The Speed Project

A week or so ago I published an article on ultrarunning. A few days before publishing it I stumbled upon a mention of the "speed project" and I thought that it would be a great companion to the ultrarunning one. 

Here I think it's time for a disclosure. When I started publishing this blog I was writing the articles one at a time. Whenever I had time I was publishing a lot but when I was pressed for time, like when I was travelling, keeping the blog alive was becoming a challenge. I soon understood that I could not go on living "hand to mouth". I was going to need reserves. So, I changed my way of working. Whenever I have time, say on week-ends, I am preparing a blog post for future consumption. Sometimes the article in question can lay dormant for months in a row. This is often the case with articles that do not deal with current events but are of a more technical character. In that way I could boost the publication frequency from just over 30 article per year to over 40 and in fact, for 2020 and 2021, to over 50. (The lockdown did help a little). As you may have noticed I make a point of illustrating the posts with images and I try to have an article appear on the first day of the month. 

So the article on Backyard Ultra was written more than a year ago. But its companion on the Speed Project is fresh out of the presses. In fact what pushed me to try to find more about this crazy ultramarathon were the gorgeous images of people running in the desert. 

So what is this all about? It started in 2013 when a bunch of friends decided to run from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, a distance of some 550 km, having to cross some really inhospitable places, like Death Valley. There are no real rules. There is no fixed route (only a prohibition to run on the highways). Thus the more adventurous participants try to find shortcuts that would allow them to save a few minutes. Not everybody is selected for the Speed Project. People usually apply (it's not clear how, since the race does not have a web-site) and then wait for an invitation to arrive. This calls for real motivation, but after all, one cannot embark on such a race without a solid motivation.

The format of the teams allows for a great freedom. The basic one is a 6 person team with 4 men and 2 women. That was the format of the very first race, the OG team. Over the years other formats made their appearance. There are pure feminine teams with 6 female runners. There are solo runners who decide to punish themselves running more than 500 km under the scorching sun. But of course freestyle teams are also allowed (if selected) without limit as to the number of participants. There are no rules for the relays. On can run one time or dozens of times, over 1 km or over 50 km. And nobody knows what is the best strategy (which of course depends on the team composition). 

The race records are impressive. In 2023 an OG team finished the race in under 30 hours, 29 hours and 21 minutes exactly. But what is more impressive is the solo record and it is held by a woman. In 2023 Lucy Scholz covered the 547 km separating Los Angeles to Las Vegas in 84 hours and 45 minutes. Just do the maths, that's more than 6 km per hour (but should be over 10 km/hr when one counts the incompressible amount of time for all bodily functions, sleep being the most time-consuming).

A few years back I wrote about the Spartathlon and the Pheidippides Run. The distance of the latter is not very far from the one of the Speed Project: 490 km from Athens to Sparta and back.  The only difference is that it is held in November and so the athletes do not have to run under the torrid greek sun. Last year the winner, Ivan Zaborski, literally exploded the record covering the distance in 52 hours and 52 minutes, and the second finisher was a woman, Irina Masanova, who also established a new record with 66 hours and 41 minutes. Typically less than 50 % of the participants to the Pheidippides Run manage to complete the race. There are no statistics concerning the Speed Project (in accordance with the deliberately secretive nature of the event) but since it is mainly a team event one expects the majority of the participating teams to complete the course.

Anna Hall did it!

Just two weeks back in my article on Grand Slam Track I was writing about Anna Hall:

[she is] to my opinion the best "young" heptathlete out there, the one that can succeed Thiam, and also the only one that can break N. Debois' legendary 800 m heptathlon record. 

It turned out that my words were prophetic (or simply, I got lucky). 

Competing in the Hypomeeting at Götzis Hall broke the heptathlon world best performance over 800 m. Nadine Debois had established the exceptional performance of 2:01.84 in 1987 during the European Cup of combined events. It had resisted during 38 years despite some worthwhile attacks over the years. The one who came closer was I. Belova, during the 2001 Hypomeeting where she finished in 2:02.06, but Belova had been previously sanctioned for doping, so one does not know what to think about her performance. (I am telling the story of the heptathlon/decathlon 800/1500 m, in my article "Facing the calvary" and one of the rare interviews in this blog is one with N. Debois).

After the end of javelin throw I rushed to find out the performance needed for Hall to break the 7000 points barrier. It was around 2:03, something that was perfectly in her possibilities. But Hall went all out and was rewarded not only with a 7k+ total but also by a new heptathlon 800 m record with 2:01.23. She started the competition with a, slightly below par, 13.19 s in the 100 m hurdles but then exploded in the high jump with 1.95 m personal best, followed by one in the shot put with 14.86 m and finishing the first day with 23.37 s in the 200 m. The long jump was the event where she might have  squandered her chances at 7k. She fouled the first jump and when I saw the second I was afraid that it was a foul too. However it turned out that it was OK with millimetre precision and with 6.44 m she stayed on track. She segued with a personal best of 46.16 m at the javelin and with her superb 800 m she completed her heptathlon with 7032 points on par with C. Kluft, ahead of Thiam and second only to Joyner-Kersee, becoming the fifth woman in history to break the 7000 points barrier.

Behind her S. Dokter and M. Araujo were drawn to great performances, a personal best for the former with 6576 and an area record for the latter with 6475 points.

The Götzis Hypomeeting was also a great competition for the men's decathlon. Perhaps even of higher quality than the women's event with the presence of the best decathletes in the world, the only absence being that of the olympic champion, M. Rooth. (And, no, I am not going to mention Mayer. At this point it is not clear whether a come-back is possible). 

However, if you wish to have an "live" account of the men's event it is best to visit the Décapassion page. My friend, F. Gousset made the trip to Austria, followed the competition in Götzis and brought back plenty of video-clips and photos. So, click on the link, go visit Décapassion (and don't worry if you don't speak french, today's AI tools can make an excellent job at translating). 

And if you are in Paris the week-end of June 14-15 (I'm not: I will be swimming at the Masters Finswimming world championships) you could go watch the Déca Meeting, organised by the Club Athlétique de Montreuil (that's the club of F. and P. Gousset). There is a women's decathlon in the program.

PS And a very detailed analysis of the Götzis competition can now be found on the main site of Décapassion. Don't miss it!

On ultrarunning

Last year I ran across an article in the Big Dog's Backyard Ultra. The term "backyard ultra" was familiar to me, since four years ago I published an article on the "Quarantine Backyard Ultra race". I read the article and I must say that I was impressed. So, I decided to learn more about this crazy event. 

Let's start with the rules.

The athletes run on a loop which must be 6705.6 m long. 

In case you wonder where this crazy measure came from, well, it has, once more, to do with those pesky imperial measures. And, no, the length is not a round number in miles. It was calculated so that 24 repetitions of the loop add exactly to 100 miles. You can now guess where this 24 comes from.

