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
110m hurdles: 17.93
Pole vault: 3.68
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