Middle- and long-distance events at the World Championships 2022

After Tokyo I have started wondering whether D. Brazier, heralded as the new talent of 800 m, was just a shooting star, bright once and then gone. In any case his performance in Eugene is supporting my suspicions. Brazier was eliminated in the heats, together with Hoppel and Dobek (and I must say that I was somewhat disappointed by the elimination of the latter). The semis saw another series of eliminations: Robert, Kramer and Garcia (the last one a real surprise). So the final was going to be a rather tame event but it was made interesting by the finish surge of Sedjati who secured the second place with 1:44.14 just behind Korir (1:43.71) pushing Arop to third and Wanyoni out of the medals. Tual looked in contention for a medal up to the final 20 metres but could not sustain the final sprint and ended at sixth place.

The women's 800 m was a bis repetita of the Tokyo final with Mu and Hodgkinson the protagonists. They finished in the same order Mu 1:56.30, Hodgkinson 1:56.38. Still I have the impression that Mu's victory was more difficult than the one of last year. And Mu was obliged this time to sacrifice the relay medal since the 800 m final was taking place just one hour before the relay. The heats saw the elimination of Almanza. She was followed by Reekie, Lamote and reigning champion Nakaayi in the semis. And of course just as in Tokyo there were no DSD runners polluting the event. (I am looking at you Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wambui).

After his Olympic triumph J. Ingebrigtsen was the favourite of the 1500 m. However it turned out that the race was really fast and when it came to the final sprint he was surprised by J. Wightman and conceded the victory 3:29.23 to 3:29.47. M. Katir was third in 3:29.90 in a race that saw Cheruiyot and Kipsang relegated to the seventh and eighth places respectively. 

Kipyegon confirmed her supremacy over the 1500 m beating roundly Tsegay and Muir. Their times were 3:52.93, 3:54.52 and 3:55.28. I was particularly pleased with the fifth place of S. Ennaoui. She is back after two years of absence and her final sprint is always impressive. There was a small drama in the semis with Sabbatini pushing Nanyondo who fell and could not finish. Sabbatini was subsequently disqualified and Nanyondo was admitted in the final where  she finished eighth.

Ingebrigtsen took his vengeance in the 5000 m, a tactical race where he did not have any trouble to prevail in the sprint 13:09.24 over J. Krop 13:09.98 and O. Chelimo 13:10.20. Cheptegei did participate in the race but he gave the impression that he was not really interested, finishing ninth. Still he was ahead of Barega who could do no better than twelfth. A remarkable presence was that of guatemalan L. Grijalva who finished fourth missing a medal for just 44/100.

The women's 5000 m was also a tactical race. As such it should have been ideal for S. Hassan. However Hassan of 2022 has no relation to the one of 2019 and 2021. So, while she was in contention for a medal up to 4900 m she faded to sixth over the final sprint,  Tsegay winning the race in 14:46.29. Fortunately Niyonsaba could not participate in the championships due to injury. Had she been present and won a medal I would have had a great difficulty containing my anger. On the other hand Semenya did take part and was roundly beaten, exiting at the heats with 15:46.12. Stuart Weir at Runblogrun commented: "Sad more than bad". I confess that I have trouble understanding the game Semenya is playing. Is she trying to convince us that she just likes running and she is doing it in a financially uninterested way? I, for one, am not convinced. 

Hassan in the one with the orange singlet back in 6th

Cheptegei would not be trapped as in the Olympics. He had a total control of the 10000 m race and he won in 27:27.43 ahead of Mburu and Kiplimo. Barega and Aregawi could not get past Cheptegei this time and had to content themselves with fifth and seventh place. Women's 10000 m was won by Gidey in 30:09.94. Hassan took part in the 10000 m but could not finish better than fourth, being beaten in what was her strength, the final sprint. It is remarkable that both Cheptegei and Gidey were more than one minute off their respective world records. 