The athletes start at precisely every hour. 

Each loop must be completed within the hour.

The winner is the last person to complete a loop. 

This last point has as a consequence that if nobody can complete an extra loop there is no winner to the event. 

I don't think it can get crazier than this. The participants have to run and run and run till they are unable to go on. And the last one to stand, when all the others have fallen, wins. This sounds like the dance marathons that had flourished during the Great Depression in the 30s. (If you wish to learn more about the dance marathons of the 30s I suggest you read this article. It is more entertaining than the Wikipedia one).

Last year's Backyard Ultra competition resulted in a new record of 450 miles covered in 108 hours.  Just do the maths: 108 hours means 4 and a half days. Without sleeping! 

While perusing the Wikipedia article on the Backyard Ultra I saw a photo of a precursor of ultra races, one Eugene Estoppey who, in 1910, ran one mile per hour for 1000 hours (that's over 40 days). He managed this by sleeping for half an hour at a time although he did not total much more than four hours of sleep every day. He had a respectable personal record of 4:40 on the mile and he ran the first of his hourly miles in 5:35. His completing successfully his endeavour was celebrated by an article in the New York Times. 

From Wikipedia I jumped to the Ultrarunning Magazine and an article on Estoppey by J. Oakes. What attracted my attention was a note at the end of the article with a reference to an older one by P. Lovesey, a historical article on 19th-century running feats. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall. However, the top of the article is visible, as a teaser, and I could read that Ron Grant had just completed a 1000-hour run where he covered 2.5 kilometres every hour.

Is the 1000-hour race the longest one? Apparently, not. The Trans-America footrace is way longer, with runners covering more than 5000 km. The current record is held by Robert Young in 482 hours and 10 minutes, covering 5032 km from California to Maryland. And, in case you were wondering, women are also participating in those crazy events, the record being held by Jennifer Bradley in 720 hours and 27 minutes for 5316 km (where she finished less than one hour behind the winner of the event who holds the record for the San Francisco-Key West race).

Reading all those articles on ultrarunning I must say that I am amazed by the suffering that people are ready to inflict upon themselves. But, still, I find the 100+ hours of sleepless continuous effort mind-boggling. And, I just found out that the record of sleep deprivation is slightly longer than 11 days or almost 19 days, depending on your sources. But this is taking us too far from the scope of this blog so I prefer to stop here and let you hunt down (if you are interested) these sleep deprivation experiments. But, reading them, I am now convinced that we have not yet reached the limit of the backyard ultra performances.

The sit-to-stand test

From time to time I post something motivated by an article I found, dealing with exercise or fitness tests. Recently, I stumbled upon an article about the "sit to stand" test. In my article "Fitness for masters" I had given a battery of tests which included a "sitting-rising" test. But that test consisted in getting down on the ground and getting back up with as small a support from knees and arms as possible. In my article I was pointing out that the test in question was rather tricky. Indeed, its score is based on the appreciation of the person conducting it and, since any support subtracts one point from an initial total of just 10, even small differences in appreciation can result in a big divergence of results. 

When I read about the sit to stand test I realised that it was a much better choice: it is simpler, essentially objective and, despite the appearance, not trivially easy. In fact, I was shocked when, in some related article, I read about a study of a team of Duke University that was mentioning that 2 million persons in the US alone have trouble standing after sitting on a chair. 

So, what is the sit-to-stand test. To put it simply, it measures how many times within 30 seconds one can rise from seated to a standing position. One starts by siting in the middle of the chair. (Of roughly 45 cm height. No armrests!). The arms are crossed with the hands on the opposing shoulders. At the "go" signal one rises to a full standing position and immediately goes back to sitting again. This is repeated for 30 seconds, counting the number one did come to a standing position. (If one must use his arms to stand, the test is interrupted before the end time).

Despite its simplicity the test is a very good indicator of the lower limb muscle strength as well as the overall balance of the individual, according to a comprehensive study of a team of the University of Pusan (Korea). Used on older individuals its a good predictor of the frequency of falls, according to a study of a team of the University of Pennsylvania. It is even a good indicator of mortality risks.  The test is typically performed of senior subjects (but results on young adults and even children do exist). Below is a table with the average scores for subjects of ages from 60 to 95. 

A poor score on the test suggests that the heart may not be functioning well, which entails a higher risk for a heart attack or a stroke. A low score can also be an indication that the person is more prone to falls (which are the leading cause of accidental death and nonfatal injury in older adults). But does this mean that if one scores poorly the game is up? Not at all. Just making sure that one spends less time seated, stands up regularly, goes up and down the stairs can work miracles. Adding some stretching exercise to the daily routine will be most beneficial. And, as in all tests, re-doing regularly the test itself, will have a training effect, resulting in improved performances.

Why I don't like the Grand Slam Track

A few weeks ago I wrote an article on the Grand Slam Track event created by M. Johnson where I was criticising it mainly because I don't appreciate Johnson. But not only. Somehow I could not relate with the formula proposed by the GST. Already in my previous article I had written that I found that the short-lived "Nitro", promoted by U. Bolt, had more variety. And then I stumbled upon a YouTube video by somebody under the nickname of Jumpman and it put to words what I was intuitively feeling.  

Let's take a Diamond League meeting. The main program lasts roughly two hours and comprises around 10 track and 5 field events. The whole duration of the track events does not exceed 30 minutes. So, out of the two hours only a quarter of the time is there something to watch on track. The remaining time is filled by the field events which can be held in parallel and have an additive duration exceeding the two hours. 

So, what happens when you organise an event like the GST? Since there are no field events and there is no way to compress the track events beyond some point (hurdles have to be installed and removed, judges have to move to the various start locations), the "empty" time can be quite long. Jumpman estimates that less than 10 % of the time there is something taking place on the track. So despite the presence of some of the best athletes of the world the competition can at times become boring.

Speaking about the best athletes, one can remark that money is a great incentive. The outdoor season has just started and S. McLaughlin has already raced twice (both over the hurdles and the flat 400 m) while in previous years one had to wait till the US Trials to watch her first competition. In GST, raking 100 k dollars for every win, she is willing to take the risk of starting her season unusually early. 

But of course not everything is bad about GST. Quite the opposite. It's an occasion for great performances like the fabulous 12.17 of M. Russell in the 100 m hurdles. And also the occasion to see some athletes like A. Hall (to my opinion the best "young" heptathlete out there, the one that can succeed Thiam, and also the only one that can break N. Debois' legendary 800 m heptathlon record) that we don't see often enough. (Hall ran the 400 m hurdles in Miami, with 54.43 s at just 0.01 s off her personal best).

Besides Grand Slam Track there is another event organised recently by the great R. Crouser. It is called the World Shot Put Series and was held at the end of April. And, while it comprised just one event, I found the formula more interesting than the one of GST. 

