New topic

Defects of the IAAF table point in 1985

Latest post: Sonnemann,Gunther, Nov 17, 2012
Viewed 3229 times
Posted: Oct 26, 2012
I am a German Decathlon fan. For a long time the points system of the decathlon interests me.
I have discovered some mistakes in the IAAF table point of Dr.Trkal.
12,88 s more than 110 m hurdles are not better than 8,25 m in the long jump ? Both performances receive to IAAF immediately many points.
Or: 12,88 s more than 110 m hurdles are not better than 62,01 m in the discus throw ?
Or: 9,77 s more than 100 m are not better than 20,87 min the shot put ?
This mistakes exist about the factors of WMA also in the Master-evaluation.
In M 45 one must run , for example ,for the European-Record of 62,62 m in the discus throw 9,46 s see through 100m .
This is of course a nonsense.
One should rework the IAAF table points. of 1985.
If they excuse my bad one in English.
My e-mail adress : blob4@freenet.de
IP: 77.186.6...
Posted: Nov 02, 2012
Hey, this topics is not so new....
Well, let's keep in mind we are NOT comparing results of top athletes in separate events here, but results of multi-eventers.
So, we have to consider at first, which results are expected from average man in decathlon, which from top ''decathlonists'' and what would it take for average ones to achieve mentioned top level results.
From this point of view, maybe 20 meters in SP are under-evaluated, not in contrary? Which results you could expect from 20 meter shot-putter in other events and how much would he score? Which would be results and scores of 13.00 hurdlers?
IP: 82.131.6...
Posted: Nov 03, 2012
Hallo enn,
The fair combined event score is a difficult subject. If top performances are wrong valued,the point scores are also not right in the combined event area.With the IAAF -table in 1985 average efficiencies of the world-best combiner with 200 points are valued differently.
I criticise not only,but have worked on the subject myself. To read in :
http://www.leichtathletikimwandelmitnbl-site.de
or simply : http://www.nbl-methode sonnemann
Especially the english version in III.
With me are :
20 m SP = 10,18 s ( 9,98 s ) 100 m / 45,30 s ( 44,23 s ) 400 m /
13,45 s ( 13,05 s ) 110m H.
13,00 s hurdles = 22,40 m (20,13 m ) SP. / 71,50 m ( 61,26 m ) discus /
6,02 m ( 5,63 m ) PV
In clip = achievment of IAAF-1985
best regards Gunther
IP: 77.186.7...
Posted: Nov 09, 2012
So, if 13,00 in hurdles =22,40 in SP, then 13,05 could be approximately 22,00?
Thus 0,4 sec hurdles = a bit more than 2 meters in SP at this level....
13,85 -> 18,00; 14,25 -> 16.00; 14,65 -> 14,00; 15,05 -> 12,00
It's linear and not precise, but the principle remains.... so I have doubts.
It could have some sense in comparing hurdlers with shot-putters (even then the step is too much), but not in decathlon