In the absence of Kipchoge and Jepchrichir I found the two marathons less attractive. Tola, who was second in 2017, won the men's race in 2:05.36 while Abdi was third just as in Tokyo. I was somewhat surprised by the decision of Nageeye, second in Tokyo, to drop off the race after 41 kilometres. He justified this by saying that he was vying for a medal and stoped when he realised that he was not going to get one. He later said that he regretted that decision of his since he will always be accompanied by DNF in the results. Gevreslase won the women's race in 2:18.11 while Salpeter obtained the bronze medal, which will help her forget her Tokyo misfortune. 

El Bakkali won the men's 3000 steeple in 8:25.13, a tactical race that presented no interest whatsoever. Girma was second just as he did in Doha and Tokyo. Olympic and World champion C. Kipruto who had been away from competition in 2020 and 2021 was back on the podium winning the bronze medal. The women's race was dominated by Jeruto in 8:53.02. Yavi was following Jeruto throughout the race and could hope to obtain silver. Unfortunately for her, a stumble after the last river jump allowed the two ethiopians to pass her and she ended up fourth just like in Doha. Unfortunately, the World Record holder and reigning champion B. Chepkoech withdrew from the championships due to an injury and has not been racing the last two months.

That's where Yavi lost the medal

The mixed 4x400 m relay was supposed to be the 20th golden medal for Allyson Felix. Well, they did not count with the fantastic Dominican team with two women 400 m finalists and one man 200 m finalist. Felix' split 50.15 s  was almost two seconds slower than that of Paulino, 48.47 s, and at the end of the second relay the Dominical team was leading. They kept the lead till the end finishing in 3:09.82 while the Dutch team, with a great anchor by F. Bol, 48.95 s, passed the US and almost caught up Cofil who was anchoring the Dominican team. L. Klaver ran two below-50 splits in both the semis and the final which announced that one had to count with her in the individual 400 m race. She is now the best European over the distance and I hope that she'll prove it in the Continental championships. World Athletics has put an end to the relay-composition improvisation. Starting from this year the men and women alternate in that order and I find this an excellent idea.

Felix finally got her 20th gold. At the last moment, in fact after she had left Eugene, she was called back in order to participate in the 4x400 m semis. Thus she was eligible for a medal, provided the team obtained one in the final. Well, they did but this year they could not have the dream team of Tokyo. Mu was running her 800 m final in the same session as the relay and Muhammad felt a discomfort in her hamstring and preferred not to run the relay. Thus the composition was T. Digges (the 2022 US champion), A. Steiner, B. Wilson (the new low-hurdles talent) and S. McLaughlin. They had practically won the race after the first three laps with splits 50.50, 49.99 and 49.39 s. And then McLaughlin ran a 47.91 s anchor giving the US a 3 seconds advance over the second team, Jamaica. The speculation was over: McLaughlin has a value around 48.30-48.40 which puts her at the same level as S. Miller-Uibo. It would be interesting to have the two competing over a 400 m flat but I don't think they will do it. 

The team of Netherland was disqualified in the semis having dropped and retrieved the baton. I had to look up the rules in order to understand what happened, and believe me, they are complicated. 

The men's relay was easily won by the US team in 2:56.17. But the interesting race was behind. D. Borlée passed the baton in second place and, after the relay of J. Watrin, Belgium was in fourth place. They moved to third thanks to A. Doom and the great anchor of K. Borlée did not let the bronze escape. And, in fact Jamaica kept the silver only thanks to a fantastic anchor by C. Taylor. It would be interesting one day to count the medals of the Belgian 4x400 m team. And it's a country with a population of just over 10 million.  

Those of you who are expecting a report on race walking are in for a disappointment. As I explained on several occasions, I consider that race-walking is pure cheating (in the sense that everybody is running, not walking) and I ignore it in my report (even when, as in Eugene, a greek girl finishes fourth in the 35 km race).