Here is how the WSPS works. Before proceeding I must say that the whole thing is US-centric to a point that it feels gross: measures in feet, referees dressed and using hand signals as in baseball, measures using a chain as in football (the american one) and so on. If Crouser wishes to make his World Series a real international event he must abandon this US-kowtowing rigmarole. But the basic idea is great.

The athletes must throw beyond a fixed mark. They have two attempts at each distance (and one "challenge" to be used once for an extra attempt). Target distances advance by 10 ft (~3 m) increments up to 60 ft (~18 m). (Probably that's where the competition starts at high level). Beyond 60 ft, the increments are of 2 ft (~60 cm) up to 70 ft (~21 m) and beyond this the increments are of just 1 foot. (And there is also a proviso for the tie-breaks). There is nothing in these rules that cannot be made metric. And reducing the increments to 50 an 25 cm will give the athletes the opportunity to "throw more". In fact this is a major appeal of the WSPS formula. While in a "normal" competition an athlete can hope to throw six times, here an athlete starting at 18 m and going to 22 m will have thrown more than 10 times, probably close to 15 with a reasonable number of misses.

I don't know the financial details of the World Shot Put Series. But perhaps nothing was fixed in this year's competition, which was, in Crouser's words, intended as a "soft launch" of the event. In any case, the winner, R. Steen, went home with a championship belt, just like boxing champions do. Next year's competition (provided it materialises) will have two groups, an "open field", for "ordinary" throwers and a professional field with eight among the best world throwers. I will keep an eye open and report here.

On "wind doping" stupidity

I was not planning to write an article following the superb performances of Allman and Denny and the new world record of Alekna in Ramona. But then I stumbled upon an article in Insidethegames where they were reporting the comments of swedish journalists and coaches. Commentator Mats Wennerholm had apparently stated "Weather doping should be added to the banned list". I was infuriated by this statement. This is not journalism; it's pure clickbait. Somebody should point out to Mr. Wennerholm that there is a capital difference between doping and weather. Doping is something that you do to give you an unfair advantage over the other competitors. Weather is the same for all the athletes participating in the same competition. (Pilpul-oriented readers will point out that the wind intensity may vary throughout an horizontal jump competition, but they should agree that my distinction between doping and weather is valid).

It is not by happenstance that the negative comments came from Sweden, the country of World and Olympic champion D. Stahl. At least Stahl's coach was less insulting in his comment: "it's a different sport". But I am convinced that, had Stahl participated in the Oklahoma Throws Series, he would have been happy with a 70+ m throw. 

V. Allman throwing in Ramona

So, what is my point of view concerning the effect of wind, in particular in discus throw. I will state it clearly: forget about wind-speed limits. Already the wind-speed limits of sprints and horizontal jumps are iffy, but introduce one for the discus would be downright preposterous. Not everybody agrees with me. Just before writing this article I was enjoying a coffee with my Décapassion friends Frédéric and Pierre Gousset in a parisian café, and they are of the opinion that there should be limitations to the wind speed allowed in discus throw competitions. Although I agree with them that a strong head-wind does offer an advantage, I maintain that there is no simple way to quantify it.

But let us start at the beginning. More than 10 years ago I wrote an article entitled "Wind effects". It's one of the most popular posts of my blog with close to 3 k visits since its publication. I introduced the article with a quote from a 1980 post of Track & Field editor Bert Nelson: "The philosophy behind the official approval of sprint records is absurdly primitive. Permitting a record with a tailwind of 2 m/s was an arbitrary decision". (And he went on to suggest that the registered sprint times should be adjusted so as to take into account the assistance of the wind, a suggestion I am 100 % in favour of). But where does this "magic" number of 2 m/s come from? Like many things in Athletics it is a heritage from the olden days, based on (borderline-pseudo)scientific studies, just like the 100 milliseconds limit for the false starts. In the 1930's a supposedly scientific study showed that the tail-wind velocity should be below 1 m/s so as not to offer a performance gain greater than 0.1 second. That was the era when the times were homologated with 0.1 second precision, and so the 1 m/s speed limit did make sense. And the IAAF seeking, as always, not to rock many boats, opted for a compromise of 2 m/s. There you have it: the putatively scientific foundation of the wind-speed limit is a pure compromise. Five years ago I wrote a series of articles under the general heading "Imperative changes". One article of the series was devoted to wind measurements where, among others, I present the results of a study of P.N. Linthorne on the accuracy of wind measurements. (I suggest that you go read that article if you are really interested in the effects of wind in Athletics).

But let us go back to the discus throw. Does a strong head-wind present an advantage? Undoubtedly! (I remember an article of P.J. Vazel on ex-world recordman Y. Dumchev, a 70+ m thrower, who confided to Vazel that once in training under strongly windy conditions he threw close to 80 m). The recent competition in Ramona was a perfect proof of the head-wind advantage. V. Allman and L. Tausaga threw personal bests at 73.52 m and 70.72 m respectively. Y. Perez, could not get a good throw and finished fourth (behind V. Fraley, 68.72 m), with 66.96 m. But last year, in Ramona, she had thrown a huge 73.09 m. The men's results were even more impressive. M. Alekna and M. Denny threw beyond the existing world record with 75.56 and 74.78 m respectively. Three more athletes were beyond 70 m: S. Mattis, 71.27 m, C. Prufer 71.01 m and L. Okoye 70.76 m. (and we should not forget M. Sosna who threw 70.75 m the previous day of the Continental Tour competition, to say nothing of A. Rose who threw 70.42 m in 2023). Among the 2500 men's best performances (including ancillary marks) 75(!) were obtained in Ramona. (Also 26 among women's 4000 best performances, but one should keep in mind that for a long time the event was eastern-Europe dominated. In fact  Neubrandenburg has 85 entries in the women's all-time bests list).

Are we able to quantify the effect of wind on discus throw? Are there serious aerodynamic studies that would offer a clear answer on what is the advantage offered by a head-wind as a function of velocity and direction with respect to the throw? Unfortunately, no. And even if such studies were available, how do we get to measure the wind in the case of a discus trajectory? In a 70 m throw a discus can reach a height of more than 10 m. Measuring the wind-speed at ground level is clearly useless. But then, which height do we choose for the measurement? And at which point of the trajectory? And how do we account for varying wind direction? All these questions can be answered, in principle. But I don't think a practical implementation is feasible. So, instead of some absurd and arbitrary decision, it is best to promote the Oklahoma Throws Continental Tour event and make sure that the best world throwers go there to profit from the favourable windy conditions. 

