The javelin puzzle (solved)

I have always been attracted by the javelin. I find it the most elegant of throws. One of the most succesfull posts of this blog is "the javelin controversy" where I tell the story of the (very) short-lived "spanish" style, which could have revolutionised the javelin discipline. 

World record holder, J. Zelezny

The javelin is the only throwing discipline where the women's implement is not equal (or at least very close) to half of the men's implement weight. With 600 gr and 800 gr the ratio is exactly 3/4 resulting to records which are very different for the two sexes. In a previous post I have addressed this problem, in particular investigating the possibility to bring the records closer thanks to an even lighter javelin for women. But let me give some background before presenting the conclusions of that study. The main ingredient of my approach is a simple mathematical expression that gives the dependence of the length L of the throw on the mass m of the implement. (This approximate formula was derived in a publication of mine in New Studies in Athletics,  29:1 (2014) p. 75-81).


L=a/(m+f)
The quantity f entering the expression above quantifies the inertia of the thrower's arm in the particular throwing style under consideration. To put it simply, the quantity f is different for each of the four different throws. From the expression above one sees immediately that when the mass of the implement becomes very large, the length of the throw goes to zero. On the other hand when the mass of the implement goes to zero, the length of the throw does not increase beyond a certain value. And this is true even when one neglects all aerodynamical effects: there is a limit to the speed at which one can move one's arm. 

World record holder B. Spotakova

If one has a reliable estimate of the value of f one can predict the possible performances with lighter, or heavier, implements. In the case of javelin throw, as explained in the aforementioned post, I obtained a value of f=0.5 kg for javelin throw. Another estimate based on the performances of K. Walcott in his junior years, when he threw both with a 700 gr and a 800 gr javelin, yielded a value of a few hundred grams, an indication that the half-kilogram value is not unreasonable. In what follows I will present all my estimates based on this value.

World champion J. Yego

The conclusion of the article on lighter implements was that having the women throw with a 400 gr javelin (i.e. half the weight of that of men's) will not suffice in order to align their performances to those of men. The women's world record would still be situated below 90 m. And of course this is a very crude estimate which does not take into account the aerodynamical problems arising from the use of such a light implement. Having realised this, I decided to consider an alternative: instead of reducing the weight of the women's javelin, how about increasing the weight of that of men's? What would be the equivalent of a 98 m throw with the 800 gr javelin, if the latter would have a mass of 1.2 kg? Applying the formula we find that the world record would be a mere 75 m. Thus the comparison between men's and women's records would be perfectly in line with that of the other three throws. 

Olympic champion K. Walcott

Of course, this is something unthinkable today, since it would add 50 % to the weight of the implement male throwers are accustomed to. But had the discipline started with, say, 1 kg javelins, for which the formula predicts a record of 82 m, it would have been, perhaps marginally, possible to introduce a 500 gr javelin for women for which the predicted record is situated at 80 m.  

World champion M. Manjani

So a men's heavier javelin would be the solution for a parity between man's and women's records. On the other hand with a world record at 75 m most throwers would have to content themselves with throws in the 60-70 m range, (and the best decathletes barely throwing beyond 50 m). Well, although I am happy for having found the proper way to establish parity between men and women in javelin throw, I would never seriously recommend such a solution (technical problems aside). Throws of barely 60 m are underwhelming compared to the 90 m throws we are currently enjoying. (In fact, these "short" throws are making women's javelin throw less spectacular compared to men's). 

Olympic and World champion A. Thorkildsen

If I were to recommend something, that would be to go to the opposite direction. When I wrote my article on the spanish style, I was feeling that that style should have been the one adopted. After all, we know today that the most efficient throwing style is the rotational one. And we should supplement that style with Held-type gliding javelins or at least Nemeth-rough-tail ones. Then the world record would be around 130 m, if not more, and we would be enjoying spectacular flights. But, of course, one can only dream. 

Women are good runners, fair jumpers but so-so throwers

The comparison of men and women performances in athletics is a long-standing question. The standard approach is to compare the current world records and get it done with. However, as I have argued in an article, co-authored with Y. Charon and published in New Studies in Athletics, this is a bad choice. The world record can be due to an exceptional combination of talent and circumstances. It might also be due to lower standards as far as control of the competition is concerned (wind-speed limit measurement, application of anti-doping controls, etc.). And the same applies to the olympic record and to any major championships record (to say nothing of the fact that, as far as middle distances are concerned, the races of major championships may be tactical ones and thus not representative of the real values of the athletes). 

A simple solution would have been to neglect the top-most performances and compare, say, the records of the all-time 50th or 100th performer. In the figure below I show the evolution of the performance in long jump with the rank of the athlete for men and women. Already from this graphic we can see that a problem does exist. The women's performances decrease faster than those of men. (The possible explanation for this is that, despite a century of women's involvement in athletics, the recruitment of women athletes, in particular at high level, is still trailing behind that of men).

This becomes even clearer when one computes the ratio of performances as shown in the next graphic. In the article mentioned above we had proposed solutions to the problem. One was to fit the ratio points by a simple mathematical expression (the best fit is shown by the light, continuous curve). An even simpler solution is to use the data from the 100th performer onwards and extrapolate linearly towards 0. This is shown by the light, dashed, line in the graphic. Once this is done, one can use the value obtained at the intersection point as the reference value for the ratio. This is clearly an arbitrary choice but one which has the advantage to be systematic and easily implemented. 

