Gen 10: the new generation

Over the two last weeks the IAAF highlighted the rise of a new generation of athletics, focusing on 10 champions under the age of 21, who are expected to become the new stars of the sport over the next few years. The idea is very interesting and the selection excellent. In fact, compared with the list of "rising stars" finalists I find that the Gen 10 list is more realistic. Of course the two lists do have a substantial 60 % overlap, but  the Gen 10 list remedies oversights, like the omission of J.M. Echevarria from the selection of rising stars. (But, then I should be careful when it comes to criticising the  IAAF choices, since It is clear that I did not pay the due attention to this year's non-european men's middle distances).

Here is the full Gen 10 list in the chronological order of appearance: 
Armand Duplantis (pole vaulter), Sydney McLaughlin (hurdler), Selemon Barega (distance runner), Briana Williams (sprinter), Juan Miguel Echevarria (long jumper), Salwa Eid Naser (sprinter), Rhonex Kipruto (distance runner), Alina Shukh (heptathlete and javelin thrower), Jakob Ingebrigtsen (middle-distance runner), and Celliphine Chespol (steeplechaser).

Some of them are already great champions, with world and/or continental titles in the senior category. And all of them are athletes one should keep an eye on in the years to come. 

The IAAF presentation is quite informative. They start with the athlete's profile supplemented with a short video of the athlete in action. Then follows a section with "10 facts" about the athlete (not always interesting) and finally a paragraph with some quantitative data about the athlete (like his records and/or titles or where he/she stands in the world hierarchy). It's an interesting reading and if you wish to learn more about this new generation of champions you should visit the IAAF site and track down the Gen 10 entries.

A great article by J. Mulkeen

In my post "Who is the best decathlete?" I was linking to an article by J. Mulkeen who was comparing five of the greatest decathletes of our times: Eaton, Sebrle, Dvorak, O'Brien and Thompson. This post of mine was an occasion to talk about D. O'Brien, D. Karpov and Yang Chuan-kwang. 

Well, Mulkeen has gone back to his analysis, adding the recent world recordman, K. Mayer, to what he calls a virtual contest.

I recommend that you visit his blog and read the post in detail.

For me what is interesting is that Mayer takes the lead only after the 8th event (but then we know that Mayer is a second-day guy). And looking again at the graphic I am as always impressed by the fact that O'Brien leads up to the 8th event. Had he paid more attention to pole vault and javelin, and accepted to suffer a little bit more in the 1500 m, he would have established a world record even beyond the one of Mayer. 

The absurdity of the Gundersen method applied to athletics

Let us start from the beginning. What is the Gundersen method? It's a method due to G. Gundersen and used in the Nordic Combined event (a winter sport in which the athletes compete in ski jumping and then in cross-country skiing). The winner of the jumping starts first in the cross-country, the remaining athletes starting with a time handicap according to their jumping score. The idea is that whoever crosses the finish line first is the winner of the event.

Recently the IAAF decided to introduce the Gundersen system in the combined events of the U20 World Championships. The fear is that once tested in the junior category it will be introduced in the senior one as well. This is a disastrous situation. I cannot understand how people, supposedly expert in athletics, could have accepted this. (I could not believe my eyes when I read somewhere that K. Mayer himself is in favour of such a system).

K. Mayer at the end of his wolrd record decathlon

So, let us see what is not OK with the Gundersen system in combined events. The Gundersen scale attributes a fixed number of seconds to a point interval: it is a linear table. The scoring table on the other hand is not linear. The precise formula for 1500 m is (time given in seconds)

points = 0.03768*(480-t)^1.85

which means that a difference of 1 point at 3 min 30 s corresponds to 0.12 s, to 0.15 s at 4:30, and 0.20 s at 5:30. So in order to apply the Gundersen method a choice must be made concerning the correspondence time-points. Let us make the reasonable assumption that for the application of the handicap the reference time will be 4 min 30 s. In this case the Gundersen formula would look like this.

points=2545-t/0.15

It is simpler to illustrate the difference between the two by a graphic. 