Two funny remarks are in order before concluding. The article of Insidethegames comments that Ramona has earned the nickname "Throw Town" and adds "the local weather provides wind conditions favourable to big throws and unlike track events, there is no limit on maximum permissible tail-winds in the field". Reading these lines I am afraid that the journalist who wrote this does not understand that discus, just like airplanes, fare better in strong head-winds. And in some other article I ran across the  term "gale-force" wind. It was definitely used to cause a sensation, but I decided to check. Force 7 in the Beaufort scale is a "near gale" and you need force 8 in order to have real gale, with wind speeds of around 20 m/s. During the competition in Ramona the wind speed was reported as 5 m/s, and according to the Beaufort scale it is just a force 3 gentle breeze.

So, please, stop using the words "Wind or Weather Doping". It's a disgusting yellow journalism practice and, if nothing else, insulting for the athletes. 

Revisiting the javelin controversy

The very first year of the existence of the blog I wrote an article entitled "the javelin controversy" which was motivated by the short-lived spanish style of the 50s. That article was going to become the most popular one of the 470+ posts of my blog. What did help was that at some point there had been a discussion in the Athletics Weekly forum on the Spanish Style Javelin Technique and somebody gave the link to my post. My blog was mostly unknown at that time and this helped to increase the audience. But that was years ago, the discussion in AW does not exist for many years now but the "javelin controversy" continues to attract readers. As of this writing it has 12.6 k views, out of a total of 320 k for the blog, close to 4 %.

Before writing about, what I like to refer to as, the "jabalina española" I would like to state clearly that I am in favour of rotational techniques. In the case of the hammer throw the rotations were facilitated by the replacement of the traditional wooden handle by a wire one (although a hammer throw involving a wooden handle is still in use in the Scottish Highland Games). In the case of the discus, the rotational technique allowed to reach distances that were unthinkable with the un-natural and arbitrarily fixed technique of the "greek style" (as if anybody knew how the ancients threw the discus). And in the shot put everybody is slowly moving towards the spinning technique, which allowed the current performances to be on par with the ones registered in the pre-doping-control era. But in the case of the javelin, the International Federation decided to kill the new technique in the crib instead of thinking of other methods that would have made the event safe. 

I have always been in admiration of the spanish style, although I know that there is some mythology concerning the performances. I have been referring to it from time to time in my blog. But what did decide me to write this article is that I found, by chance, a short video where Miguel de la Quadra Salcedo is telling succinctly the story of the style and makes a demo (but bear in mind that the video is from the 90s when de la Quadra was over 60 years old). You can watch the video (I hardcoded english subtitles) and then go on with reading the article.

I knew that the jabalina española evolved from the barra vasca but that was as far as my knowledge went. When I saw the video of de la Quadra I decided to dig deeper and learn something about this traditional basque throw. The first surprise was when I consulted the Wikipedia and I found that the weight for the barra was 7 kg (standardised to 7.257 kg, just as for the shot put) for men and 4 kg for women. There was no way people could throw such a heavy implement at 50 m. The answer is that the article was talking about the barra española of which there exist several local variants. I found the details in some blog post and all became clear. The barras aragonesa and castellana are heavy and the record with the heavy barra is just shy of 20 m. But the basque is different, longer and with a weight of just 3.5 kg. It is made of steel with a "head" of a diameter of (roughly) 3 cm and an overall length of 40 cm, tapering towards the "tail". The latter has a diameter of (roughly) 1.5 cm and  length of 110 cm. Thus the overall length of the barra is 1.5 m. The relatively lighter barra makes possible underhand throws with a run-up consisting of three turns. The movie below shows Manuel Clavero who still holds the record of the barra vasca with 56.39 m, established in 1960. (The women's record is just 36.96m, Karmele Olaizola from 1990, which makes one think that the women were throwing the same weight barra as men).  

The barra vasca was part of the Spanish National Championships from the 30s till 1963 but then disappeared only to survive in some regional competitions of "rural" sports. There are some efforts for its revival but I am afraid that the die is cast. The barra vasca could have left a fabulous legacy to the international athletics if World Athletics (it was called IAAF at that time) were less timorous but, alas, that was not to be. 

Félix Erauskín was a spanish thrower, with national titles in shot put, discus throw, javelin and also the barra vasca (with a personal best of 49.09 m). He participated in the 1948, London, Olympics in the discus throw and, in his interview, de la Quadra says that, in London, Erauskín made an exhibition of barra vasca throw. It is not clear whether that indeed happened but, on the other hand, the barra vasca was supposed to be a demonstration sport in the Berlin, 1936, Olympics (although, in the end that did not materialise). Erauskín was a great sportsman with a 50+ years career. He was master world champion in the 70+ category in 1979, just 8 years before his demise. But the most important moment in his career came in 1956. At 48 years of age he presented a new style for the javelin throw inspired by the barra vasca throwing technique. And he beat the national record. 

Erauskín throwing the javelin

The barra vasca specialists understood that the new technique could allow huge throws and they started experimenting with it. J.A. Iguarán (the first to throw over 50 m with the barra with a 52.61 record), de la Quadra (with a personal best of 48.29 m at the barra) and Clavero himself. Iguarán threw 77 m and de la Quadra reached 82.80 m at less than a metre from the world record. 

The disaster struck when de la Quadra, who was training in Paris, participated in a competition, on September 23rd, where, throwing in the rotational style, he managed, with 66.25 m, to beat Michel Macquet who held the french national record. (Macquet obtained his first french record with 64 m in 1954 but in 1956 he had already thrown 79 m). The world became aware of the new technique. In the meantime the progression in Spain was dazzling. Erauskín threw 74.32 on October 7th and 83.40 m on the 12th (at just 26 cm from the world record of J. Sidlo). Clavero threw 82.94 m on October 21st and on the 28th he reached 89.66 m, beating de la Quadra who was second with 83.80 m.

With de la Quadra throwing in spanish style in Paris, the cat was out of the bag. It was something so spectacular that the news agencies all over the world talked about this. At that time a short movie with the most interesting world news was usually shown in cinemas before the main attraction and the "spanish javelin" was shown everywhere. There is a funny story involving the 1932 olympic champion M. Järvinen (and world record holder from 1930 to 1936 with a 77.23 m personal best). In October 1956 he was alerted by a friend that there was a short movie from a competition in Barcelona where (practically) unknown  spaniards were throwing over 80 m with their new style. Järvinen went to the cinema and watched the short clip (twice) and exiting he called his friend T. Rautavaara (the 1948 olympic champion and a 75+ thrower) and asked him to meet him the next day. (Järvinen was 47 years old and Rautavaara 41). And the next morning, Järvinen, positioning himself at just ten metres from the throwing line, spinned and threw the javelin at over 80 m. Rautavaara was impressed and became converted to the spanish style. But it was too late for the Finns to go after the olympic medals in Melbourne. (It is really astonishing that S. Nikkinen who had improved the world record in June with a throw of 83.56 m was not selected for the Melbourne Olympics, held in late November, the motive being that he was out of shape). 

