This years 'low' standards

[sw17]

Michael Johnson commented on BBC at the weekend about the standards being low this year - citing 400m as an example.
Is this a 'year before the Olympics' phenomenon ; Because the Worlds are late this year ; Or because drug testing is finally having an effect worldwide ?

My guess is people are trying to peak later...

[jjimbojames]

Michael Johnson commented on BBC at the weekend about the standards being low this year - citing 400m as an example.
Is this a 'year before the Olympics' phenomenon ; Because the Worlds are late this year ; Or because drug testing is finally having an effect worldwide ?

My guess is people are trying to peak later...

I'd agree. Top class athletes tend to either earn money on the circuit (Jeter) or focus on the champs (SAFP) - if they're aiming for Daegu, it stands to reason that standards will rise later

MJ seemed very negative, rather than his usual saying it how it is, IMO - given this was his first UK trials, perhaps he was expecting the same as the US Trials, which deliver higher standards (on the whole) because of their first three past the post selection

[LJforlife]

Has a lot to with the olympics next year I no a lot of athletes have taken this year and the end of last year to get there niggles and long term persistent injuries sorted out in preperation to go all guns blazing this winter

[sw17]

Are there stats to back up the low standards befoore each olympics ?

[readtherules]

Michael Johnson commented on BBC at the weekend about the standards being low this year - citing 400m as an example.
Is this a 'year before the Olympics' phenomenon ; Because the Worlds are late this year ; Or because drug testing is finally having an effect worldwide ?

My guess is people are trying to peak later...

You must post this on the doping forum !!
Or is it also idle speculation ?

[sw17]

Why on the doping forum? Its hardly a thread about
drugs. I can't see any speculation there just a couple of questions I thought were a conversation starter.

[readtherules]

Why on the doping forum? Its hardly a thread about
drugs. I can't see any speculation there just a couple of questions I thought were a conversation starter.

Well some might think it is about drugs,intelligent testing etc and low stds .Clearly I would not dare to comment or add speculation even in the form of a conversation starter.

[sw17]

I think you have misunderstood my intention with this post.
I am genuinely asking what the reason might be for 'low' standards.

Hence why I asked if there are any stats that allow us to see if standards drop the year
before an Olympic games. If you suspect/know that it is/is not, something to do with drugs
why not just join in the conversation ?

[readtherules]

I think you have misunderstood my intention with this post.
I am genuinely asking what the reason might be for 'low' standards.

Hence why I asked if there are any stats that allow us to see if standards drop the year
before an Olympic games. If you suspect/know that it is/is not, something to do with drugs
why not just join in the conversation ?

Some might think my contribution is already significant by its absence.

[trickstat]

Without going into actual stats too deeply at the moment I think the general tendency is for standards to rise in Olympic year itself rather than for them to fall in the year preceding the Olympics. It would seem logical that standards will tend to fall in the year two years before (e.g. 2010) as these years have no global championships.

[sidelined]

I think you have misunderstood my intention with this post.
I am genuinely asking what the reason might be for 'low' standards.

Hence why I asked if there are any stats that allow us to see if standards drop the year
before an Olympic games. If you suspect/know that it is/is not, something to do with drugs
why not just join in the conversation ?

sw17, welcome to the forum. You will find that readtherules' comments are not actually direccted at you - he's trying to make a point relating to a few other threads. I suggest you just ignore it.

[nevetssllim]

All events tend to ebb and flow at some points and sometimes events suddenly perk up at the major champs. There are signs the 400m is starting to hot up (four athletes sub-44.85 in Stockholm) and the likes of Kirani James will be running in London on Friday.

I remember the women's 800m was looking in a fairly lukewarm state in 2007 but athletes were running 1:58 in the SF but still failing to make the final.

I suppose it's a mix of both.

[readtherules]

I think you have misunderstood my intention with this post.
I am genuinely asking what the reason might be for 'low' standards.

Hence why I asked if there are any stats that allow us to see if standards drop the year
before an Olympic games. If you suspect/know that it is/is not, something to do with drugs
why not just join in the conversation ?

sw17, welcome to the forum. You will find that readtherules' comments are not actually direccted at you - he's trying to make a point relating to a few other threads. I suggest you just ignore it.

Correct ,but it was a doping post.

[trickstat]

The last complete pre-Olympic year was, of course, 2007 and therefore comparison should be made with 2006 to look for evidence of a drop in standards. Thanks to the annual of The Association of Track & Field Statisticians the 10th and 100th ranked performers in each year can be compared:

Across all Olympic individual events the performance of the 10th ranked athlete was better in 2006 in 20 events, but the 2007 performance was superior in 22 with 1 event having identical performances in each year.

The equivalent figures for the 100th ranked athlete gives just 13 superior marks for 2006 against 27 for 2007 with 3 events identical. I suspect the main reason for this could be that the incentive of a World Championship place motivates athletes who might be considered to be international class rather than world class to try and meet the standards required to make the World Championships which tend to be tougher than those required for selection to European Champs, Commonwealth Games, African Champs, Asian Games etc.