Sprint events at the World Championships 2022

F. Kerley was the undisputable favourite for the 100 m dash. And he did win. But, boy, did he make it difficult. The tv commentator was shouting "Bracy, Bracy" up to the very last moment. Anyhow, Kerley, who had opened with 9.79 s in the quarter-finals, won with 9.86 s. Bracy 9.88 and Bromley 9.88 s completed a US-only podium with. Defending champion Coleman was sixth with 10.01, very far from his 9.76 s three years ago in Doha. Is that an effect of  his two-year ban for a doping offence? Olympic champion M. Jacobs participated only in the heats and then dropped out. The semis turned out to be a hecatomb for known sprinters: Y. Blake, DeGrasse, Su, Cissé  but also young talents like Omanyala, African record-holder with 9.77 s, or Tebogo who has the world under-20 record with 9.94 s. 

The women's 100 m was dominated by S.A. Fraser-Price, who ran in 10.67 s. S. Jackson announced what was to come with a superb 10.73 s and E. Thompson-Herah had to settle for bronze in 10.81 s completing an all-jamaican podium. D. Asher-Smith was fourth in 10.83 followed by M. Kambundji 10.91 and M.J. TaLou 10.93 s. The heats saw the elimination of A. DelPonte, who is in not great shape this year. Neita, Swoboda, Ahye and Ahouré (now called Ahouré-Demps) exited in the semis in which Strachan was eliminated in 10.98 s. Women's sprint has reached an impressive level and only the haunted 10.49 s record of Flo-Jo impedes us from fully appreciating the progress. 

Olympic champion DeGrasse did not show up, at the heats of the 200 m. This turned out to be a prudent move which allowed him to be in top shape for the relay. Kerley, feeling the beginning of an injury was out at the semis. I was keeping an eye open for E. Knighton who ran a 19.77 s in the semis. But reigning champion N. Lyles was ahead of him with and he ran an incredible 19.31 s in the final breaking (at long last) the record of M. Johnson with a split 10.15+9.16. Knighton was beaten by Bednarek in the final 19.77 to 19.80 s completing a US-only podium just as in the 100 m. So Knighton suceeds A. Quiñónez who was third in Doha and was regretably shot to death last year. But he is not the only young talent that shone in the World's. A. Ogando was fifth in the final after having run 19.91 s in the semis and he was preceded by J. Fanbulleh who ran in 19.84 s. Given that Lyles is only 25 tears old I expect the 200 m to be most exciting in the coming years (and, who knows, the world record might change owner). 

I thought that tearing one's singlet was seriously frowned upon

Having seen how she ran in the 100 m I had no doubt that S. Jackson was going to dominate the 200 m. And she did. After obtaining 21.67 s in the semis she ran a magnificent 21.45 s (11.04+10.45) in the final. Flo-Jo's record trembled but held. Well, it did this time! Fraser was second in 21.81 and Asher-Smith  third in 22.02 preventing a jamaican medal sweep. In fact Thompson could do no better that seventh. A. Steiner's performance was rather underwhelming: fifth in 22.26 (but she was going to redeem herself in the relays). With DSD-stars C. Mboma absent (but she did run two weeks later in the Commonwealth Games, obtaining bronze) and B. Masilingi exiting in the semis, Africa was represented by A. Seyni who ran in 21.98 s in the heats and finished fourth in the final. (She had participated both in Doha and Tokyo reaching the semis in both ocacsions with a national record into the bargain but, somehow, she did nor draw my attention). 

With S. Gardiner and A. Zambrano (gold and silver in the last World's and Olympîcs) out due to injury, the race was open. Van Niekerk was present hoping to obtain a result better than the one in Tokyo (where he exited in the semis). And indeed he finished fifth with 44.97 s, with intact honour (but one is wondering whether he will manage to return to his pre-injury level). M. Norman did at last grab a major title, winning in 44.29 s. Hudson-Smith was a surprising third in 44.66 s (but 44.38 sin the semis). But, for me, the most important presence was that of K. James who was second in 44.48 s. He is to my eyes the greatest 400 m runner. Since he joined the world elite in 2011 he has accumulated medals of every colour in the World championships and the Olympics. 