It is said that Rautavaara reached 84 m with the spanish style 

On October 24th, the IAAF took the decision to ban the "spanish style", invoking safety reasons, forbidding the athlete to turn his back to the landing sector until the throw is completed. (Had the spanish athletes remained discreet, presenting themselves in Melbourne and winning the olympic event in their revolutionary style, the history might have been different. But Franco had decided to boycott the Olympics so as to spite the Soviets and thus the whole matter is moot). In Spain things took some time before settling down. So, in the 1957 national championships the "spanish style" was still allowed and Erauskín won with a 81.76 m throw. 

Erauskín did not let himself become disheartened by the IAAF decision. He modified his style removing the turns but keeping the underhand throwing style. A few days after the IAAF decision he threw 72.76 m with his new style. But the IAAF would not have it, they banned this style also, requiring that throughout the entire process of the throw the javelin be kept at an overhand position. It was game over for the "jabalina española", victim of the International Federation timorousness. All the more so, since the underhand technique without turns was definitely not dangerous as the thrower could control the trajectory of the implement.

If you followed the clip with de la Quadra you must have noticed that he talks about Danielsen holding the world record with 81.30 m which is simply wrong. In 1955 it was Bud Held who had the world record with 81.75 m, a record broken by Nikkinen as we saw above. Danielsen became world record holder after his winning throw of 85.71 m in the Melbourne Olympics in November 1956. But this may be just a memory lapse of de la Quadra. What is somewhat more intriguing are the references to exceptional throws. This is unfortunately part of a certain mythology developed around the jabalina española. We find thus a reference to Erauskín throwing 94.50 m during en exhibition on April 1957 (using the rotational style). As for de la Quadra, he went to Puerto Rico to perfect his underhand style, working with the coach of the University of Puerto Rico, surpassing 89 m. But de la Quadra himself is talking about 94 m in the clip. Is this because we have a tendency to embellish the past? Anyhow there are hearsay's that Erauskín threw over 100 m and de la Quadra reached a mythical 112.30 m. Nobody knows whether these throws were indeed true. (The longest, more or less, documented throw is  a "mere" 99.52 m by P. Saarikoski). E. Danielsen, writing one year after his olympic victory, speculated that with the rotational style throws of over 120 m would have been possible. Unfortunately we will never see them.

The Grand Slam Track

I have never liked Michael Johnson. I have always found him haughty and pretentious and so, when I heard about his project of the Grand Slam Track (GST) series I was naturally sceptical. Well, the first event of the series took place in April in Jamaica and must confess that I did not make any particular effort to follow it. I just perused the results but then I decided that I had a duty to write a report for the blog, my personal preferences notwithstanding. 

The event was announced last year by Johnson who explained that a 30 million dollars funding was secured. The remaining GST events of this year are scheduled for May (2 to 4 May in Miami and 30 to June 1 in Philadelphia) and June (27 to 29 in Los Angeles). The timing is decided so as not to interfere seriously with the Diamond League events (although the competition in Suzhou will be held over the same week-end as the one in Miami, and there are 8 Diamond League meetings planned from April till the end of June when the GST will be over). Despite GST being in competition with the Diamond League Sir Sebastian welcomed the upcoming event with the words: “I welcome innovation. I also welcome external resources. If you have a rising tide, everyone benefits”.

So how does GST work? As the name indicates it is a pure track event. There are six categories of events: Short Sprints 100 m and 200 m, Short Hurdles 100 m/110 m hurdles and 100 m, Long Sprints 200 m and 400 m, Long Hurdles 400 m hurdles and 400 m, Short Distance 800 m and 1500 m, and Long Distance 3000 m and 5000 m. Each athlete must participate in the two events of his category. They receive points for their finishing positions following the scale 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 from first to eight position. The winner is the one with the highest combined mark, and a tie is broken by considering the addition of the times over the two events. (You can find all the details on the GST website).

There are 8 athletes participating in each of the six categories. Four of them are "tenured" in the sense that they are contracted for the whole season. The remaining four are the "challengers" who may change at each meeting. For the first edition of GST, Johnson has secured the participation of big names like Sydney McLaughlin, Gaby Thomas, Marileidy Paulino, Jasmine Camacho-Quinn for the women's competition and Alison dos Santos, Marco Arop, Josh Kerr, Fred Kerley for the men. Still some big names like Noah Lyles, Letsile Tebogo, Julian Alfred or Sha'Carri Richardson are absent from the roster. Johnson is waving this away saying that "not all athletes can come in year one". 

One crucial question concerning GST is its financial sustainability. Having secured funds for the first year is OK but if there is no return on investment the enterprise is doomed. Johnson maintains that is not a source of worry since "no business is profitable in its first year". But unfortunately there are precedents where similar attempts have failed. Remember the "Nitro" competition promoted by Usain Bolt and held in Australia in 2017? It was also supported by Sir Sebastian and heralded as an innovation to Athletics. And to tell the truth the program of Nitro was more daring than the one of GST. But Nitro failed spectacularly, the 2018 event being cancelled on some made-up pretext. Will GST follow the same fate? I am tempted to be pessimistic about its future, but then this may just be due to the fact that I cannot stand Johnson. So, let's wait and see.

The World 2025 Indoors

After the excellent European Indoors, the World Championships in Nanjing were a pure let down. The majority of T&F stars snubbed the competition, preferring to concentrate themselves on the outdoors season, opening just one week later. The US representation was, well, not first rate. In some races more than half the posts were not filled. And many European countries present in Apeldoorn decided not to travel to China (which can be understood given the distance and the costs).

On the other hand in the men's pole vault the participation was excellent with 11 of the 2025 top vaulters present (only Nilsen and Lavillenie were absent). This makes the performance of E. Karalis even more impressive. He passed all heights up to 6.05 m on his first try and he gave a hard time to Duplantis. When the bar was raised at 6.10 and Duplantis succeeded in his second attempt Karalis, having missed twice, decided to carry his third jump to 6.15 m. Well, he missed, Duplantis, already ahead, succeeded and that was that, but seeing Manolo being a menace to Mondo was really something. (In fact Duplantis told the greek media that this was his toughest competition of the last years). 

Ten years ago they were together on the U18 podium

And it's the first time in history where a jumper clears 6.05 m and does not get gold. S. Kendricks was third with a season best 5.90 m, while recent European co-champion M. Vloon was 4th with 5.80 m. E. Sasma redeemed himself after the Apeldoorn disaster, finishing 6th with 5.80 m, while the two french representatives were a pitiful sight, T. Collet jumping just 5.50 m and B. Thierry no-heighting at the initial 5.50 m.