Once the methodology is fixed I can now proceed to a comparison of men and women performances over a wide range of events. The results are summarised in the table below.

Event	Ratio
100 m	0.91
400 m	0.89
1500 m	0.88
5000 m	0.88
Marathon	0.89
High Jump	0.85
Long Jump	0.83

We remark that concerning track events the ratio is close to 0.9 while for jumps the value is closer to 0.85. Thus women are good at running but less so at jumping. 

M. Ahouré, the 2018 world champion over 60 m

This is in accordance with physio-anatomical studies which show that where woman are closer to men is in the case of lower-body force. Jumps put in contribution not only the legs but the trunk muscles as well and this results to a larger difference between men and women.

I. Spanovic, 2018 long jump world champion

At this point one can wonder what is the situation concerning throws. First, due to the fact that implements of different weights are used for the two sexes, it does not make much sense to proceed to explicit comparisons. The choice of the implement weights, with a factor of roughly 2 between men and women (excluding the javelin, for which a special article will be written sometime), appears to be optimal, essentially due to the fact that the world records for shot, discus and hammer are comparable. This appears to be corroborated by the fact that some studies resulted to a factor of almost 2 between the upper-body force of men and women. However I believe this factor of 2 to be coincidental and in any case these observations do not give a handle for the comparison of men and women performances. So the way I decided to proceed to a comparison was by estimating what would be the performances of women were they to throw with men's implements. (We would have reached the same conclusions by estimating what would be the performances of men were they to throw with women's implements). I will limit the study to the discus and the shot, since hammer throw is a rather recent discipline and it has not yet reached the necessary maturity. (This is in fact the reason that triple jump and pole vault were excluded from the jump comparison).

M. Abakumova who had, to my eyes, the best style in javelin throw

First, using the data from the 100th up to the 500th performer and extrapolating linearly towards 0, I obtain a reference performance. These turn out to be 21.99 m and 20.07 m for men's and women's shot put respectively. For discus throw we have 68.08 m and 67.30 m respectively. Next starting from the women's performance, obtained with implements of weights 4 kg for the shot and 1 kg for the discus, I use the method presented in a previous post. Namely I use the expression

$$ L = a/(m + f)

where m is the mass of the implement and f a term related to the arm inertia, with values 6 kg for shot put and 1.5 kg for discus throw. Knowing the length L of the throw one can compute the value of a, and using the latter, obtain the length of the throw for a different value of the implement mass m. I find thus that if women were to throw with the men's implement their reference performance would have been 15 m for the shot put and 48 m for discus throw. From these values we obtain a ratio of 0.69 for shot put and 0.71 for discus throw.

So, from 0.90 for running events, the ratio of women to men performances goes to 0.85 for jumps and all the way down to 0.70 for throws. This confirms what one would have intuitively expected, i.e. that women are not as good in throws as they are in the remaining track and field events. It would have been great to have direct confirmation of this by actual performances of women throwers using men's implements. Unfortunately this is something that is completely lacking (apart from Spotakova's throw, I referred to in the post mentioned in the previous paragraph). Till more data emerge we'll have to do with estimates and extrapolations, like the ones presented in this article. Still the image is clear, as summarised in the title of the post.

The incredible effrontery of the USADA

On November 22nd, the council of the WA (IAAF) announced that the reinstatement process of the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) was suspended. The "Russia taskforce" made their recommendation due to the existence on unresolved charges brought by the Athletics Integrity Unit. 
They asked the WA council to mandate the members of the Taskforce and of the Doping Review Board to review the ‘Authorised Neutral Athlete’ (ANA) mechanism and make recommendations as to whether that mechanism can and should continue to be used, and (if so) in what form. (Moreover any ANA applications received in the interim should be held in abeyance pending such review).
And, to cap it all, the sanctions contemplated could go as far as asking the WA Congress to consider the expulsion of RusAF from membership of World Athletics.

The chair of the Taskforce, R. Andersen, stated that

“There are charges laid by the AIU which we need to respect, and the AIU needs to receive feedback from RusAF by 12 December. When we have the answers from the AIU on what has been going on and what the process will be, then we will convene and look at the whole structure and we will come up with recommendations to the council”.

The WA president, S. Coe, commented

“This is a process that has served us well. It is neither symbolic nor have we done it to benchmark ourselves against anything else other than we felt was absolutely the right decision for our sport. It may not make us universally popular, but it is really important that we continue with the process we began in November 2015. The recommendation that was given to us today, and unanimously accepted by the council, was in the spirit of that process. We will take this through to wherever we need to take it to protect the athletes and the sport”.

Up to here all is well. Most probably in the immortal words of Shakespeare "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", meaning that there is indeed a doping problem in the Russian Athletics Federation involving members of the hierarchy up to and including the presidency. And, although the process Sir Sebastian is referring to is harsh, it is not quite unfair.

But then things went downhill. The CEO of USADA, T. Tygart made a revolting statement. I give it in its totality below so that you can appreciate the hypocrisy.