As I tried to explain my point of view, comparing multi-eventers with "specialists" is not a good idea. So we must have different table sets.
IP: 88.196.7...
Posted: Nov 09, 2012
Hello enn,
Thanks for your answer. It is difficult to explain the subject here completely.
Fact is: there are so many scoring tables internationally and nationwide, this is already a proof enough which is ( up to now ) no table without coarse mistakes.
Whichn is why I abolish the differentiation decathlon/specialists, I have explained on my website under II./E7 .
Maybe you can read it into German?
Briefly : Sprint / jump-athletes are better put by the composition decathlon,therefore the level of the throw performances is lower.
However, this must also appear in the points. If average decathlon peformances were equally good, why they do not get than to IAAF the same score ?
The average 20 best decathlon-athletes 1999+2005 is :
10,84(897points)/7,50(935)/15,22(803)/2,05(850)/48,83(869)/14,35(930)/
47,31(815)/4,92(886)/63,94(797).
Difference to IAAF = 138 points.
This is in such a way as if 11,00 sec. =861 p. = 13,91 m shot put ( 723 p.)
The row in the comparison hurdles/shot put goes after my NBL-method in such a way :
13,45 s=20,20m / 13,85 = 18,70 / 14,25 = 17,45 / 14,65 = 16,40 / 15,05 = 15,48 m.
The most importend one remains: the performance-point-equivalence in all performance areas must be right.
Therefore, please, the table to NBL in 100-him to point steps in II./D7.2 red (pdf)
And the concrete comparsionof a combined event in I./N.2/5 , pdf-A 1932 , such .. NOOL / Eaton , ewige WBL.
best regards Gunther
IP: 77.186.1...
Posted: Nov 09, 2012
Hello enn,
Thanks for your answer. It is difficult to explain the subject here completely.
Fact is: there are so many scoring tables internationally and nationwide, this is already a proof enough which is ( up to now ) no table without coarse mistakes.
Whichn is why I abolish the differentiation decathlon/specialists, I have explained on my website under II./E7 .
Maybe you can read it into German?
Briefly : Sprint / jump-athletes are better put by the composition decathlon,therefore the level of the throw performances is lower.
However, this must also appear in the points. If average decathlon peformances were equally good, why they do not get than to IAAF the same score ?
The average 20 best decathlon-athletes 1999+2005 is :
10,84(897points)/7,50(935)/15,22(803)/2,05(850)/48,83(869)/14,35(930)/
47,31(815)/4,92(886)/63,94(797).
Difference to IAAF = 138 points.
This is in such a way as if 11,00 sec. =861 p. = 13,91 m shot put ( 723 p.)
The row in the comparison hurdles/shot put goes after my NBL-method in such a way :
13,45 s=20,20m / 13,85 = 18,70 / 14,25 = 17,45 / 14,65 = 16,40 / 15,05 = 15,48 m.
The most importend one remains: the performance-point-equivalence in all performance areas must be right.
Therefore, please, the table to NBL in 100-him to point steps in II./D7.2 red (pdf)
And the concrete comparsionof a combined event in I./N.2/5 , pdf-A 1932 , such .. NOOL / Eaton , ewige WBL.
best regards Gunther
IP: 77.186.1...
Posts from the same IP: Sonnemann,Gunther
Posted: Nov 09, 2012
Hi

“As I tried to explain my point of view, comparing multi-eventers with "specialists" is not a good idea. So we must have different table sets”


I do agree with “comparing multi-eventers with "specialists" is not a good idea” however I slightly disagree with having different table’s sets.

Let me explain

1) Multi-eventers don’t compete against specialist during Decathlon competitions (however time to time situation above occurs due some pole-vaulters, long jumpers etc… participating in decathlon such as Tim Lobinger (6m pole-vaulter ) or Peter Blank who had poor running events, average/ good jumping events and totally outstanding javelin(79.80m)

2) At the end of the day Decathletes competing against other Decathletes, also competing against their own best performances/ records which being converted into points

3) Recent tables are pretty stable for the past decade or two, obviously we can see already some trends and anomalies where decathletes have high performances in sprints and jump events and not so good in throws due specific physique and abilities required for the throw events. It is much easier for the decathlete to run 100m in 11.4 or 15,6 in 110m hurdles and to jump in long jump 6.80m then throw 62m in javelin, 14.7 in shot and 45m in discus.

And maybe developing tables based on past performances would be best idea. What I meant, we have got an access to best 100/200 performances from every year for the past 20 years and setting up average based on those performances would be quite faire, tables then would be designed around decathletes past performances not specialists,

Kind regards
wermouth
IP: 149.241....
Posted: Nov 10, 2012
once again :
By my score what is worth a performance I abolish the separation decathlon / specialists.
Statistical performance equivalences from both areas are used to develop the point formulae discipline.
See leading points in II/D.7.1 and formulae evolution in II/D.7.3
IP: 77.12.11...
Posted: Nov 12, 2012
Hello, Vermouth!

However, although you disagree with having different tables, you seemingly prove the contrary in point 3 in you statement.
Unless you think multi-eventers getting lower points in throws is what is normal.

And this:
"And maybe developing tables based on past performances would be best idea. What I meant, we have got an access to best 100/200 performances from every year for the past 20 years and setting up average based on those performances would be quite faire, tables then would be designed around decathletes past performances not specialists"
is seemingly pro different tables too

But changing tables on regular basis (every year) would make our life too complicated, don't you think ?

