Rafał Snoch

@Sonnemann,Gunther

Thank you, Gunther. This is a very good suggestion.
I have prepared a full table showing the approximate equivalent performances at every 100-point level from 1200 down to 100. I have sent it to Janek so that it can be added to the article.

@SSteele

Thank you for this fascinating historical perspective, especially from someone who competed under the 1962 tables. I fully agree that the aim should not be to replace the current advantage of one athlete profile with domination by another. FDM is intended to reward comparable levels of performance and comparable differences between athletes more equally across all ten events.

At the same time, strong throwing performances can still contribute decisively to victory. At the 2007 World Championships in Osaka, Maurice Smith becomes the winner under FDM. He gains substantially through the shot put and discus, although Roman Šebrle clearly wins the javelin. Smith’s advantages in the sprint events are also rewarded more strongly, while both athletes cleared 4.80 m in the pole vault.

Your comment, together with Thomas’s question, has inspired me to prepare a more detailed event-by-event analysis. If Janek gives it the green light, I hope to publish it here as a follow-up article soon.

@Thomas,

thank you for this very good question.

The statement about throws, jumps and running events describes only the general direction of the changes. FDM does not calibrate these events as three groups. Each of the ten events is analysed separately.

Mayer gains in the throwing events, but loses part of the advantage awarded by the official tables in the pole vault. Eaton and Warner also gain from their exceptional 400 m and 110 m hurdles performances, where the official point differences are relatively flat.

I think this deserves a full event-by-event comparison rather than a very long comment. I plan to explore it in the next article, together with the 2007 World Championships in Osaka, where Maurice Smith becomes the winner under FDM.