“Russia continues to flaunt the world’s anti-doping rules, kick clean athletes in the gut and poke WADA in the eye and get away with it time and time again.
WADA must stand up to this fraudulent and bullying behaviour as the rules and Olympic values demand. The response proposed by the CRC is inadequate especially given the deceit perpetuated by the Russian sport system which is controlled by the government.
History has taught us the response to Russian doping used in Rio 2016 and PyeongChang 2018 – in which a secretly-managed process permitting Russians to compete – did not work. The world’s athletes saw through this charade and it apparently only emboldened Russia to simply destroy evidence and to tamper with more samples to make it impossible to confirm whether any clean Russian athletes actually exist.
WADA must get tougher and impose the full restriction on Russian athlete participation in the Olympics that the rules allow. Only such a resolute response has a chance of getting Russia’s attention, changing behaviour, and protecting today’s clean athletes who will compete in Tokyo, as well as future generations of athletes in Russia who deserve better than a cynical, weak response to the world’s repeated calls for Russia to clean up its act. It is sad when a country’s athletes suffer for the fraud of the governmental and sport system they represent. However, the failure to stand up to Russia’s five-year flaunting of the rules would cause even more harm to athletes in and outside of Russia. 
The time for the toughest penalty available is now”.

The upholder of the law T. Tygart

To put it in a nutshell, what Tygart is asking is that all russian athletes, even the ones  who have never been implicated in doping controversies, be banned for the Tokyo, 2020, Olympics. 

Who is talking? The president of the USA doping agency, the very same who cooked up a ridiculous excuse, a "filing failure", allowing C. Coleman to participate in the World Championships and win two gold medals. The guy who is happy watching double doping offender J. Gatlin continue to haunt the stadia. 

Of course Tygart's statement did provoke strong reactions. I was very happy seeing that World and Olympic champion K. Stefanidi was among the first to react. She pointed out that the US anti-doping agency cannot talk about clean athletes when there have been so many US doping cases. I her own words

“Well...to be fair with all the steroid-infused meat and the way missed tests are counted in this side of the world I’ve got to admit USADA doesn’t have the best reputation either. Focus on cleaning up your own house first”.

(The reference to "steroid-infused meat" alludes to the explanation used by some american athletes in order to get away with doping offences, i.e. that the presence of anabolics in their urine and/or blood is due to the intake of such "tainted" meat).

Triple World Champion M. Lasitskene asked Tygart to "watch his language". She commented on the scurrilous statement of Tygart that "it [is] impossible to confirm whether any clean Russian athletes actually exist" that he should ask Gatlin, Coleman and all US athletes who profit for “therapeutic use exemptions” concerning the use of prohibited substances. And nobody can accuse Lasitskene of being partial. Just a few months ago she critiqued roundly the Russian Federation for their lack of action which could lead to the RusAF reinstatement, and the fact that the interests of the athletes were somehow ignored. "Without athletes, the existence of a federation is meaningless" she pointed out.

WADA will deliver its verdict regarding the status of RUSADA and Russia’s participation in the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo on December 9. Thus Tygart's statement is nothing but candid. If Russia is expelled from the Olympics the US can expect to win 20 % more medals. Hence the insolence of the USADA chief. Has there ever been question about sanctioning the USATF for the doping offences of their athletes? Not only this but it is the USADA themselves who invent cover-up stories, as in the case of Coleman.

It is written in the Scripture "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Definitely Mr. Tygart does not qualify.

PS The verdict of WADA was announced on December 9th. Russia has been handed a four (!) year ban from international competitions. This covers the Tokyo 2020 Olympics and the Qatar 2022 football World Cup. In the words of WADA the decision was the "strongest possible". It goes without saying that for zealots like Tygart the punishment was not painful enough. In his own words "Escaping Russia completely is another devastating blow to the clean athletes, the credibility of the sport and the rule of law". Which clean athletes is he talking about?

The 9+ m jump, or how King Carl was robbed

This is the sad story of how Carl Lewis lost a superb world record due to the incompetence of the judges.

The faithful readers of my blog have certainly noticed that I do not like Carl Lewis. However you have to give it to him: he has been a great jumper with a superb technique. It was really a pleasure to watch him jump and there has been a moment when he was capable to do incredible things. To be sure, he was already as obnoxious as we came to realise later but this does not diminish in the least his value as jumper.

Before telling the story let us see what do the rules say concerning fouls in horizontal jumps.

Rule 185 of the current (2018-2019) WA (ex-IAAF) book of rules states that 

An athlete fails if:
he while taking off, touches the ground (including any part of the plasticine board) beyond the take-off line with any part of his body, whether running up without jumping or in the act of jumping.

And let us add the proviso of Rule 146 b
In a Field Event, if an athlete makes an immediate oral protest against having a trial judged as a failure, the Referee of the event may, if he is in any doubt, order that the trial be measured and the result recorded, in order to preserve the rights of all concerned.
But when considering whether to order the measurement of a trial which is the subject of an immediate oral protest the Referee should:
(a) not do so in cases where there was a clear breach of the Rules, for example in the long jump a clear mark made in the plasticine by the athlete in question;
(b) always do so (and immediately so as to not delay the competition) in cases where there is any doubt.