With S. EidNaser out of the championships for a doping roundabout violation, S. Miller-Uibo was the indisputable favourite. And she did in fact win in a world leading 49.11 s, ahead of   M. Paulino 49.60. S. Williams, after barely missing final in Doha and Tokyo, was back with a vengeance obtaining the bronze medal in 49.75 s. It was thus a fully Caribbean podium, the three winners being from Bahamas, Dominican Rep. and Barbados. L. Klaver who had still to realise her full potential did it this time, with high colours: she was fourth in 50.33 s breaking Bol's national record. And one more Dominican athlete did make it to the final F. Cofil, sixth in 50.57 s (50.14 s in the semis) which helps explain the gold medal in the mixed relay.

Women's hurdles were the unique events with two world records (in fact, three, but one non-ratifiable due to over-the-limit wind). One expected one of the reigning world or olympic champions, N. Ali and J. Camacho-Quinn, or the world record holder, K. Harrison, to play the major role. But N. Ali had some serious trouble with a hurdle and was out of the race. (In fact she was disqualified because she pushed down the hurdle in the next lane. 

Following this A. Zagré was given a second chance. She had to run alone and was looking as if she was going to make it till she hit a hurdle and her chances evaporated). Meanwhile T. Amusan surprised everybody with a 12.12 s world record in the semis. (Amusan is far from being unknown in the high-hurdle discipline. She was just outside the medals in both Doha and Tokyo). In the final everybody was expecting a clash between Amusan and the other favourites. That was not to be. Amusan dominated the race in an amazing style, one of the best I have even seen, with another world-record time of 12.06 s, a record that cannot be ratified due to a wind speed of 2.5 m/s. Camacho-Quinn had to settle for third behind B. Anderson, while Harrison hit the seventh and eighth hurdles and was out of the race. 

C. Sember was first european with 12.50 s in the semis, Visser mising the final with 12.66 s (the same time as M. Jenneke who is back at elite level). Olympic bronze M. Tapper was out in the semis as well as A. Vargas whom I am following over the years. 

Men's high hurdles offered a unique final with just five runners. Olympic champion H. Parchment got injured and did not show up. Then S. Brathwaite and D. Allen were disqualified for false start (I will come back, in a future post, to the case of Allen's disqualification). Pozzi, Trajkovic, Martinot-Lagarde and Zhoya were out at the semis, and so A. Martínez, bronze medal in 13.17 s was the first european. There were two americans ahead of him: G. Holloway 13.03 and T. Cunningham 13.08 s. 

Before the women's 400 m hurdles final some stupid tv commentator (I have resisted the use of this adjective till now but there are limits to everything) said that to his opinion, if McLaughlin was not in her best form, Bol might beat her. I cannot believe anybody who works in sports can emit such utter nonsense. All the more so since Bol is not in her 2021 form and finished second in 52.23 s (i.e. 0.20 s more than in Tokyo). Anyhow, the race was unfortunately not as spectacular as the Doha or Tokyo ones, Muhammad being somewhat diminished and probably feeling some disconfort (which would prevent her from participating in the relay). Saying that McLaughlin has dominated the race is an understatement. But still it is impressive to see the ease with which she passes the hurdles using either leg for this. Her time 50.68 s sounds incredible given that Muhammad's 52.16 s record in Doha was heralded as revolutionary. Muhammad, for whom I have developped a great respect over the years, was third in 53.13 s.  After missing Tokyo, S. Little was back finishing fourth while in the fifth place I discovered a new talent B. Wilson. (And here one can see the effect of the US Trials, Wilson having run in 53.08 during the trials and managing only 53.72 in the semis, followed by 54.02 s in the final). G. Woodruff was finalist, just as in Tokyo, with a 53.69 s area record. After the race there was incessant speculation as to the real value of McLaughlin over a flat 400 m, her personal best being 50.07 s. The answer was going to be provided in the relay.