And now for a small experiment. Two decathletes, A and B have a point difference of exactly 100 points after the 9th event. Following the Gundersen procedure A starts first and B starts after 15 seconds, i.e. some 83 metres of initial handicap. B is a far better runner than A and chases him all along the race. They both sprint towards the finish line where A manages to maintain his advance by a very small margin. Their respective times are 4:30.01 for A and 4:15.07 for B. So A is the winner of the decathlon. True? No! When one calculates the real points corresponding to the performance, A gets 745 points and B 846. So the winner is B despite that fact that A crossed the line first. This is a direct effect of the nonlinearity of the scoring table. And I do not think anybody in their right mind would be ready to abandon it in favour of a linear table. That would amount to going back a century or so in scoring.

Why does the Gundersen method work for the nordic combined event? Simply because there is no overall score for the final performance. The only thing that counts are the relative places of the athletes. The same is true for modern pentathlon. Given that one event (fencing) depends on the athletes present, there can be no absolute score for this discipline, no world record. But this is not true for the combined events of athletics. The world records have a great emblematic value and even those who are in favour of the Gundersen method would never seriously consider to forego the record in favour of a simpler classification. 

But wait, it gets worse. I computed the point difference, after 9 events, between Mayer, during his Decastar world record, and the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th and 11th athlete. The difference in points is respectively 831, 958, 1230, 1786, and 1929 points. Converted into time handicap this gives 2:05, 2:34, 3:04, 4:28, and 4:50. So the second and third decathlete would start when Mayer would be completing his second 400 m lap, the 9th would start when Mayer would be sprinting towards the finish line while the 11th would have to wait a few more seconds after Mayer's arrival before starting. Is that something we would like to see? And how the average Joe watching the event on television would be able to tell who is first (remember this is the rationale behind the introduction of the Gundersen method) when athletes are lapping each other? Again, why the method works for the Nordic Combined? Simply because we are talking about a kilometres long cross country cross (typically 10 km) not a mere 400 m long stadium.

And things could get even worse when we consider a competition with massive participation. There will be 24 decathletes and heptathletes present next year in Doha for the World Championships. Could we have them run one after the other applying the Gundersen handicap? That would lead to a total chaos on the track. But separating them into heats would defeat the whole handicap idea. 

To my eyes the Gundersen method creates more problems than it solves. It puts emphasis on the victory rather than the record and while everybody agrees that the former is more important than the latter my example above shows that the handicap method is not a sure-fire one. 

Would we like to have a combined event where we wouldn't have to bother about the record and where only the victory would matter. Well, look no further. It has been invented almost three millennia ago. I am talking about the ancient pentathlon. I have dedicated one of my very first posts to this great sport of Ancient Greece. And in case you wonder who would have been victorious in an ancient pentathlon contest between Eaton and Mayer, I am convinced that Mayer would carry the event, although he would have had to wrestle Eaton for this (not an akoniti, dustless, victory).  

IAAF council decisions (and some bad ones)

The Monaco meeting of the IAAF is not only an occasion to reward the best performers of the year but also the moment when the IAAF Council makes decisions for the next year(s).

Some of the decisions are of essentially political character. For instance, 

The Council also accepted the Russia Taskforce’s recommendation not to reinstate RusAF until the following two conditions have been met in full: confirmation that the Athletics Integrity Unit has been given data and access to the samples that it needs to determine which of the Russian athletes in the Laboratory Information Management System database have a case to answer for breach of the IAAF anti-doping rule and that RusAF pays all the costs incurred in the work of the taskforce.

So, again in 2019, we are going to have the authorised russian athletes compete as stateless persons. (I prefer the french word "apatride" instead of "stateless": I find it more forceful).

The good news is that Budapest has been selected as the host city for the 2023 World Athletics Championships. A key component of the bid of Budapest was the construction of a new stadium. Given the experience of Hungary in athletics one can be really optimistic about the 2023 World's.

On more technical points

The qualifying standards for next year's World Championships in Doha were approved. Essentially, target numbers were introduced for road events and the number of teams qualified from the IAAF World Relays was increased from 8 to 10 in the 4x100 m and 4x400 m relays and to 12 for the 4x400 m mixed relay.