The good operation of this Rule means that the Judge with the spike or prism should always mark the point of landing even when they see a red flag. Apart from the possibility that the athlete may make an immediate oral protest, it is also possible that the Judge with the flags may have incorrectly or accidentally raised the wrong one.

Unfortunately I do not have the 1982 rules of the USA Track and Field federation. The ones in my possession, the 2019 ones, are the exact copy of the WA rules, as far as Rule 185 is concerned, while for Rule 146 the formulation is slightly different (but the gist is the same). Rule 146,7 states that 
If an immediate oral protest is made, in order to protect the rights of all concerned:
Regarding a decision of a Field Judge that a jump is foul or is invalid, the jump should be measured, if possible. 

However I traced down the current NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) TF rules and there I found this
Section 7, article 3
It shall be a foul jump if:
The takeoff foot (shoe) extends beyond the foul line.

The fateful 9+ m jump of C. Lewis

So, now, let us go back to July 1982 and the USOC (United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee) Sports Festival Competition in Indianapolis. Carl Lewis, just 21 years old, is in great shape. The previous year, not quite 20 years old, he had jumped a world leading 8.62 m in Sacramento (and a wind-aided 8.73 m in the same competition). In May 1982 he jumped 8.61 m in Westwood. When he comes to Indianapolis he is at the peak of his form. He starts the competition with two straight fouls, of which the first is already beyond 9 m. And then he is off to participate in the 4x100 m relay. He is back and fouls once more. And again he is off in order to participate in the medal ceremony of the relay. Since there are fewer than eight athletes he can take all six jumps. He adjusts his run-up and in the fourth jump (some say that he missed the fourth and this is his fifth) he lands well beyond 9 m. Everybody is cheering but then the judge raises a red flag. Lewis protests and asks to see the mark on the plasticine. There is no mark but the judge replies that he saw Lewis foot extend beyond the foul line by a good quarter inch. This is preposterous! While the USATF rules are clear the judge is apparently accustomed to the NCAA rules which allow the judge to decide on a foul even in the absence of any mark. But wait, the worse is yet to come. While Lewis is discussing with the judge, an over-eager assistant erases the mark on the sand pit. So, even if the judge had relented, it would have been impossible to measure the jump under protest. Lewis is simply robbed of a fantastic word record. He has one (or two) last jumps and he manages a world leading 8.76 m, with a perfectly legal wind of 1 m/s, but Beamon's record is intact.

How far did he jump in his non-measured jump? J. Grimes who finished 2nd in the competition, estimated the jump at probably 30 feet and two inches (9.19 m). Most witnesses agree on 30+ feet (9.14 m). So, it is safe to surmise that the jump was definitely one above 9 m.  

Lewis returned to Indianapolis in the following years. He jumped 8.79 m in 1983, 8.75 m in 1987 and 8.76 m in 1988. Only in Tokyo, during the 1991 World Championships did he jump further than the Indianapolis marks with a wind-legal 8.87 m (and a slightly wind-aided 8.91 m). He would never jump beyond 9 m. 
Was he really able to do so? I am convinced that he was and that he did so in Indianapolis. Why didn't he come closer to this mark in the following years? I believe that this is due to the fact that he kept always more than one iron in the fire. He was running 100 and 200 m and participating in the 4x100 m US team as late as 1993. When he decided to focus on the long jump for the 1996 Olympics, trying to equal Oerter's feat of four consecutive olympic golds, he was already past his prime. (He managed to win in Atlanta, with a so-so 8.50 m but that was his swan-song). 

 Carl Lewis' perfect technique

In my post on King Carl I voiced, in an unambiguous way, my poor opinion on him. I stand by these writings and would not change them by a iota. Still, as I said, you have to give it to him: Carl Lewis was the most graceful long jumper and he is the first human to jump beyond 9 metres. 

PS. I had finished the article and was waiting a few days in order to publish it when I came across a mention of a rule change for horizontal jumps to be introduced from November 2020. According to this the plasticine will not be used anymore in order to judge whether a jump is valid or not but the judge will appreciate whether the foot of the athlete went over the foul line. 
Where the people who proposed this completely brainless? 
They are replacing an objective datum (trace or no trace on the plasticine) with a purely subjective one. So, if the judge so wishes he/she can alter the outcome of a competition just by disqualifying selectively. And more jumpers will be robbed of their record just like poor C. Lewis. (I never imangined that I was going to write this last sentence).

The winners are here

The end-of-year gala of WA took place yesterday and the winners of the various categories were announced. I am very glad because the ones who were at the top of my list were the ones who won the title.

There was no doubt that D. Muhammad was going to prevail in the women's category. Two world records and a world title had put her above everyone else. And I must add that, while I do like a lot S. McLaughlin, when I see them running side by side I must admit that Muhammad has a far better technique. McLaughlin is stronger and as she is younger the future is hers, but for the time being Muhammad is the best female low-hurdler.

E. Kipchoge won the athlete of the year title for a second year in a row. His sub-2 marathon is such an iconic performance that he was the obvious choice for the title. And since there have been precedents of athletes winning back to back titles I was rather confident in my choice. (This year he did not attend the gala and he accepted his prize through videoconference). 