Repeating the process for the previous pre-olympic period with 2002 and 2003 gives a more marked upswing in the pre-Olympic Year:

The 10th ranked performer is superior in 13 events in 2002 against 24 in 2003 with 5 equal.

The figures are also more dramatic for the 100th ranked athlete. Only 9 events have a superior performance in 2002 compared to 31 in 2003 with 2 equal. (note - the overall total of events is 1 lower because of the absence of the women's 3000m S/C)

If it is the case that the world rankings across all events are at a lower level now than they were at the same date last year, it may be something to do with there being a late World Championships this year which encourages the very top level athletes to try and produce their very best form late in the year. Last year for many athletes there was no great incentive to peak at a particular time so maybe more athletes had produced their best performances of the year by now.

There is also the possibility that as Michael Johnson's specialist events are the men's 200 and 400 metres he is making a generalisation about all events largely based on the fact that so far this year these 2 events have been relatively weak.

[jjimbojames]

Don't forget those past stats will include the champs themselves, which are likely to raise standards, as most athletes will be peaking for the champs. We won't be able to do any accurate comparisons until mid-September (other than say world leads four weeks before Osaka)

[hank]

I am not sure it is true that the standard this year is low, not across the board anyway. 400mH and discus have some healthy times posted. They are however massively below expectations just '1 year out from London'.

The standard of our main domestic championship was however IMO down on previous years. There are numerous factors;

I think that the NGB is softer than previous regimes on the need for top stars to turn out in order to get selected. As a result we miss the cutting edge performances that catch the eye.

As the weekend’s event was mainly a 'trials' event (with a UK champs an afterthought), only athletes who really thought they were in with a chance have focused on this event. A national standard athlete does not have this in their schedule in the same way that the AAAs was (far less Kudos). England has also controversially added an England Champs (where AAA trophies are given out) into the calendar just 2 weeks before the trials. The lack of depth (and taper) is due to this. The field is diluted. The public lack enthusiasm for this event – hence the empty new stand.

UKAs selection policy plays a role also IMO. Selection to major games is based on a number of criteria which is heavily weighted towards achieving the A standard (twice). If you are not quite there we have seen in the past it is fruitless trying (I.e. Richard Yates effort last Olympics). These athletes often go back to the drawing board rather than put themselves on the line (lack of depth and competition).

For me, the winning formula is first 3 past the post policy. = athletes bursting a gut (which raises standards), and fascinated fans (full spectator stands). This should be replicated at every competitive level of our sport.

[trickstat]

Don't forget those past stats will include the champs themselves, which are likely to raise standards, as most athletes will be peaking for the champs. We won't be able to do any accurate comparisons until mid-September (other than say world leads four weeks before Osaka)

Good point. This will certainly have some significant effect on the level of performance of the 10th ranked athlete which is probably the statistic most relevant to what people are discussing on here. However, the champs themselves will have almost no impact on the level of the 100th ranked performer. This is manly because very few athletes are going to move into the top 100 for the first time at the champs.

It is also true that in years such as 2010 or 2006 an athlete may produce an outstanding performance at a European Championships or Commonwealth Games that they fail to repeat at a worldwide champs. Many British athletes of course have 2 chances at this although not that many manage to produce top class form at both, this is also true for some other Commonwealth countries that also have a continental champs or games that year.

[hank]

The last complete pre-Olympic year was, of course, 2007 and therefore comparison should be made with 2006 to look for evidence of a drop in standards. Thanks to the annual of The Association of Track & Field Statisticians the 10th and 100th ranked performers in each year can be compared:

Across all Olympic individual events the performance of the 10th ranked athlete was better in 2006 in 20 events, but the 2007 performance was superior in 22 with 1 event having identical performances in each year.

The equivalent figures for the 100th ranked athlete gives just 13 superior marks for 2006 against 27 for 2007 with 3 events identical. I suspect the main reason for this could be that the incentive of a World Championship place motivates athletes who might be considered to be international class rather than world class to try and meet the standards required to make the World Championships which tend to be tougher than those required for selection to European Champs, Commonwealth Games, African Champs, Asian Games etc.

Repeating the process for the previous pre-olympic period with 2002 and 2003 gives a more marked upswing in the pre-Olympic Year:

The 10th ranked performer is superior in 13 events in 2002 against 24 in 2003 with 5 equal.

The figures are also more dramatic for the 100th ranked athlete. Only 9 events have a superior performance in 2002 compared to 31 in 2003 with 2 equal. (note - the overall total of events is 1 lower because of the absence of the women's 3000m S/C)

If it is the case that the world rankings across all events are at a lower level now than they were at the same date last year, it may be something to do with there being a late World Championships this year which encourages the very top level athletes to try and produce their very best form late in the year. Last year for many athletes there was no great incentive to peak at a particular time so maybe more athletes had produced their best performances of the year by now.