Three years ago, in Doha, all five major low-hurdlers were present in the same race. Alas that was the only occasion and a tad too early for A. Dos Santos who was only 19 years old. Warholm won that race, with Benjamin (who did not run for Antigua any more having transfered his allegiance to the US) second, Samba third and McMaster fourth. Dos Santos was seventh in that race. Unfortunateky Samba (who has since changed his name to Alsalek) was absent from Eugene due to injuries, and MacMaster had to withdraw after the heats (but he won the Commonwealth Games two weeks later). This left the final with just three medal contenders and everybody was speculating on the relative positions. Well, to tell the truth, the race was somewhat underwhelming. Dos Santos has progressed to a level that I will not be astonished if, barring an injury, he goes for Warholm's record. What he is technically doing, passing the first three hurdles in 12 strides have never be attempted before, most hurdlers struggling with the 13-stride rhythm. He won easily in 46.29 s, with Benjamin second in 46.89 s. Warholm was into the race up to 300 m and then he let go, finishing seventh. His hamstring tweak combined with the fact that he hasn't run a single race this year took their toll. W. Happio was a nice surprise: he finished fourth in 47.41 s. Has France found the successor of Diagana? Time will tell.

How is it possible to have the three fastest women in the world in the same relay team and still lose? Well, Jamaica went ahead and did just that. The problem was the first relay exchange between Nelson and Thompson. The time lost at that exchange could not be retrieved, despite a fantastic anchor by Jackson with a 9.66 s split. I think that choosing Nelson instead of Wilson, who has more experience, was a serious mistake. Moreover in the semis Nelson anchored the relay and did not have to pass the baton. Anyhow the US team, with two 200 m specialists (Prandini and Steiner), won 41.14 to 41.18 s for Jamaica, Steiner running a 9.86 split (to be compared to Thompson's 10.10 one). Spain was the surprise team finishing fifth while the british team could do no better than sixth following a hamstring injury of Asher-Smith (who still managed to pass the baton. And just  a puzzle for you my readers: how come both the US and the UK obtained a world leading performance, as one can read in the official results? 

The men's relay saw once again the defeat of the US team, admittedly without Kerley. Once more it was a bungled relay exchange, this time between Hall and Bracy who was anchoring. Canada with a faultless relay and an excellent anchor by DeGrasse (8.79 s split) managed to beat the US, 37.48 to 37.55 s. The british team was third in 37.83 s while Jamaica could do not better than fourth. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Just like in last year's report on the Olympics, I will present the 4x400 m together with the middle distance events, despite having presented the 400 m in this article. Don't ask me why, I just decided to cut my report in this way.

Combined events at the World Championships 2022

Usually I start with the report on track events followed by the field ones and combined events come last. This time I am starting with the latter because I have greatly appreciated the fight of two great champions for supremacy. It was not easy. But let us start at the beginning.

The natural favourite for the decathlon was D. Warner. and he started the competition in great shape with 10.27 s in the 100 m followed by 7.87 m in the long jump and an excellent, for him, 14.99 in the shot put. In the latter event he managed to beat K. Mayer who started with acceptable performances 10.62 s and 7.54 m but then threw a below par 14.98 m in the shot put, one cm behind Warner. The new talent I was going to watch, following the advice of the Décapassion authors, was A. Owens-Delerme. He threw 14.97 m, i.e. one cm less than Mayer, after having registered 10.52 s and 7.64 m. The high jump was uneventful. Both Warner and Mayer jumped 2.05 m while Owens-Delerme bowed out after 2.02 m. P. LePage was also into contention having obtained 10.39 s, 7.54 m, 14.83 and 1.99 m. 

And then disaster struck: halfway through the 400 m Warner grabbed his thigh and dropped out of the race. The cards were going to be reshuffled. and to complicate the situation Owens-Delerme ran a 45.07 s, the second best time ever in a decathlon (after Eaton's 45.00) and Puerto-Rican record grabbing the first place in the classification with 4606 points. 