Y. Mahuchikh won the female rising star title as I predicted. And in fact, she had won also the european title a few weeks back. Her nomination was a rare occasion to see the WA vice-president in an official photo. Why do I have the impression that S. Bubka is not on excellent terms with sir Sebastian?

The men's rising star award went to S. Barega. As you may remember my preference went to N. Kaul who won the european rising star title. However the WA have different criteria and thus Kaul could not make the list. Once I saw the five finalists I expressed the hope that J. Ingebrigtsen could obtain the title as a consolation for an excellent year spoiled by a below-par championship. But this was a vain wish. And in fact it is funny to remark that the title went to Barega who won the silver medal and not to Girma who lost the gold medal on the finish line. (In the photo above Barega is receiving his prize by none other than H. El Guerrouj).

There was no surprise for the fair play award. B.S. Dabo, from Guinea-Bissau won the title for having helped his fellow runner J. Busby from Aruba to reach the finish line in the heats of the 5000 m. I stand by my (positive) comments in my championships report.

The photograph of the year went to a photo of S.A. Fraser-Pryce jubilant at the finish of her 100 m. It is definitely not my choice. I prefer and by far the photo of Patrick Smith which shows P. Frederick of Antigua competing in the high jump final at the Lima, 2019, Pan American Games.

And one last thing. You have to give it to Sir Sebastian, tradition is a very important thing and he is very careful about that. This year he organised a ceremony in honour of  the best milers, going back to R. Bannister (who passed away last year and was represented by his daughters). It was a great occasion to see again, side by side, F. Bayi and J. Walker. (If you haven't watched the 1974 Commonwealth Games 1500 final here is a link to youtube, but make sure you watch it with the sound off). Alas, Sir John is greatly diminished (he is suffering from Parkinson's disease) but Bayi is always in great shape. In fact it was the race of T. Cheruiyot in Doha which reminded me of the fabulous 1974 race. (Unfortunately there is no decent video of the 1500 m men's final in Doha, which is really a pity).

The finalists' list is out

The World Athletics (that's the new brand name of the IAAF, and a somewhat awkward one without a dangling "federation", "organisation" of whatnot) has published the list of the five finalists among which they will select the athlete of the year. 

The men finalists are

Joshua Cheptegei (UGA)
Sam Kendricks (USA)
Eliud Kipchoge (KEN)
Noah Lyles (USA)
Karsten Warholm (NOR)

I stand by my previous choice of Kipchoge and Warholm in that order. My choice for third goes to Cheptegei. I must confess that I had hesitated a lot before opting for Barshim for third place but Cheptegei was my very next choice so it is natural to give him the third place now. As to what the WA will finally decide, I cannot make any confident prediction. Kipchoge was nominated last year, so will he carry the trophy for a second year in a row? (But then there is the precedent of Bolt, so one never knows). Warholm obtained the european athlete of the year title, so this, somehow, diminishes his chances. Could it be Cheptegei? Well, I cross my fingers.

And the women

Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce (JAM)
Sifan Hassan (NED)
Brigid Kosgei (KEN)
Dalilah Muhammad (USA)
Yulimar Rojas (VEN)

Muhamamd, Hassan and Kosgei are my top three in that order. My favourite is clearly Muhammad. I don't believe that Fraser-Pryce is worth a nomination among the five finalists. To my eyes she is not even the best female sprinter of the year. Had I to decide who should have been among the top five I would have chosen Chepkoech instead of Fraser-Pryce. 

And one final remark. Perusing the WA finalists list one remarks that we have 80 % of runners, 20 % of jumpers and 0 % of throwers (to say nothing of the combined events). Does this really reflect today's situation in athletics? I am not quite convinced.

The rising stars list was also made public a few days ago.

Here is the men's list

Selemon Barega (ETH)
Alison dos Santos (BRA)
Lamecha Girma (ETH)
Jakob Ingebrigtsen (NOR)
Mykhaylo Kokhan (UKR)


And the women's list

Britany Anderson (JAM)
Lemlem Hailu (ETH)
Yaroslava Mahuchikh (UKR)
Glenda Morejon (ECU)
Sha’Carri Richardson (USA)



When it comes to the rising starts list mine diverges appreciably from the one of the IAAF. One reason for this is that the IAAF limits this list to athletes who are in the U20 category, while I don't. If an athlete is 21 or 22 and to my eyes she/he is a rising stard I do not hesitate to include her/him in my list. Curiously the European Athletics federation is more permissive about the rising star's age. So the european rising stars this years were Y. Mahuchikh (I just hope she obtains the world award as well) and N. Kaul. 

Of course, I must also be honest and admit that I do not follow the middle- and especially the long-distances with the same interest as the rest. Hence the absence of Barega, Girma and Hailu from my lists. The one I was aware of was Sha’Carri Richardson but, since her participation at the US trials was less than satisfactory, I opted not including her in the list. In the case of Alison (Piu) dos Santos, this is a real omission of mine. 

It is due to the fact that, after the accident he suffered when still a baby he has no hair on a large part of his head, giving the impression that he is older than his 19 years. I am happy to repair this faux pas of mine here.