But all was not bad for the french vault team: the solace came in the women's event. The Apeldoorn podium was reversed in order and M.J. Bonnin was crowned world champion. Once more, the US participation was below-par and the battle was between European jumpers, this time in the presence of last year's indoor world champion M. Caudery. But with a second clearance of 4.70 m she finished just outside the medals on count-back. In fact at that height T. Sutej was leading the competition with A. Moser and Bonnin tied at second place. But then Bonnin went on to pass 4.75 m, a national record, on her second attempt, winning the title. I was happy when she won her first major medal at the Europeans but the world title was, to say the least, unexpected.

When you know you did it

There was a total European domination in the men's heptathlon. S. Ehammer opted (unsuccessfully) for the long jump this time and the road to the medals was open for the first four of the Europeans. H. Baldwin's heel of Achilles, the pole vault, costed him a medal this time, all the more so since T. Steinforth jumped an almost personal best at 5.20 m. Once more S. Skotheim had a below par pole vault with just 5.00 m, which allowed  to J. Erm to entertain hopes with his 5.30 m jump, placing him at just over 50 points from Skotheim. However this cannot excuse his aggressive race in the 1000 m where he pushed twice Skotheim out of the way, hoping to make up the point difference. (Erm tried to minimise this saying they had a stupid bet with Skotheim on who was going to win the 1000 m). Anyhow, in the end Skotheim won with 6475 points versus 6437 for Erm.

Unfortunately I could not find the video where things are clearer

S. Vanninen won the pentathlon in Nanjing just as she had done in Apeldoorn but, with 4821 points, more than 100 behind her performance in the Europeans. K. O'Connor obtained the silver medal (improving her bronze from Apeldoorn, but still close to 40 points off her national record). Entering the 800 m, T. Brooks had a 3 point advantage over O'Connor. This difference evaporated in the 800 m leaving her at third place, but that was not bad given that it's the first pentathlon she participates in after 7 years.

The drama at the men's 60 m final

Men's 60 m was an event full of drama. Puerto Rican E. Benitez ran the fastest qualifying time with 6.49 s, R. Baker (although far from his 6.40 s going back to 2018) qualified with a solid  6.51 s and L. Kennedy coming from a 6.43 s obtained in January were the favourites of the race. But in the final Benitez fell on the track injured just out of the blocks and, over the last metres, Baker clutched his thigh grimacing in pain. Finally it was European champion J. Azu who won the race in 6.49 s (same time as in Apeldoorn) just ahead of Kennedy, 6.50 s, while A. Simbine, finishing third, won his first global medal. 

Women's 60 m photo finish

The women's race was less eventful. Z. Dosso has the best time going into the final but in the end it was the more experienced M. Kambundji who won 7.04 to 7.06 s. P. Van der Weken added a world bronze to her european one. With Swoboda, Hunt and Rosius, the first six of the European final were present also in the World one with only Z. Hobbs beating Rosius for the 6th place. It is remarkable that neither jamaican nor US athletes could make it to the final. Perusing the starting lists one finds the name of B. Masilingi (who in the end did not participate). I was intrigued because Masilingi was one of the two namibian runners who made sensation in 2021. Masilingi ran a 49.53 s 400 m (second-fastest world U18 time) and participated in the final of the olympic 200 m, finishing 6th, along with compatriot C. Mboma who won silver. Mboma and Masilingi were not allowed to participate in the 400 m (where Mboma had run a finally non-ratified 48.54 s) having both disorders in sex development but as per the 2021 standing regulations could take part in the 200 m. I was convinced that, given the changes in the rules concerning DSD athletes both Masilingi and Mboma would have put an end to their careers but I was wrong. (After all, they are still just 21 years old). So Mboma ran a 12.07 s 100 m in March, while Masilingi ran a 7.35 s 60 m and 23.32 s short-track 200 m. These performances are nothing to write home about but that's probably due to the fact that, according to the new, 2023, rules, they must medicinally lower their blood testosterone concentration. I will be intrigued to see what they can do when they get back on track this summer.

Men's 400 m was a US affair with the three american runners monopolising the podium. C. Bailey won with 45.08, with European champion A. Molnar having to content himself with a 4th place. The women's race was far more interesting, A. Anning prevailing over A. Holmes thanks to a great finish, 50.60 to 50.63 s. H. Jaeger who had finished second behind L. Klaver in the Europeans with a time of 50.45 s was third with 50.92 s this time. M. Weil, the daughter of Olympic medalist and WA vice-president X. Restrepo, was 4th in 51.78 s (but with a 51.05 s outdoors she has yet to beat her mother's record of 49.64 s). I wonder why she does not try her hand in the 400 m hurdles just as her mother did. 

A great finish for Anning and Holmes

The men's 800 m saw the vengeance of European 2nd and 5th finishers, E. Crestan and J. Canales who obtained silver and bronze relegating the Apeldoorn winner S. Chapple to 4th place. The race was won by J. Hoey in 1:44.77. Crestan's finish was quite menacing but in the end not quite sufficient. Having followed her races during the indoor circuit, I considered P. Sekgodiso as the favourite of the race despite the presence of the ethiopian runners. She ended up by completely dominating the race winning in 1:58.40. A. Werro although failing to win a medal managed to redeem herself after the Apeldoorn disaster finishing in a national record 1:59.81 just behind bronze medalist P. Silva (1:59.80) but beating the european 2024 champion A. Wielgosz, 2:00.34.

Sekgodiso dominating the women's 800 m

Men's 1500 m and 3000 m were won by J. Ingebrigtsen. I was tempted to say that it was a pure formality but nothing is further from the truth. Ingebrigtsen has not won a world-level 1500 m since the Tokyo Olympics. He was second in 2022 in the Belgrade World Indoors with only European titles as a "consolation". Doubling 1500 m and 5000 m (outdoors) is probably too much even for an athlete of his calibre. Be that as it may, winning both 1500 and 3000 m indoors at european and world level is really auspicious for this summer. Women's 1500 m was definitely the most spectacular victory of the competition. G. Tsegay won in a championships record of 3:54.86 more than 40 m ahead of second finisher D. Welteji 3:59.30. F. Hailu won the 3000 m in a race where, given her basic speed, I was expecting J. Hull to win (she finished third). 

Tsegay outclassing the competition

Both 4x400 m relays (mind you, there is no mixed relay yet in the World's indoors but it will appear in the next edition) were won by the US team. And while men's time was a quite respectable 3:03.13 the women's time of 3:27.45 wouldn't have sufficed for 5th place in the Europeans, let alone a medal. All in all, I find it quite disconcerting that in the top all-time lists one finds US university teams and not national ones. World Athletics should do something about this, promoting the indoor 4x400 m relays.