He was followed by LePage with 4485, Ziemek with 4469, Garland with 4413 and Moloney with 4378. Mayer could do no better than 6th with 4372 points and was followed by Skotheim (the 20-year old norwegian who had won the high jump with 2.17 m) and Victor with 4331 and 4326 points respectively. The reigning champion N. Kaul was trailing at the 16 place with 4147 points. 

At that point the tv commentators went crazy and starting talking about the possible victory of Owens-Delerme. Having seen an outsider win in 2019 (Kaul) they believed that a surprise victory was possible. But of course that was because they simply ignored the basic truth that the decathlon is won only after the 1500 m is over. Be that as it may, the second day started in a very special mood. Owens-Delerme remained in first place after the 110 m hurdles having run in 13.88 s but LePage got closer after a 13.78 s result. Mayer remained in the game with 13.92 s. The victim here was Moloney who got injured and while he could participate in the discus he had to drop out of the competition after that.

LePage increased his advance over Mayer and in fact moved to first place after a personal best of 53.26 m in the discus. Mayer threw a so-so 49.44 m while Owens-Delerme disappointed the tv people throwing just 42.36 m. At that point LePage was first with 6427, Owens-Delerme second with 6309, Ziemek third with 6221, Mayer fourth with 6216 points and Victor fifth with 6127. And, fed up by the commentators' speculation, I decided to make a simulation assuming "no disasters" over the remaining events. The result was without appeal: Mayer first, LePage second, Ziemek third and Owens-Delerme fourth. 

Speaking of disasters, one was barely avoided by Mayer: he passed the opening height of 5 m in pole vault at his third try. But once that was over, he found his rhythm finishing with 5.40 m. Ziemek jumped the same height and LePage with 5.00 m kept the first place in the ranking. Owens-Delerme had already slipped down to fourth position after obtaining 4.50 m. And the game was over at the next event. Mayer threw a humongous 70.31 m at the javelin (beating even Kaul who obtained "just" 69.74 m). For Ziemek, who threw a 62.18 m personal best, and LePage, who could do no better 57.52 m, any hope for gold medal disappeared. Victor, throwing 66.20 m, moved to fourth place while Owens-Delerme moved down to sixth due to his 50.98 performance. Meanwhile Kaul had moved up to seventh position.

Both Owens-Delerme and Kaul were going to more upwards after the 1500 m. They ran a sizzling race, with different tactics, Owens-Delerme starting fast and Kaul catching up at the end, obtaining 4:13.02 and 4:13.81 respectively allowing them to move to fourth and sixth respectively. Mayer, going into the 1500 m with more than 100 points of advance, did not have to make any special effort. He ran at a respectable pace finishing in 4:41.44, still ahead of LePage (4:42.77) and Ziemek (4:44.97) who obtained silver and bronze. Victor, with his 4:47.22 performance, moved one place down. So the first six were: Mayer 8816, LePage 8701, Ziemek 8676, Owens-Delerme 8532, Victor 8474 and Kaul 8434. Uibo could do no better than seventh with 8425 points.

Mayer became world champion for the second time in his career (after 2017) and did this in a masterful way. I am curious to see what he can do in the Europeans at the end of August where the stress will not be the same. After all the second european (Kaul) finished almost 400 points behind. Owens-Delerme, putting aside the rant of the tv people, is a great talent. He has to improve the technical events, discus, pole vault and javelin, but once the latter are mastered, 9000 points will be a reasonable objective for him. I will keep an eye on him over the next years. Out of the remaining young athletes the one I am going to look out for is L. Neugebauer. I believe that he is the future (together with Kaul, of course) of the german decathlon school. 