An amendment was approved concerning the substitutes for relay races. Under the new rule it will be allowed for four additional athletes to be used once a relay team has started the competition. Initially the number of substitutes was two. The new rule means that the team running in the final may be totally different from the one running in the qualifiers.

And now moving to progressively worse and worse decisions

The IAAF will submit a request to the IOC for the inclusion of the women’s 50km race walk in the Tokyo programme, even though the deadline for 2020 Olympic programme changes has passed. As you know I consider the whole race-walking discipline an institutionalised cheating: the walkers are running most of the time. So, every decision which aims at amplifying the scope of race-walking is a bad one to my eyes.

A proposal was made to amend the lane infringement rule, in the wake of the number of disqualifications during the World Indoor Championships in Birmingham this year. Unfortunately the Council did not accept the recommendation, asking for further information. 
Last year's 400 m have been marred by excessively harsh disqualifications. 
And, since many the Birmingham judges will be present also this year, this means that we may have another massacre at the Glasgow European indoors. Apparently the IAAF is waiting for another bout of the same before taking a courageous decision.
 For me the situation is clear: if the athlete does not gain any material advantage and does not obstruct any other athlete by stepping outside his lane, he should not be disqualified. An experienced judge can very well decide if the lane infringement provided any advantage to the athlete.

There were also changes to the competition programme of the World U20, 2020, Championships, to be held in Nairobi. The mixed 4x400m relay is now part of the program (a decision I fully approve). On the other hand 10000 m for men is eliminated from the program (and why, in the first place, women were discriminated?). The decision is that now men and women will compete over 3000 m and 5000 m. I don't understand. Is there such a big difference between 3000 and 5000 m? To my eyes the right choice of events if 5000 and 10000 m, period. If the IAAF wishes to eliminate the 10000 m, this is perfectly OK. But adding the 3000 m for men is absurd: they should have eliminated it from the women's program as well.

And to top it off

It was decided to introduce the Gunderson (sic) method for the final event of combined events. The Gundersen method consists in introducing an interval start with a handicap based on points difference converted into time. This converts the last race in a pursuit one, the aim being that the athletes finish in their final rank order. The IAAF Council decision draws their inspiration from the modern pentathlon! I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this. The noblest sports discipline drawing inspiration from a marginal, superannuated sport that should have been eliminated from the Olympics decades ago! But let's put this aside and look at the decision itself. The only reason the IAAF is doing this is for ignoramuses watching the event on tv to be able to tell who is the winner. But with the technical means available today we can have the classification just a second or two after the athletes have crossed the line. This should have been enough for anybody who is even marginally interested in athletics. I still recall A. Eaton's superhuman effort, during his 9045 points world record in Beijing's 2015 World's, racing behind L. Bourrada's steady rhythm, or K. Mayer being paced by J. Lelièvre during most of his world record decathlon 1500 m. All this will be thing of the past if the IAAF decides to extend to senior athletes what they will be experimenting on the juniors. I find this preposterous. (And a longer post on this point is under preparation).

Caterina Ibargüen is the athlete of the year

In my previous post I had written

Much as I would have liked to see Ibargüen crowned, I do not see how she can compete against Chepkoech and MIller-Uibo.

Well, I was wrong and I am glad about this. Ibargüen is among the few female athletes that I adore (together with the great M. Ottey, M. Ahouré, N. Thiam and I. Spanovic). I have been following her ascension since quite a few years, applauding her Olympic and World titles. After she lost the 2017 world title for a trifle I was afraid that she was going to call it quits. But I did not count with her extreme resilience and her combativeness. 

A radiant C. Ibargüen

At 34 she proved that she is the best horizontal jumper ever winning the Diamond League, Continental Cup and Central American and Caribbean Games titles in both jumps. She did not have an over-15 jump this year but on the other hand she did improve her personal best in long jump with 6.93 m. Had she decided to specialise in long jump, she would have been and 7+ jumper. Now I am crossing my fingers for 2019 and 2020, where Ibargüen will go for gold at the World's and the Olympics respectively. 

While Ibargüen's title came as a very pleasant surprise to me, that of Kipchoge was a no-brainer. He was my favourite from the outset and the fact that Mayer obtained the European title made Kipchoge's nomination inescapable. 