And I must make a special mention of J. Ingebrigtsen. I keep my fingers crossed for the IAAF to nominate him rising star of the year. They should have done this last year and nominate him jointly with A. Duplantis. This is precisely what the European Federation did. I have a tendency to classify him along with "grown-ups" which is not quite fair. He had an excellent year but both his finals in the World's were not as good as expected due to the tactics he chose. Let's see how the IAAF deals with this.

World's 2019 report: field events

M. Barshim was, together with Samba, the great hope of Qatar for a gold medal. But as in the case of Samba an injury early in the season did not allow a great optimism, in particular since his comeback at the end of August was rather disappointing, with an unheard-of (for him) 2.20. Still he managed to be in top shape for the World's and rewarded us with a fantastic contest. Already at the qualifiers he passed 2.29 without missing a height, qualifiers which saw many well known jumpers eliminated (Bondarenko, Przybylko, Ghazal,...). 

Barshim victorious

In the final Barshim had to fight the two russians, Akimenko and Ivanyuk, who both registered PB with 2.35. Barshim was flawless till 2.33 where he scared us by missing twice before succeeding on the third try. Then, together with the two russians, he passed 2.35 on his first try, but this was just enough for silver. And then Barshim showed that he is really the best high-jumper today, passing over 2.37, which proved too high for the russians (and the byelorussian Nedasekau, who finished 4th). Barshim is my favourite for next year's Olympics, provided he is injury free. 

Mahuchikh who improved the WJR twice

M. Lasitskene was the uncontested favourite of the women's high jump and did win in the end. But it was not a trivial thing. The event started in a quite tame way (Lasitskene started at 1.84 like all the others). Demireva went out at 1.89, a rather disappointing height for a 2 m jumper. Five athletes were still present when the bar was raised to 2 m (in fact 6 since Demidik had reserved her last attempt for this height). Licwinko had to contend herself with 1.98 but Levchenko, Mahuchikh and Cunningham succeeded (and, of course, Lasitskene).  The next height proved fatal for Levchenko and Cunningham, the latter obtaining the bronze medal on countback. Mahuchikh went on to register a World Junior Record with 2.02. But the surprise came at the next height where after Lasitskene had succeeded on the first attempt, Mahuchikh succeeded on the third try improving her just established record. It took 8 jumps for Lasitskene to secure the gold medal, while Mahuchikh needed 14 for silver.

The photo below is obviously not the one from the World's but I chose it because one can see Lasitskene celebrating with the russian flag for the first time after four years. I have already stated my opinion on punishing the authorised neutral athletes by depriving them of their national flag (and anthem).

Lasitskene at the World Military Games, 

together with Herashchenko and Levchenko

Both pole vault events were exciting ones. This started already with men's qualifiers which saw the elimination of olympic champion and World Record holder R. Lavillenie, world champion P. Wojciechowski, world indoor champion K. Filippidis and the talented E. Karalis. In the final, the height of 5.80 was the decisive one. Only three athletes managed to jump over it: S. Kendricks, A. Duplantis and P. Lisek. B.K. Lita Baehre was finally 4th ahead of olympic champion T. Graz, 5th, while world champion R. Holzdeppe and V. Lavillenie (the younger brother) shared the 6th position, all of them with 5.70. At the next height, 5.87, Duplantis and Lisek passed at the 2nd try while Kendricks need a third one. He recovered passing 5.92 on his first attempt while Duplantis needed three. Lisek tried once and he left the remaining two for 5.97 where he failed. At 5.97 Duplantis passed on the third attempt and was for a brief moment first, till Kendricks managed also to pass on his third attempt. Both failed at 6.02 and thus Kendricks won on countback because Duplantis had one more failure (at 5.87 and 5.92) compared to those of Kendricks. What an event!

The three medalists of pole vault.

Their friendly attitude won them a place in the fair-play short-list

Women's pole vault was the only hope for a greek medal. And in fact K. Stefanidi delivered although it was not of the colour she is accustomed to. 

The award ceremony for women's pole vault

The organisers had put the qualifying height at 4.60. But this was without counting on the progress of the discipline: as it turned out, 17 athletes obtained their qualification to the final. The latter was a quite demanding one as the opening height was 4.50 (all but J. Suhr started at this height) going immediately after to 4.70. N. Kyriakopoulou was among the ones who did not make it to the latter height. The next height was 4.80 and it saw the elimination, among others of K. Nageotte, R. Peinado, olympic champion J. Suhr and world champion Y. Silva. A. Bengtsson, whom I am following for quite a few years, was attempting a third jump at 4.80 when her pole broke. 

A. Bengtsson broke her pole while attempting 4.80

According to the rules she could retry, but she did not have a pole adapted to this height. So N. Guillon-Romarin lent her her pole and Bengtsson passed, finishing 6th of the event! A. Newman and H. Bradshaw were 5th and 4th respectively, with the same height. After 4.85 there were only three jumpers (in fact four, since Bradshaw had reserved one last jump to the higher height, one she did not pass). Stefanidi was 3rd having passed 4.85 on her second try and failing at 4.90 once (and at 4.95 twice). Sidorova and Morris passed 4.90 at their first attempt and, while we thought that we were heading for a barrage, Sidorova managed to pass 4.95 on her third try. (Sidorova is a better technician while Morris is faster and stronger, but, when the bar is really high, the technique does count). Morris was encouraging Sidorova all along which resulted in her being proposed for the fair-play award.