Thiam's quest for a second world title was less gripping than that of Mayer. But the double olympic champion had still to show her grit at the end of the event. She started with a personal best of 13.23 s in the 100 m hurdles and followed it with a 1.95 m high jump and a 15.03 m in the shot put. A. Vetter did even better in the latter with 16.25 m, allowing her to move to second place after her 13.30 s and 1.80 m performances in the preceding events. The reigning world champion K. Johnson-Thompson was present but her presence was a very discreet one: with 13.55 s, 1.83 m, 12.92 m and 23.62 s she was sixth at the end of the first day. N. Thiam, ran the 200 m in 24.39 s and was first, with a good 60 points over Vetter (who ran in 23.73 s). A. Hall moved to third place just 20 points behind Vetter thanks to her excellent 23.08 in the 200 m. World indoor pentathlon gold and silver medalists Vidts and Sulek were following in the reverse order, while olympic bronze medalist E. Oosterwegel was seventh. 

The beginning of the second day was uneventful with Thiam jumping 6.59 m in the long jump, Vetter close behind with a 6.52 m personal best and Hall 6.39 m. Sulek moved temporarily to third thanks to a 6.52 m jump and Oosterwegel slipped to eighth jumping a disappointing 5.95 m. K. Johnson-Thompson was seventh at that stage. She would lose one place due to her meagre 39.18 m in the javelin and could not improve it in the 800 m. Meanwhile Oosterwegel threw and excellent 54.03 m but it was too late and despite her 2:13.97 in the 800 m she could finish only seventh. But the battle was elsewhere. Thiam is a 59+ javelin thrower but has been plagued by elbow injuries these last years. So she had a, still excellent throw, at 53.01 m and, given that after the long jump she had more than 80 points over Vetter, the gold medal appeared decided. But Vetter decided to trouble the water and she threw a huge 58.29 m (which, in fact, is not even her personal best, as she had thrown 59.81 this year in Götzis). And so she entered the last event 19 points ahead of Thiam. Last year, in the Olympics, Vetter was 64 points behind Thiam after the javelin and she did not make any attempt at closing the difference but ran prudently so as to consolidate her silver medal position. One could expect something different this year but now it was Thiam's turn. And she showed that she is indeed a great champion. Although she is not a fan of the 800 m she ran a personal best of 2:13.00 winning in the end 6947 to Vetter's 6867 (who could do only 2:20.09 in the 800 m). A. Hall won the 800 m in 2:06.67 ahead of Sulek (2:07.18) and Vidts (2:08.50) finishing respectively third, fourth and fifth in the final classification with 6755, 6672 and 6559 points. 

One athlete I was looking forward to follow during the championships was US decathlete G. Scantling. He had the world leading score this year with 8867 points, obtained when he won the US championships in May. But Scantling was absent from Eugene. No reason was initially given but the news did slowly filter. Scantling got suspended "for a potential tampering violation that stems from Scantling's conduct during an investigation into his third potential whereabouts failure". I am sure T. Tygart, the CEO of USADA, will explain to everybody that Scantling is a victim, that the real culprits are the Russian, and require harsher sanctions for the latter. 

A brief history of the IAAF/WA scoring tables: The Ulbrich debacle (1962 tables)

As I explained in a previous post on scoring, the tables proposed by Holmer and Jörbecck were not a real success. Their exaggerated progressivity was too much of a good thing. In the meantime it became urgent to provide scoring for women's combined events. Having neglected women's athletics for decades (probably in the hope that they would go away) the IAAF found themselves in dire need of scoring tables for women's events. So, a working group was formed, coordinated by Jörbeck and in 1954 the first official scoring tables for women were proposed. The story of women's combined events and their scoring is one that I told in a recent post of mine. 

In the meantime the necessity for new tables for men was becoming urgent. Jörbeck, who had had some success with the women tables was again at the head of the working group. Several proposals were examined and the one that was adopted was one based on the theories of Dr. Karl Ulbrich. My friend Gerry Purdy in the bibliography of his PhD thesis is summarising the situation. 