Ibargüen with Kipchoge

Looking at the photo, next to Ibargüen's 1.80 m, Kipchoge's 1.67 m looks really diminutive. But do not let his size fool you: he is really the best marathoner ever (and since he is as strong as ever, he may even equal the mythical Abebe Bikila with a victory in Tokyo).

Duplantis (left) with Karalis, the greek pole vaulter 

who held (briefly) the U20 wortld record this year

Concerning the rising star award, M. Duplantis obtained the well-deserved title. I did not consider him in my junior top list since I included him in the senior one. But still, if there were to be single rising star in athletics, that would be Mondo Duplantis.

S. McLaughlin, in last year's ceremony

My prediction was 100 % accurate concerning the female rising star. S. McLaughlin was, and by far, the best low-hurdler of the year, in both the U20 and the senior category. I expect her to be world record holder no later than 2020. On the other hand I did prefer her in the white dress of the 2017 ceremony. I found the black dress and eye-glasses she wore this year a tad too severe. 

E. Pesiridou after her fall in the 60 m hurdles in the World Indoors

And while we are at it. The ceremony was also the occasion to award the best athletics photo of the year. You can find about the photo that (quite deservedly) obtained the first prize by visiting the IAAF page. But I could not resist the temptation to include here a photo involving a greek athlete, which did make it to the short-list. It was a most unfortunate moment for the greek hurdler but the photo is great.

The IAAF finalists and some thoughts

The IAAF has published their list of finalists for title of World Athlete of the year 2018. Since I had published my own selection even before the initial, long, list of IAAF it make sense to make some comparisons. 

Let's start with the ladies list. The five finalists are

Dina Asher-Smith, Beatrice Chepkoech, Caterine Ibarguen, Shaunae Miller-Uibo and Nafissatou Thiam. For comparison my top-three list was Miller-Uibo, Chepkoech and Lasitskene. I find it somewhat bizarre that the latter did not make it to the finalists list but the IAAF choice of the top-five is quite reasonable. 

Given this short list, who has the greatest chance for the athlete of the year title.  Asher-Smith was nominated european athlete of the year, so, to my eyes, this diminishes her chances. Thiam is last year's winner and given the competition, I do not see her winning the title. This leaves us with Chepkoech, Ibarguen and Miller-Uibo. Much as I would have liked to see Ibargüen crowned, I do not see how she can compete against the other two. So it will be a race between Chepkoech and MIller-Uibo (and if you are following my blog you'll remember that my choice was Miller).

The men's list of finalists comprises

Christian Coleman, Armand Duplantis, Eliud Kipchoge, Kevin Mayer and Abderrahman Samba. I will not comment on Coleman (I am still not convinced of his value). A. Duplantis is a great talent and was crowned (together with J. Ingebrigtsen) European Rising Star and he may get the world rising star title as well. So this leaves us with Kipchoge, Mayer and Samba. Well, this is precisely my top own three. Mayer has already obtained the european athlete of the year title, so, most probably he will not be the winner of the world title. This leaves us with Kipchoge and Samba. Had Samba beaten the world record on 400 m hurdles he would have been the great favourite, but as the things stand I do not see how Kipchoge will miss the title. Well, we'll have to wait a little bit more (till December 4th) and we'll have the answer.

And since I am writing about the year's best athletes I must point out a great omission in my young talents list. Somehow the cuban triple jumper Jordan Diaz slipped out of my mind. With 17.41 m he established a U18 world record improving upon his 17.30 m from last year, obtained when he was just 16 years old. (Last year's record corresponded to a 2 m progression in a single year. Simply amazing). Diaz will probably obtain the rising star title and I felt that I had to make amends for my ommission.

On the illusory men-women parity in athletics

The recent European Championships in Athletics were considered as a milestone on the road to a parity between men and women in athletics. For the first time in history the program comprised a 50 km race walk for women. So, on the surface the programs for men and women are identical. Well, not quite, and what is worse, I am afraid that we'll never reach real parity.