Enn
IP: 88.196.7...
Posts from the same IP: enn
Posted: Nov 12, 2012
Hello enn,
Nevertheless,it is important that only performances get the same score which are equally good in quality.
Average efficienties of decathlonis not always are it also.Also specialist performances are not always equally good. Therefore, I take from all performance areas of decathlonis and specialists statistical values.( II./D.7.1 )
My point formulae illustrate all clues well.
Say´s where is my data-table not satisfactory in II./D.7.2 ?
best regards Gunther.
IP: 77.185....
Posted: Nov 13, 2012
Dear enn

“However, although you disagree with having different tables, you seemingly prove the contrary in point 3 in you statement”
So?
Is there anything wrong with that?

For those three reasons I think tables should stay at least for now, until more statistically balanced tables are developed, based on bigger number of performances and not only 20

“Unless you think multi-eventers getting lower points in throws is what is normal”

Normal?
It shouldn’t be

Decathlon should be balance event and not only speed related
“But changing tables on regular basis (every year) would make our life too complicated, don't you think”

Is someone mentioned changing tables every year at any above opinions, NOT.

So I don’t know where you got that from, unless you read totally different Forum

kind regards
wermouth
IP: 149.241...
Posted: Nov 15, 2012
Hello again, Vermouth!

"“However, although you disagree with having different tables, you seemingly prove the contrary in point 3 in you statement”
So?
Is there anything wrong with that?"



By me is wrong, that you actually agree, while said you do not agree



"Decathlon should be balance event and not only speed related"


Fully agree, was it not clear of my statements? Here is one little complication anyway (as it is clear from Günther's post too), it seems there could be different points of view, which tables ARE or WILL BE actually balanced. Who is able to say which results are EQUALLY GOOD for MULTI-EVENTERS? I think one way, Günther in other..... And let's not forget, after some 10 or 20 years the situation could be somehow different from today .


" “But changing tables on regular basis (every year) would make our life too complicated, don't you think”

Is someone mentioned changing tables every year at any above opinions, NOT.

So I don’t know where you got that from, unless you read totally different Forum"


Well, I simply considered these "past 20 years" will be different every next year (last will drop out, current will be added) and for my little brain it was obviously too hard to understand WHY you mentioned this exact number.


Best wishes
Enn
IP: 88.196.7...
Posts from the same IP: enn
Posted: Nov 16, 2012
hello enn,
Every appraisal remains subjective, of course anyhow.
However,these are 12,88 about hurdles better than 62,01 m in discus throw, or 1,52 m shot put worse than 81,22 s more than 400 m , everybody knows.
This should be put down, because, otherwise also the middle performance areas are not right.
Now thus every 3 rd championship on the first 3 places is actually wrong !
It needed only one right table for combined events / rankings 7 master multi-eventers give.
best regards Gunther
IP: 77.186.1...
Posted: Nov 17, 2012
Dear enn
Please do not skip lines or words otherwise you’ll create unnecessary mess.

“By me is wrong, that you actually agree, while said you do not agree”
Please can you read carefully,

“I do agree with “comparing multi-eventers with "specialists" is not a good idea” however I slightly disagree with having different table’s sets”

And it doesn’t have to be 20, it can be any number of years (why not from 1976) as long as the data is sufficient to produce reliable value/ number of points for the certain result, more information’s/ data you have more reliable, valuable and accurate information’s you can obtain (that’s just from statistical point of view)

And they don’t have to be “last will drop out, current will be added” because it would work as the same as current IAAF individual scoring points tables or Decathlon tables,
“Who is able to say which results are EQUALLY GOOD for MULTI-EVENTERS” you can do that via Statistics using data analysis, Correlations, Associations, etc…
What's so difficult to understand?

Kind regards
wermouth
IP: 149.241....
Posted: Nov 17, 2012
Hello Wermouth,
may I answer to you a little bit in addition ?
To find achivment equivalences from multi-eventers and specialists is not the gravity.
It is more difficulty to illustrate this knowledge with a mathematical formula. The formula of IAAF are only fairly good in the area 8000 points.
The evaluation Dr.Spiriev for rankings is only for top performances.
Only because there is up to now no formula which illustrates all performance areas well, there are so many point tables.
best regards Gunther
IP: 77.186.7...

Reply
Your rights:
Viewing: allowed
Posting: denied (allowed for registered users only)