmark. The notion is that "average" scores on each event (ie event performance average of top 100 decathlons) would be rated equally. The followinig are the average performance of sum of best 100 all time decathlons on current tables: 10.76 7.66 15.47 2.06 48.22 14.23 46.92 4.95 64.46 4:34.12 His proposed changes end up leveling the curve on all the events so that exceptional performance is still rewarded, but that a great discus throw (ie Clay's 55m WR) and a great Long Jump get closer to equal scores. In his model, Dvorak has the top all time score, not Sebrle, and Mike Smith goes from #59 to # 4 or something.


I'm not sayin this model is right, but is definitely food for thought. The sport has evolved in past 25 years, and it may be time for a scoring table re-adjustment.
Posted: Sep 16, 2008
You make an excellent point about genetic make up and that you dont have it to run 10.40. what makes you think that bryan clay has the genetic make up to run a 4:30 or whatever every time he does a decathlon. maybe for a guy like him running 10.40 is easier than running 4:30. or maybe he spends so much of his energy and so much more than the others doing the first 9 events that maybe he has nothing left or maybe it is simply what you said that he does not have to run it.

it is very interesting i love talking about decathlon.

Posted: Sep 17, 2008
i think Matt is quite right about the genetic makeup you need for running a 10.40. most people could practice for years and never reach that time.

as for the 1500 I don't really think you need some specific genetic makeup to run 4:30. probably you need it to run times close to the world's elite over that distance, but not for a 4:30 - like Matt said: with a lot of practice most athletes can beat that time.

I rather think the 1500m times are a little age dependent: many athletes run faster in their youth (note Clay running a 4:38 in Eugene 2001), but when they start building up more muscles, improving in the throwing events for example, their 1500m times goes down.

1 2 
1-20 / 29
Your rights:
Viewing: allowed
Posting: denied (allowed for registered users only)