I like this photo where the runners look as if they were flying

Men's 60 m hurdles were won by the indisputable favourite F. Holloway in 7.42 s, W. Belocian a distant second in 7.54 s, far from his 7.45 s at the Europeans. But what is more astonishing is that the european champion J. Szymanski (7.43 s in Apeldoorn) exited in the semis with 7.63 s, while L. Simoneli who could not make the European final was 4th in Nanjing with 7.60 s. M. Obasuyi gave the proof of his constancy: after finishing 6th at the Europeans with 7.63 s, he obtained the 5th place in the World's with 7.60 s. The woman's race was, to say the least, heavily disputed, with world recordwoman D. Charlton finally prevailing over european champion D. Kambundji, 7.72  to 7.73 s. Upon reflection and seeing the times of Nanjing I have the impression that the track was somewhat inferior to that of Apeldoorn. 

How on earth can one separate 3rd, 4th and 5th?

I have written about a greek triumph at the beginning of the article. Now it's the time to write about the less than stellar performance of M. Tentoglou. To tell the truth, following his competitions all along this winter I had set my expectations very low. And in fact after three jumps he was trailing at the 9th place. Had the classical system been in place, his competition would have ended then and there. But in Nanjing World Athletics tried something new. In the throws and horizontal jumps, after three attempts, the first 10 athletes are given one more attempt. (Tentoglou profited from this and with 8.14 m found himself at 5th place). After the fourth attempt the first 8 of the classification are given one more attempt and finally only the first six go on to have a last attempt. This makes the event somewhat harder to follow but to tell the truth I like it better than the previous system (and all the stupid things that are being tried in the Diamond League). Furlani won the event with 8.30 m with just 1 cm separating the first from the second and the second from the third. As for Tentoglou, he had a great last jump clearly over 8.30 m but with a 2 cm foul. So there is definitely hope for this summer. The women's event was won by C. Bryant with 6.96 m, backed with a solid 6.90 and two other jumps that would have allowed her to win with the exception of the 6.83 m of A. Kälin. F. Diamé won another world bronze after the one she obtained last year. M. Gardasevic, who had finished 4th at the Europeans, just ahead of Diamé, could do no better than a disappointing 13th place.

I was expecting something better from T. LaFond in the women's triple jump. It was clear that it took her some time to warm up at the competition. In the end she finished fourth with 14.18 m in an event that saw two cubans in first and second place L. Perez and L. Povea, with jumps 14.93 and 14.57 m respectively. European champion A. Peleteiro (not of cuban origin) was third in 14.29 m. A. Diaz (he is cuban-born) won the men's event doing even better than in Apeldoorn with a world-leading 17.80 m. Reigning indoor champion H.F. Zango was initially 4th but was promoted to 3rd after the disqualification of the bronze medalist (brazilian A. dos Santos) for non-regulation shoes. (It's time I wrote an article on the shoe revolution). 

Andy Díaz jumping in Nanjing

Men's high jump was won by S. Woo with 2.31 while european champion O. Doroshchuk, who jumped 2.34 m in Apeldoorn, could do ne better than 2.28 m finishing fifth. The women's event was a minor surprise with Y. Mahuchikh finishing 3rd with 1.95, in an event won by the australian duo Olyslagers and Paterson, the first winning on count-back both having jumped 1.97 m. A. Topic missed once at 1.95 m and that costed her the medal. (and then she was forced by the first time 1.97 m clearance of the australians to try 1.99 m just as Mahuchikh, both failing at that height). 

T. Walsh won his third indoor title (after the ones of 2016 and 2018) in shot put with a massive first throw of 21.65 m. World leader L. Fabri did better than in the Europeans but his 21.36 m was not enough for a place on the podium. The second best in the world J. Gill was curiously absent from the competition and the third best Z. Weir could do no better than 8th. J. Schilder was far from her throws in Apeldoorn. With only one throw over 20 m she finished second in the women's shot put behind  S. Mitton who had three throws over 20 m, with a best of 20.48 m, and retained the world title she had won in Glasgow. Starting from this season she has modified her technique and apparently it pays.  

But as I was saying at the beginning of the article these World Indoors were somewhat boring. Let's hope that the outdoor season, that is already starting, will turn out to be more exciting.

The International Track and Field Annual is not dead (yet)

The title of the blog needs some explanation. The publication in question is produced by the Association of Track and Field Statisticians. In case you are wondering what is this association  I cannot do better than repeating verbatim what is written in the ATFS history page

On the 26th of August 1950, eleven “track nuts” met in Brussels, Belgium, during the 4th European Athletics Championships, and founded the Association of Track and Field Statisticians with the dual aim of of documenting the present and recovering the past, in order to commit to future memory the efforts of thousands of athletes, men and women, who have given lustre to the sport all over the World. Their aim was to promote such a work at both national and international levels. And these aims continue today.

The person behind that movement was the famous Roberto Quercetani (1922-2019). He is the most prominent Athletics historian. He was a founding member and president of the ATFS from 1950 until 1968. If you haven't read his History of Modern Track and Field athletics I urge you to track it down and read it. It's a must for all Athletics fans.

Under Quercetani's guidance the ATFS started publishing and "Annual" containing an as complete as possible collection of the results of the year as well as all-time classifications. Quercetani was the general editor of the ATFS Annual from 1951 to 1969. After that date the Annual continued under various editors up to 1984. 

In 1985, the british statistician and broadcaster Peter Matthews (1945-2023) took over the editing and assumed management of the publication from the ATFS. The name was changed to International Track and Field Annual that appears in the title of this post. In fact just two years later the label "Athletics 1987" was introduced along the Annual title and the publication became best known as the Athletics book. The yearly edition appeared by early May, and in 2022 the publication switched to print-on-demand. The very first year a pdf version was also offered (which would have been precious in the current all-digital era) but was discontinued the next year. And then Matthews passed away in 2023 and I was convinced that the International Track and Field Annual would disappear. In fact May had come and gone without any news about Athletics 2024. 

But sompe time back I was visiting, by chance, the ATFS page and I discovered an announcement that the 2024 edition was available (as the past years, in a print-on-demand form). It is published by R. Hymans and S. Mazdon, two well known athletics statisticians. So for the time being the yearly "Athletics" book is still alive.

To be honest I didn't know if I was going to buy this year's edition. I have noticed that for some years now I am just riffling through the book when it arrives and then I just add it to my collection (which goes back to the 70s). Whenever I need some information I look for it on the web and the last time I used the data from Athletics in some research work was ten years ago when I published the paper "Comparing the best athletic performances of the two sexes" together with my colleague Y. Charon. But then Athletics 2024 is dirt cheap (around 25 euros) so I decided to order it just as a tribute to Matthews (and because I am a Grouser fan 🙂). It arrived a few days later.

The European 2025 Indoors

I was not expecting a high-quality championship as it was held just two weeks before the World Indoors one. Well, I was rather pessimistic on this. It was really a most enjoyable competition and given that European Athletics were streaming the event without restrictions I could really follow it from beginning to end.