There is also the possibility that as Michael Johnson's specialist events are the men's 200 and 400 metres he is making a generalisation about all events largely based on the fact that so far this year these 2 events have been relatively weak.

Hi Trickstat, Summarise what this means for me please.

Is there a trend towards an upturn/downturn in performances in the year before an Olympics?
Is this across for every nation or just the home nation?
Were the performances at the weekend lower/higher than the trend?

[sw17]

Sounds to me as if there isnt any strong evidence to support the argument that pre Olympic years bring performances of a lower standard & anyway, its too early to try to compare like-with-like until the end of the track season.

But thanks for digging those stats out. It was good to get a reply that answered my question without hijacking the thread. Cue reply protesting innocence

[trickstat]

The last complete pre-Olympic year was, of course, 2007 and therefore comparison should be made with 2006 to look for evidence of a drop in standards. Thanks to the annual of The Association of Track & Field Statisticians the 10th and 100th ranked performers in each year can be compared:

Across all Olympic individual events the performance of the 10th ranked athlete was better in 2006 in 20 events, but the 2007 performance was superior in 22 with 1 event having identical performances in each year.

The equivalent figures for the 100th ranked athlete gives just 13 superior marks for 2006 against 27 for 2007 with 3 events identical. I suspect the main reason for this could be that the incentive of a World Championship place motivates athletes who might be considered to be international class rather than world class to try and meet the standards required to make the World Championships which tend to be tougher than those required for selection to European Champs, Commonwealth Games, African Champs, Asian Games etc.

Repeating the process for the previous pre-olympic period with 2002 and 2003 gives a more marked upswing in the pre-Olympic Year:

The 10th ranked performer is superior in 13 events in 2002 against 24 in 2003 with 5 equal.

The figures are also more dramatic for the 100th ranked athlete. Only 9 events have a superior performance in 2002 compared to 31 in 2003 with 2 equal. (note - the overall total of events is 1 lower because of the absence of the women's 3000m S/C)

If it is the case that the world rankings across all events are at a lower level now than they were at the same date last year, it may be something to do with there being a late World Championships this year which encourages the very top level athletes to try and produce their very best form late in the year. Last year for many athletes there was no great incentive to peak at a particular time so maybe more athletes had produced their best performances of the year by now.

There is also the possibility that as Michael Johnson's specialist events are the men's 200 and 400 metres he is making a generalisation about all events largely based on the fact that so far this year these 2 events have been relatively weak.

Hi Trickstat, Summarise what this means for me please.

Is there a trend towards an upturn/downturn in performances in the year before an Olympics?
Is this across for every nation or just the home nation?
Were the performances at the weekend lower/higher than the trend?

Hank
Each in turn:

1) There is a trend towards an upturn in the year before an Olympics. This upturn is greater for the level of the 100th ranked performer than it is for the 10th ranked. However, this upturn may have much more to do with the earlier year in each case (i.e. 2002 & 2006) being the only years in a 4-year cycle that do not have a global championships in rather than the later year being the year before the Olympics.

2) These statistics are taken from the World rankings. Therefore they are global trends and do not necessarily reflect what is happening in every individual nations. As I do not have the relevant figures for Greece or China I can offer no particular analysis for Olympic hosts which is what I presume you are referring to.

3) I presume you are referring to the UK trials. I will not answer this as such because:

a) It is going off-thread and the OP thanked me for not doing so before.
b) If you are referring to trends for host nations I refer you back to my second answer.
c) I am not naive enough to try and draw major statistical conclusions between 2 successive editions of the same championships a year apart when factors such as conditions or whether a good pace was set or not in middle orlong distance races can make such a misleading difference to times and distances achieved.

[mump boy]

If anything i would suspect that the post Olympic year was lower in standards than the pre season

This is based on nothing other than me remebering that 2001 and 2005 WC were of a pretty low standard but this may be complete nonsense

[hank]

This is of interest and gives some background to Michael Johnson’s apathy.

In the 1995 U.S. National Championships (the year before Atlanta) he did the 200m and 400m double, and in doing so became the first person ever to run sub-20 seconds for the 200m and sub-44 seconds for the 400m in the same meet. The following year he broke did the double at the Olympics. The 200m was a WR, not sure the 400m was though from memory.

[trickstat]

This is of interest and gives some background to Michael Johnson’s apathy.

In the 1995 U.S. National Championships (the year before Atlanta) he did the 200m and 400m double, and in doing so became the first person ever to run sub-20 seconds for the 200m and sub-44 seconds for the 400m in the same meet. The following year he broke did the double at the Olympics. The 200m was a WR, not sure the 400m was though from memory.

No the 400 was not a WR, he eventually set that at the 1999 World Champs in Seville.