I. Enriques winning the European title over 50 km

The first event where a manifest disparity exists is the 100 m hurdles. And I am not talking here about the fact that the distance is shorter. This had to be done in order to accommodate the fact that women have statistically a shorter stride length compared to that of men. No, I am talking about the hurdle height. I wrote about this in a blog post on imperial vs. metric units. The 100 m hurdles height was fixed  after the Mexico, 1968, Olympics at 0.84 m. Previously the women were running a 80 m with hurdles of 0.76 m. Unfortunately this standardisation going back to 1926 corresponded to a period when women were considered frail and weak and thus they had to have a special treatment. So, when the time came for a change, in 1968, going from 0.76 m to 0.84 m was considered an important leap in difficulty. As a result women can race the 100 m without the perfect technique which is vital for the elite men hurdlers. What would be the appropriate height for women's hurdles. The specialists agree on a 0.91 m height. Will, this ever happen? I don't think so. But if it did I would be the first to applaud such a decision. 

N. Visser (left with M. Jeanneke on the right)  as a hurdler

But where the disparity becomes really embarrassing is in combined events. The women's heptathlon cannot in any way be compared to men's decathlon. The latter asks for a real specialisation while it is not rare for women to move form heptathlon to some other event (and vice versa). T. Hellebaut won the olympic high jump competition and the indoor pentathlon in the same year (2008). Of course pentathlon is even easier than heptathlon (remember the curious story of Eva Wilms?). But it is not rare for a heptathlete to abandon combined event and shine in an individual one. Two out of the four dutch "wundermädchen" (I know, this is german, but I like this word) D. Schippers and N. Visser left heptathlon the first becoming world champion over 200 m while the second obtained a bronze medal in the 60 m hurdles of this year's World Indoors. N. Thiam could at any moment abandon heptathlon (but this would be not a very clever move, since she is the world's best for the last few years) and become a high jumper. The examples of men decathletes who became specialists of some other event are few and far between. We all remember of course the fabulous off-year of A. Eaton (2014) where he left the decathlon for the 400 m hurdles where he excelled to the point of winning a Golden League event with an enviable 48.69 s. Closer to us we have K. Warholm who went from combined events as a junior to a hurdler becoming world champion of the low hurdles while still being on the U23 category. But these are the exceptions. The decathlon is a different event from the heptathlon and no real parity between men and women will be reached as long as the latter insist on competing on this amputated combined event. Will we one day see women's decathlon competitions? This is not impossible given that the event exists officially and that a world record is homologated  What is needed is for the IAAF to show some firm hand and introduce the event first organising some special competition and then promoting it to a championships event.

And, repeating myself, race walk should not exist as a competitive discipline (or, if it did, only for ultra-marathon like events of 100s of kilometres, like the famous Paris-Kolmar). The reason for this is that race walkers  are cheating: they are running. Look at the photo below, taken at the 2005 World Championships and used to illustrate the Wikipedia article one race walk. 

Look carefully: two guys are running

Two of the walkers (the spaniard in front and one of russians) do not have any contact with the ground. They do it because the rules sanction only what the human eye can see. But we know, since time immemorial, that the hand is faster than the eye (that's how con artists have been making a living). Unfortunately, for the probity of athletics, the foot is also faster than the eye. 

PS. I had finished writing this article but hadn't posted it yet when the european athlete of the year awards were announced. And quite deservedly K. Mayer won the men's title. The interesting thing was that at the award ceremony he expressed the wish for the women's heptathlon to be replaced by a decathlon, ensuring thus a real parity between the two sexes. I was really impressed for the clairvoyance of K. Mayer and came to appreciate him even more. I am also convinced that there can be no comparison between the heptathlon and the decathlon and only when the latter will replace the former in the ladies competitions we will be able to talk seriously about combined events for women.

There is no end to the Semenya scandal

In July I wrote a post on Semenya and how her presence was making women competitions unfair for the non-hyperandrogenic females. I did not hesitate to pronounce the word "scandal" because this is precisely how I feel about the situation. I was writing there that a honest attitude of Semenya would have been to announce her retirement of competition in October before the date of enforcement of the new regulations. But this is not what Semenya had decided. In fact she had already filed an appeal to the Court of Arbitration on Sport concerning the IAAF regulation on "differences in sexual development". 