And the event I most enjoyed was the men's heptathlon. In the end of the second day we had a European record (in fact the second finisher's score was also better than the previous record), five national records for the first five and personal bests up to the 8th position. S. Skotheim who had broken Mayer's European record one month before the Indoors was the favourite and in the end he did prevail. But that had not been simple. S. Ehammer had a great first day and the only reason Skotheim could take command was due to his superb 2.19 m high jump combined with a below-par 1.98 m of Ehammer. But after the 60 m hurdles Ehammer took again command and, what is more impressive, he could conserve it after the pole vault. In fact by jumping 5.10 m (25 cm under his personal best) Skotheim lost his chance for a world record. (A 5.35 m would have brought him at just a handful of points from Eaton's record of 6645. They entered the 1000 m with Ehammer having a 50 points advantage. But although he finished in a personal best of 2:41.76, Skotheim's 2:32.72 gave him a 100 point advantage and the title. T. Steinforth was third with 6388 points (resisting to the attack of, European 2024 outdoors champion, J. Erm who covered a handicap of 41 points but was still 8 points short. My friends at Décapassion point out that if Steinforth manages to improve his "long" throws (discus and javelin) he will be among the protagonists of the decathlon. I guess I'l have to keep and eye open for him this summer.

The women's pentathlon was not of the same level due to the absence of the stars of the discipline (Thiam, Vidts, Johnson-Thompson, Vetter, Sulek). Still it led to a European U23 record, two national records and personal bests for the first four finishers. My favourite for the event was S. Dokter but S. Vanninen was in great shape: with three personal bests and knowing that she excels at the 800 m she was sure for the title even before the last event. Dokter and Vanninen upgraded last year's  bronze and silver medals at the World Indoors to silver and gold respectively. K. O'Connor shined at the 800 m, beating J. O'Dowda for the bronze medal. Since she is an excellent javelin thrower I guess I'll have to keep an eye open for her during this summer's heptathlon. And speaking about javelin throwers, I was somewhat disappointed by the performance of E. Oosterwegel who could not finish better than 9th. I just hope that she'll manage to get back in shape for Tokyo.

Since I would like this post to be published before the World Indoors (there just a few days away) I will not give a full report, as I am usually doing, but just a few comments on what I found particularly interesting. 

In the horizontal jumps the gold medals went to the outsiders (with the exception of women's triple jump won by A. Peleteiro. And even in this case she managed to win by just 6 cm, when D. Ion had a last jump at 14.31 m). M. Furlani, took command of the men's long jump with 8.12 m, the same performance as L. Lescay, but backed by a 8.10 m. But then B. Saraboyukov jumped 8.13 m securing gold. (As for Montler who had jumped 8.23 m prior to the championship he could not finish better than 7th). M. Hess was the favourite for the men's triple jump, having the world leading performance with 17.41 m. And he did improve it with 17.43 m on his first attempt. But on the 5th jump Andy Díaz (do not confuse him with Olympic and European champion Jordan Díaz) soared to 17.71 m and the game was over. M. Mihambo who went to Apeldoorn as the only woman in the world having jumped 7 m this year, went home with a bronze medal obtained at her very last jump, edging out M. Gardasevic, 6.88 m to 6.75 m, but still not enough for silver (A. Kälin, 6.90 m) or gold (L. Iapichino, 6.98 m). What was curious in the horizontal jumps was the great number fouls. Had it something to do with the runway? (But then this may be just my impression and when the fouls are carefully counted they may well turn out to be close to the expected 30 %).

I really like the photo of Karalis celebrating with Topic

The vertical jumps were less surprising, although Karalis had to share his gold medal in men's pole vault. Going into the competition with two performances over 6 m this year he could do no better than 5.90 m, the same height as M. Vloon and S. Gutormsen. (And I did hugely appreciate the fact that Karalis and Vloon, having tied, decided to share gold, quite unlike what happened in the olympic high jump this summer). What was somewhat surprising was the 4th, 9th and 11th places of the three french jumpers, Collet, Thiery and Lavillenie, who arrived at Apeldoorn all three with a recent 5.91 m performance. On the other hand the women's pole vault was a consolation for the french team with M.J. Bonin obtaining her first major medal, a bronze, with 4.70 m, in an event won by A. Moser with 4.80 m. Y. Mahuchikh won the women's high jump with an underwhelming 1.99 m, and A. Topic, who did not attempt 1.97 m, was second with 1.95 m, but had an excellent jump at 1.99 m. If she does not injure herself I believe that she will end the season as a 2+ m jumper. Ukraine obtained another gold in men's high jump where O. Doroshchuk jumped a world-leading 2.34 m.

J. Ingebrigtsen won his two races, 1500 m and 3000 m, with particular ease. His task will be much harder in Nanjing. A. Guillemot offered the unique gold to France, winning the women's 1500 m, while S. Healy did the same for Ireland in the 3000 m race. With F. Bol participating only in the relays, L. Klaver was the favourite for the women's 400 m and she did confirm. She won with 50.38 s but she had to battle all the way to the finish line with E. Jaeger, who was second with 50.48. L.G. Manuel is a runner I am keeping an eye on since last year when she shined in the Europeans and the Olympics and won the U20 world title. She finished 4th in the 400 m but then took her revenge in the 4x400 m relay. Anchoring the Czech team, she managed to catch up with the leading teams and, with a 49.80 s split, offered to her country a bronze medal.

Just look at the handicap Manuel had to overcome

The Kambundji sisters went home with a gold, Ditaji winning the 60 m hurdles, and silver, Mujinga in the 60 m. Double European champion of 60 m hurdles, N. Visser had to content herself with silver this time. The women's 60 m race was one of the most spectacular of the championships. Kambundji arrived to Apeldoorn as the favourite by Z. Dosso announced her intentions from the outset. In the end she won in 7.01 s (a time initially announced as 6.99 s) with Kambundji second in 7.02 s. P. van der Weken won her first major medal finishing third in 7.06 s. I believe that baring injuries, she will be an 11- runner at the end of the season. (Being tall she is more at ease in a distance like 100 m. The same applies to A. Hunt who is still taller and managed to make it to the final with a personal best of 7.09 s). 

There is only one throw in the European Indoors, the shot put. L. Fabbri, the number one favourite of the men's event, with a world-leading performance of 21.95 m, could not make it to the final, and it was sad to see him weeping at the end of the qualifiers. On the other hand, double European champion and world bronze medalist J. Schilder dominated her event in the most absolute way. All her six throws were better than the best of the silver medalist who is none other but the reigning olympic champion Y. Ogunleye. With her performance of 20.69 m, Schilder is second only to V. Adams, when one counts performances of the last 20 years.

I just hope that World Athletics will imitate European athletics and stream the championships in Nanjing without ridiculous geo-blocking constraints. Be that as it may I will report on them next month.