I love the sentence "since he stole it from Ulbrich". Those are things that one could say in the 70s, and which are unthinkable now-a-days where the politically correct has dominated our speech and our way of thinking.

But let us go back to Ulbrich. Karl Ulbrich was an Austrian engineer. He was born in 1905 and did his studies at the Vienna University of Technology where he obtained his doctorate on geodesics. He worked from 1928 at the Federal Office for Metrology and Surveying till his retirement in 1970. He passed away in 1987. Ulbrich had a keen interest in athletics (he had been an athlete, running the 110 m hurdles in 17.7 s at the age of 18). In 1950 he published a treatise in the Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalten für Leibenserziehung. Purdy speaks of Ulbrich with deference. Here is what he writes.

In 1959, the IAAF technical committee asked A. Jörbeck to propose a new scoring table to replace the 1952 tables. Between this time and 1962 Jörbeck examined a number of different proposals which were submitted for consideration. Jörbeck filed his report with the IAAF in 1960 and his concluding remarks were:

I have received several proposals for a new scoring table for men. I have tested them all and I have found that many of the proposals do not correspond to the [IAAF] demands. The best of the proposals which I have received is in my opinion that of Dr. Karl Ulbrich. His table is very carefully done and does not differ much from that which is proposed by me. 

And Purdy explains what is really meant by this last sentence. 

For people who are really interested by scoring, Ulbrich's paper is a must. He presented a thorough analysis of the situation. In the introduction he stated that he has been working on the question of scoring since 1936. He made clear from the outset that the quantity in which the tables must be cast for track events is the velocity. And then disaster struck. Ulbrich decided that velocity was the quantity that was determining the performance in field events. This is perfectly true in the sense that the performance is directly related to the square of the velocity (in fact to the kinetic energy the athlete imparts upon his body or the implement). But Ulbrich decided that it was the first power of the velocity that was important and thus proposed a scoring system where the number of points p were related to the square root of the performance x.

Unfortunately this is a major blunder. The consequence of such an assumption is that the tables for all field events are regressive. (I have trouble understanding how Ulbrich reached such an absurd conclusion. The only explanation I can find is that he was more focused on the mathematics of the question and not so on physics. To a physicist, it is clear that the important quantity is the energy).

The tables based on Ulbrich's approach were adopted in 1962. Jörbeck was an adept at obfuscation and it took quite some time for the huge drawback of the tables to become apparent. 

Still, gradually, the athletes (and their coaches) started to realise that when scoring is regressive it becomes counterproductive to try to improve one's performances past one point. At the end of the 70s there was considerable pressure to review the 1962 tables. Already at the end of the 60s a young student in California had decided to take the matter in his hands. But this is a story I will tell in some future post of mine.

All this would have had an academic interest only were it not for the fact that the precipitous change of tables had a collateral victim. C.K. Yang, silver medalist in Rome, was the favourite for the olympic title in Tokyo. But the new, regressive, tebles knocked him out. The final classification was: Holdorf  7887, Aun 7842, Walde 7809, Herman 7787, Yang 7650. Since the detailed, by event, results do exist, I recomputed the scoring with the pre-1962 tables. Here is the new  classification: Holdorf 8119, Yang 7973, Aun and Herman 7957, Walde 7943. So, Yang would have been silver medalist again. And as I pointed out in a previous post of mine, Yang had a catastrophic high jump, clearing just 1.81 m, while his personal best was 2.02 m. Had he jumped 1.92 m (he had jumped 1.90 m in Rome and 1.92 m during his 9121 points world record) he would have obtained more points (always with the pre-1962 tables) that Holdorf. Be that as it may, it's a real pity that one of the best decathletes of all times did not manage to obtain olympic gold due to the irrational decisions of the IAAF areopagus.

PS. People often refer to Ulbich's tables as progressive for track events and regressive for the field ones. This statement is erroneous as far as the first part is concerned. Ulbrich's tables being linear in velocity are neutral (i.e. neither progressive nor regressive) for track events.