 Find the intruder

And a few days ago arrived the news that the IAAF had to delay the implementation of its Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification from November to March. The official justification of this was that

A contested application to stay the implementation of the DSD Regulations would have caused additional delay and created new uncertainty for athletes seeking to compete in the women’s category.

Sir Sebastian chimed in saying that,

“We have reached a compromise with the claimants.  We have agreed not to enforce the regulations against any athlete until the contested regulations are upheld.  In exchange, they have agreed not to prolong the process".

The IAAF Health & Science Department Director, Dr. Stéphane Bermon, pointed out the major drawback of this decision saying:

"This five-month shift in the timetable from a November to a late March start date could result in affected athletes having to sit out the bulk of the outdoor season leading up to the IAAF World Championships...  The original November 1 start date was designed specifically to avoid this".

It is now expected that the hearing at the CAS will take place in February with a decision at the end of March.

So, what will happen at the CAS? Nobody knows. The Court had already, in 2015, invalidated a previous IAAF regulation concerning hyperandrogenic women. When the current rules made their appearance, Ross Tucker (a sports physiologist for whom I have real respect) voiced his pessimism concerning the new rules, since the research they were based upon was not showing that a men-level testosterone concentration in women was anywhere near to bridging the gap of the 10 % difference in performance between man and women. And this 10 % difference was pivotal in the 2015 CAS ruling. 

In a recent article Tucker and collaborators have also challenged the methodology of the article by Bermon and Garnier, concluding that one cannot do "the right thing" in the wrong way. Their argument is based on their analysis of the data of Bermon and Garnier, an analysis which identified several errors in the original paper. In fact upon elimination of all problematic data points "the change in aggregate times when using corrected data is of a similar magnitude to that of the testosterone effects that the authors seek to identify". I suggest that you visit the Sports Scientists site and read the article of Tucker. And if you are not science-oriented just read his conclusions where he explains in a very clear way the ins and outs of the situation.

The Semenya saga continues and the situation is far from pleasant. If the CAS invalidates the IAAF regulations once more you can expect to see more and more fake women in athletics, a situation even worse than that of the era of rampant doping.

PS And despite all this Semenya has made the top-ten list of candidates for the title of athlete of the year. Frankly, what are the people at IAAF thinking?

Celebrating Mexico

The 1968, Ciudad de Mexico, Olympic Games ushered the modern era of athletics. From the cinder track of Rome and Tokyo the athletes had now at their disposal synthetic super-fast tracks. But the 1968 Games were also emblematic since they brought to the track the protests that had shaken the world only months before.

The IAAF website is celebrating the 50th anniversary of these pivotal Games with a series of articles. The first is on the Games themselves, the second on the black power salute of T. Smith and J. Carlos, while the third is devoted to B. Beamon's "perfect jump". Reading these articles triggered in me a bout of nostalgia and I decided to succumb to it. 

In autumn 1968 I had completed my studies of Physics in the University of Athens and was preparing for the graduation exams. It was the last "relaxed" summer of my life: after graduation I would have to do my military service at the end of which I would leave for France. (I went there in order to work for a Phd and, having obtained it, I spent the next forty years as a professional scientist working at the (french) national scientific research centre).  
We are talking about 1968 when even the idea of internet did not exist and where TV was just starting in Greece and a live broadcast of the Mexico Games was out of question. 
So, the only way to keep abreast of what was happening in the athletics world was the press, and in particular the (excellent) sports' greek newspaper: the Echo of Sports (Αθλητική Ηχώ in greek).

My mother was in charge of buying the newspaper and wake me up so that I could read the news without further delay. I still remember the moment I saw the incredible 8.90 m on the front page. Going into the Olympics Beamon was the number one favourite of the long jump. He had completely dominated the season and had even a wind-aided jump at 8.39 m, beyond the world record of 8.35 m or R. Boston and I. Ter Ovanesian. After fouling his two first jumps in the qualifiers he did make it, just behind R. Boston. And then, in a final, where the other protagonists, Boston and TerOvanesian, started with rather "tame" jumps of 8.16 and 8.12 m respectively, Beamon killed the competition with his 8.90 m first jump, 55 cm beyond the existing world record.  