Morris and Sidorova congratulating each other

The men's long jump was a most curious event. The big name, M. Echevarria needed just one jump at 8.40 in order to qualify for the final. J. Henderson, R. Samaal and M. Tentoglou (he was below par in the final) did qualify thanks to their last jump, while world champion L. Manyonga was far from convincing. At the last, 12th, qualifying position was a young jamaican, T. Gayle who managed to make the final thanks to a last leap of 7.89. Everybody was expecting an easy victory and a huge jump for Echevarria but things turned out quite differently. The  barely known jamaican shocked everybody with a jump at 8.46. Jefferson was unfazed and with a 8.39 at his third attempt obtained silver. Echevarria was destabilised, started with two so-so jumps, improving in the third to 8.34. And just when we were expecting him to rise to the challenge, Gayle killed the competition with an incredible 8.69. Of course, Gayle had won the Shanghai Diamond league in May with 8.20, and had jumped 8.32 in London in July but nobody, absolutely nobody, was counting him among the possible winners of the title. It will be interesting to keep an eye on him over the next years.

Gayle flying towards the gold medal

Women's long jump was the opposite of the men's one in the sense of the forecast: the big favourite did win. The great absent from this championship was I. Spanovic who had injured her Achilles tendon while competing in Berlin on September 1st. The qualifiers reserved a surprise: World and olympic champion B. Reese could not qualify for the final. (To be honest I will not be missing Reese, since I absolutely hate her total absence of style. She is jumping on pure speed and force, reminding me of M. Jones who was also jumping without an ounce of style). 

Mihambo exhuberant after her victory

In the final M. Mihambo started by jumping a good half meter back from the foul line, then fouling  and could not take the lead till the third attempt when she landed at 7.30! She backed that with two jumps over 7 m, something that nobody else could match. M. Bekh was second with 6.92 and E. Brume 3rd with 6.91. T. Bowie, the 2017 world champion over 100 m came back to her first specialty, but her 6.81 leap was only enough for 4th place.

Taylor and Zango, celebrating

In men's triple jump C. Taylor prevailed once more. The qualifiers saw the elimination of world and olympic champion N. Evora and of european indoor champion N. Babayev. Taylor scared everybody by fouling the first two attempts but then pulled himself together and managed a decent 17.42 allowing him to pursue the competition. In the end Taylor won with 17.92 and W. Clay was second (just as in 2017) with 17.74. The competition was for me an occasion to discover the burkinabé jumper (and african champion) H. Zango who, with his last, 17.66, effort, pushed P. Pichardo (17.62) out of the podium. J. Díaz, whom I consider the future of the discipline, was 8th with 17.06, not bad for a first major championship.

Rojas in Doha. (You'll need a video in order to judge her style)

Given that she came to Doha with a recent PB of 15.41, Y. Rojas was everybody's favourite. And she did not disappoint. The qualifiers saw the elimination of olympic champion O. Rypakova. I was personally glad to see that my preferred jumper, 2018 athlete of the year, C. Ibargüen, was competitive, despite her recent injuries. In the final Rojas, jumping always in her awful-to-look-at style landed a huge 15.37 at the second attempt and the strife for gold was over. The two jamaicans S. Ricketts and K. Williams were occupying the two remaining podium places with 14.92 and 14.64 till the 5th jump when Ibargüen managed a 14.73 for bronze. World champion O. Saladukha was 5th with 14.52, while european indoor champion A. Peleteiro was 6th with 14.47. It's a pity P. Papachristou injured herself in September and missed the World's. I believe that she could have made the final.

Ibargüen showed that she is always competitive

There has never been a shot put competition of such a high level. Things started already at the qualifiers where 12 athletes threw over the qualifying minimum of 20.90. As was natural, this made some victims among which one finds M. Haratyk, O'Dayne Richards and B. Bertemes. The final started with Grouser sending the shot at 22.36 and Walsh shocking everybody with a huge 22.90. The game looked as it was over at this stage. In fact Walsh, perhaps too confident, started taking risks, most probably going for a world record, and ended up fouling 3 of his next 4 throws. After the fifth throw Walsh was always first, D. Romani second with 22.53 and Crouser third with 22.36. And then on the last throw Kovacs, who was 4th up to that point, had a huge throw measured at 22.91, and taking the lead. Crouser came next and he also managed to surpass himself with 22.90 passing over Walsh in countback. Neither Romani nor Walsh could react and had to leave the first two medals to the two americans. 

The three winners of the men's shot put

The two young talents Bukowiecki and Gill were 6th and 7th separated by just one cm. And a technical remark: all 12 throwers of the final are spinners. I think that the transition is now over, and the answer to the question I asked in my post right after Rio is that the rotational style is indeed totally dominating the shot put.

Thomas-Dodd is the only spinner among the shot put medalists

Women are always more conservative than men and here the percentage of spinners is less than 50 %. But it is growing and so I expect, in some not too distant future, the rotational style to dominate the women's discipline as well. The title in Doha was won by L. Gong with 19.55, followed by D. Thomas-Dodd with 19.47 and C. Schwanitz 19.17. World indoor champion A. Marton, still recovering from her injury, was 5th with 18.86 while olympic champion M. Carter could only manage a 9th place. 