Beamon triple-jumping (but his technique is really so-so)

Clearly Beamon's is the feat that marked the history of the Games, but the Mexico Olympics (and we are talking here about athletics) were memorable for a host of reasons. How can we forget the triple jump where G. Gentile broke the world record twice only to finish third. V. Saneyev had to improve Gentile's mark in order to go to first place and when N. Prudencio passed him he broke the world record again in order to save the gold medal. Five world records in a single event! D. Fosbury revolutionised the high jump, showing the world that his "back layout" jump (soon to become the "Fosbury flop") could win olympic gold. Mexico was the 4th and final stop in A. Oerter's gold medal career. (Speaking of Oerter, he did try to qualify for the US team in 1980 but finished 4th. Still, he did throw 69.46 m at the age of 43. The common lore is that on an occasion, filming for TV, Oerter threw the discus at circa 75 m well beyond, even today's, world record). C. Besson created the surprise when winning the women's 400 m, beating L. Board, in a race decided at the photo-finish. (Besson was going to lose an important race at the photo-finish the following year, when she was beaten by her compatriot N. Duclos at the 1969 Europeans. At least she had the satisfaction of sharing the world record with the latter. Their official time was 51.7  (in fact 51.72 and 51.74 respectively) improving Sin Kim Dan's record of 51.9 s). Mexico was also the only major international appearance of Chi Cheng (third in the 80 m hurdles), an exceptional athlete, and the second biggest taiwanese name in athletics of the 60s, after Yang Chuan-Kwang. 

T. Smith celebrating (he could have waited one more second)

I am not going to write about the "salute". It is by now part of our inheritance, a great moment for two (in fact, three) sports heroes. I was great admirer of T. Smith at the time. Had his track career not been curtailed (thanks also to the president of the IOC, A. Brundage, to whom I have dedicated a detailed article) a time close to 19.5 s would have been possible as well as a world record over 400 m. Just look at the photo, where T. Smith starts celebrating with 10 metres to go.

Papanicolaou after his world record (I was in the stadium)

But the moment all of us greek athletics fans were waiting for was the pole vault. C. Papanicolaou was one of the contenders even for the gold medal. He had jumped 5.30 m in 1967 in the same stadium where the Olympics were held. Going into the final, Bleznitsov and d'Encausse were eliminated at 5.35 while Pennel passed on third attempt. Papanicolaou having  secured the height at first try was en route for a medal. But then he failed thrice at 5.40 m which was cleared by favourites Seagren and Nordwig on second and third try respectively and by a practically unknown vaulter, C. Schiprowski, who improved his 5.10 m personal best by 30 cm in order to grab silver. That was a major disappointment for us, Papanicolaou fans. Fortunately he did not let this mishap discourage him and he went on to establish, with 5.49 m, a world record in 1970. Papanicolaou was not the only unlucky vaulter in those games. J. Pennel cleared the height of 5.40 m at his second attempt, which would have given him the bronze medal, but his pole passed under the uprights. At the time that sufficed in order to invalidate the jump and so he ended the competition in 5th place. That ridiculous rule, leftover from the pre-fiberglass era where jumpers were using super-long poles, was revoked the next year.

PS And, yes, I have been wondering why the IAAF did not publish anything on Fosbury and his revolutionary style. Well, we did not have to wait for very long: an (excellent) article did make its appearance on the IAAF site today. 

My choice of the year's best athletes

This is the time of the year when the top-10 lists are published. The IAAF publishes a first list of 10, then proceeds to nominate the three finalists out of which the best athlete of the year is selected. 

This year I decided to publish my list without waiting for the one of the IAAF to appear. I will, of course, compare the two lists and even comment on the final choice of the athlete of the year. 
As always the first three are given in order, the first being my choice for athlete of the year and then I add honourable mentions without any specific order.

So my male athlete of the year is 

E. Kipchoge, 

is the author of a fantastic Marathon world record. He was number 2 in my last year's top list.

K. Mayer, 

is number two thanks to his great decathlon world record. He would have been number one if he hadn't fouled out in the Europeans (but then he wouldn't have gone for a world record in Talence). I hope to see Mayer in number one in 2020 after the Tokyo Olympics.