Dacres and Stahl (the typo is, obviously, not mine)

D. Stahl had lost the 2017 title for a meagre 2 cm but this time he took his revenge. He had announced his intentions already at the qualifiers with a throw at 67.88. The qualifiers saw the elimination of world champion P. Malachowski, world vice champion P. Milanov and olympic champion C. Harting. L. Weisshaidinger barely managed to qualify throwing 9 cm more than the 13th contestant, but in the final he had a great series obtaining the bronze medal with 66.82. F. Dacres took temporarily the lead at the second throw with 66.94 but Stahl responded at the third with 67.59, which was enough in order to guarantee him the victory. 

Pérez celebrating after her victory

I have always had a preference for Y. Pérez. I like her style and, although she has yet to throw beyond 70 m, I believe that she is the best discus thrower of the moment. In Doha she dominated the event taking an early lead with 68.10. When D. Caballero went beyond this with 68.44, Pérez responded with 69.17 securing the gold. S. Perkovic added another medal, this time bronze, to her collection with a throw at 66.72. The domination of these three throwers is really total with more than 3 meters separating the 3rd from the 4th. 

Caballero, Pérez and Perkovic with their medals

Olympic and world vice-champion M. Robert-Michon had a most disappointing championship: while she threw 64.02 in the qualifiers, she could only manage 59.99 in the final for a 10th place. 

A. Peters, the surprise javelin world champion

I have been keeping an eye on A. Peters, in particular after his win at the Pan American Games with 87.31. But even so I did not expect him to win in Doha. On the other hand, Walcott, when he won the olympic title in London, had shown us that everything is possible. The event started in a disastrous way for Germany, since olympic champion T. Röhler was eliminated with 79.23 and european vice-champion A. Hofmann fared not much better with 80.06. J. Weber did make it to the final (but he could not go beyond a 6th place there). So the main hope for the german fans was world champion J. Vetter who qualified with a huge 89.35 throw at his first attempt. M. Kirt was second in the qualifiers with 88.36 and Peters third with 85.34. That order was going to be reversed in the final. Peters started with 86.69, which somehow destabilised his opponents. Kirt reacted with 86.21 and Vetter with 85.37 but it turned out that they could not go beyond that. Peters had an even better throw, 86.89, in his 4th attempt and that clinched the gold medal. Olympic champion K. Walcott and world champion Y. Yego had a disappointing championship. After throwing 84.44 and 83.86 in the qualifiers, respectively, they botched the final with Walcott throwing 77.47 and Yego fouling thrice.

The women's javelin medalists.

Notice that Lü, on the right, is quite unhappy

The big favourite for women's javelin was H. Lü. She is an experienced thrower who holds the Asian record with 67.59. Moreover this year she was unbeaten since April and she started by dominating the qualifiers with 67.27. But, as always, the final is a different story. Lü took an early lead with 65.06 but in the 5th throw her compatriot Liu went beyond this with 65.88. Lü could only respond with 65.49 and while gold and silver seemed to be chinese K.L. Barber shocked everybody with a last throw at 66.56 winning gold for Australia. 

Barber on her road to glory

Multiple world and olympic champion B. Spotakova did make it to the final with a 62.15 throw but, once in there, she could only manage 59.87 for a 9th place. 

The three four men's hammer medalists

P. Fajdek won his fourth world title in a row. He took control of the event right from the qualifiers and in the final he was the only one to go beyond 80 meters. Q. Bigot was second (one of the rare french medals in this championship) with 78.19. The third place of B. Halasz created a controversy. Throwing 78.18 at his first attempt he obtained the third place in front of W. Nowicki who managed 77.69 in his last throw. And then the polish team filed a protest, supported by the video where one could see that Halasz had fouled his bronze-winning throw. However, since the judge had validated the attempt, there was no going back. A "Judgement of Solomon" solution was needed and the IAAF did not hesitate: a second bronze medal was awarded to Nowicki and everyone was happy. Eighteen year old M. Kokhan was 5th with 77.39, earning a position among my top list of young talents. 

The women's hammer medalists

Muliple olympic and world champion A. Wlodarczyk could not defend her title this time. Having undergone a left knee surgery in July she decided to end her season there and prepare herself for Tokyo. This opened the way for the american and the remaining polish throwers. But there some laughed while others weeped. B. Andersen was eliminated in the qualifiers but the greatest shock was the elimination of world bronze medalist M. Kopron , who was viewed by many as the successor of Wlodarczyk. Then in the final G. Berry fouled thrice and was not even classified. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Berry won a medal. 

Berry in Lima (reminiscing Mexico)

(When she won gold in the Lima, 2019, Pan American Games this year she raised her hand during the national anthem protesting against injustice in America "and a president who's making it worse"). In the end Poland's honour was saved By J. Fiodorow who was second with 76.35, behind D. Price, 77.54, and in front of Z. Wang, 74.76. 

Klymets, a most graceful hammer thrower

I. Klymets improved twice her personal best with 72.93 in the qualifiers and 73.56 in the final.