A. Samba,

won the third place having dominated completely the 400 m hurdles. He did not lose a single race and came within a breath of the world record (established three years before he was born).

Honourable mentions

A. Duplantis 
He won a position along the year's best thanks to his amazing 6.05 m at the Europeans. He had his ups and downs over the season (but then who is the pole vaulter who doesn't) but overall he proved that he is not just the future of pole vaulting but also the present.

N. Lyles
He is for me the best sprinter today (and in any case better than Coleman).

E. Manangoi and T. Cheruiyot
They were the great names of 1500 m this year.

C. Kipruto
He won a place in my list of year's best thanks to his incredible victory in the Diamond League finale running semi-barefoot.

T. Walsh
He is, to my eyes, the most consistent shot-putter today.

F. Dacres
This year was (a long-expected) good one for Dacres. I look forward to his first over-70 throw

The Belgium 4x400 m team
Yes, I feel that this team is worth a place in the top list. With the arrival of J. Sacoor the Borlée family has found the missing piece. Beware of the belgians.

M. Barshim 
He had a very good year till the moment he was injured signing, with 2.40 m, the best performance of the year. (D. Lysenko did also jump 2.40 m but his authorised neutral athlete status was revoked due to his failure to provide whereabouts information). 

My female athlete of the year is

S. Miller-Uibo 

Her domination over 200-400 m was absolute (and she managed to dip under 49 s for the first time this year).

B. Chepkoech 

She is number two, having won all but one races in the 3000 m steeple and having signed a great world record. In fact I hesitated quite a lot between her and Miller-Uibo for the athlete of the year title.

M. Lasitskene 

She won all but one of her competitions securing both the world indoor and the european outdoor titles. She had 14 victories with over-2 m jumps.

Honourable mentions 

M. Ahouré, K. Harrison and I. Spanovic
These three athletes won a place in my year's best list thanks to their first (indoor) world title.

S. Hassan
She made the top list thanks to her european title and her two are records over 5000 m and the half-marathon

E. Stefanidi
She had a low-key winter season (due to a minor injury) but then she was in great shape when it counted, conserving her european title and winning the Diamond League final.

C. Ibargüen
No 15+ jump for her this year but a great 6.93 m personal best in the long jump and victories over both horizontal jumps in the Continental Cup (to say nothing of the CAC Games).

A. Wlodarczyk
This was not the best year for her: she did not throw beyond 80 m this year and did not win every competition as in the previous years. But still she is the best hammer thrower ever. 

D. Asher-Smith and M.J. Talou
They signed the best performance of the year over 100m (and the former had an excellent 200 m as well).

N. Thiam
She is always the queen of combined events

Young talents

A young talents list is also customary. It goes without saying that A. Duplantis, being part of the "grown-ups" top list is number one male talent of the year. But if we consider that Duplantis is now playing in the senior arena, then the talent of the year title would go to


J.M. Echevarría

and his amazing 8.83 m (slightly wind-aided) leap (and a world indoor title). 

J. Ingebrigtsen
Is  in second place thanks and his two superb (senior) european victories.

M. Tentoglou
Won the long jump in the Europeans for his first participation in senior championships

A honourable mention for two young sprinters

J. Sacoor 
(the non-Borlée member of the 4x400 m belgian team) 

F. Tortu 
(one of a handful of white under-10s sprinters)

The female talent of the year is

S. McLaughlin

an impressive low-hurdler: At 19 she is the 10th best performer of all times. (She had participated at the Rio, 2016, Olympics at just 17). Next stop, the world record.

B. Williams
In second place. She dominated completely the U20 sprint this year.

E. Herman
In third place. She won the european championships over 100 m hurdles.

A honourable mention for two combined events specialists

A. Shukh and M. Vicente
I have chose these two heptathletes because of their multi-talented profile. Shukh is an excellent javelin thrower while Vicente won both the U18 heptathlon and triple jump. 

I did not include last year's winners, Y. Rojas and K. Warholm for the IAAF, and 
S.E. Naser and K. McMaster from my list. All four have by now impressive titles in their prize lists.