Carles Baronet launches a newsletter

I have written time and again about C. Baronet, the renowned Catalan athletics statistician. For many years he was blogging in his blog Trackinsun. (Curious as it may sound I have never posted an article linking to that blog. It was mentioned in my post on P. Larsson's all-time performances, where I was giving a screen-shot of the Trackinsun banner, but there was never a dedicated article). Unfortunately, Trackinsun disappeared and Baronet decided to publish a weekly newsletter. In spring 2021 he was associated with the excellent site SomosAtletismo, created by J. Estruch. Alas, that site folded after a few months (but all 16 magazines published are still online and I suggest that you go and download them: they are of top quality).

The 2021 newsletter campaign was rather short-lived and a year ago Baronet announced the creation of a new blog. I linked to that, but it turned out that this formula was not satisfactory either and so, in September, Baronet went back to newsletters. As you can imagine I did immediately sign up for them and I have been receiving them in my inbox every week.

The major change is that from 2023 the newsletters will be a subscription-only affair. The price is fixed: 39 euros for the whole year. And in February, May, June and July there are two issues each week. (Those are the months when major championships are held and thus one expects a slew of interesting results). 

Starting from October, the newsletter was revamped: the name Trackinsun is back, and a photo is adorning the cover. The one below is from Esther Guerrero's 1500 m victory in New York, this winter, at the New Balance Indoor Grand Prix.

If you wish to subscribe to Carles Baronet's newsletter (which I urge you to do) you can contact him through email, and he will explain the payment procedure.

The Spartathlon and the Pheidippides run

A few years ago I published an article entitled "On marathons and ultramarathons". I was interested there on how the mean velocity suddenly drops for distances beyond the marathon. A more recent article refined the conclusions of that first article identifying four different regimes in running. Working on these articles got me interested in very long races, the "ultramarathons". My current work in collaboration with G. Purdy on the new scoring tables also pushed me into understanding better the mechanisms involved in ultra-running.

I was discussing these points with my friend, marathon runner extraordinaire, K. Tsagkarakis and I learned from him the existence of a classical race which aims at reproducing a less known (at least to non-greeks) Pheidippides feat. I had already heard about the Spartathlon but during my discussion with my friend Kostas I learned about the Pheidippides run.  

When the Persians attacked Greece the citizens of Athens sent Pheidippides to Sparta to ask for military help. According to Herodotus, Pheidippides arrived to Sparta the very next day. As history has it, the Spartans could not leave before the moon were full and thus would not arrive on time for the battle. So, Pheidippides ran back to Athens bringing the not so encouraging news. The Athenians decided to confront the Persians at Marathon and we all know how that ended. As for Pheidippides, he expired just after bringing the good news of the victory in Marathon to the magistrates of Athens. (But there is no mention of this in Herodotus, the first account appearing five centuries later in Plutarch, who, moreover, is mentioning a different runner. Most probably the whole expiring marathon runner story is a romantic invention).  

Pheidippides journey to Sparta kindled the interest of long-distance runners and in 1982 four british officers tried to cover the distance from Athens to Sparta (roughly 250 km) in less than 36 hours. One of them succeeded and two more covered the distance but taking more than 36 hours. That was the birth of the Spartathlon. It attracted immediately the interest of runners and since 1982, the Spartathlon is held annually. The route has been normalised to 245 km and the runners must cover it in under 36 hours. It starts at the foot of the Acropolis and, in Sparta, the finish line is at the statue of king Leonidas. There exist check points along the route where the runners may be taken off the race if they fail to meet the time cut-off. And not everybody may enter the race, the selection criteria are quite tough and the total number is limited to 400. In fact due to the popularity of the race a ballot system has been introduced for all but the elite athletes who exceed the criteria by a large margin.

The recordman of the course is none other than Y. Kouros, the famous greek ultra-marathoner,  with 20:25:00 dating back to 1984. In 40 years of history there have been only 8 greek victories, the most recent one being this year's victory of F. Zisimopoulos in 21:00:48. Kouros and Zisimopoulos hold the 6 best performances. The women's record is held by P. Bereznowska in 24:48:18, from 2017. She is in fact 50th overall when men's and women's performances are pooled together.

But what Pheidippides did was not simply going to Sparta. He came back to Athens the next day. So, long-distance runners, finding that the Spartathlon is too easy, decided to reproduce Pheidippides feat and the Φειδιππίδειος δρόμος was born. 

Y. Kouros is probably the first who ran the 490 km from Athens to Sparta and back. His performance from 2005 is 63 hours. Last year's winner covered the distance in 65:51 (which is the official record) while the first woman finished third overall in 67:54 hours. The first official competition was held in 2015 (the one in 2014 was "just" a Spartathlon) but due to the epidemic it was not held in 2020. The 7th Pheidippides run is scheduled for later this month (Nov. 24-28): 45 runners will take the start, with four women among them. I will follow the race over the internet and report in case of a new record.

PS Last year's winner and official record holder, L. Sagan, won again this year and improved the record to 65:22.

The World Athletics choice of the year's best

World Athletics published their list of the best athletes of the year and while there is some overlap with mine there are also points of divergence. This is normal, my year's best list is established according to my own interpretation of the year's results and it is 100 % subjective. (One could point out that WA's choice, in particular when it comes to the nomination of the athlete of the year, is not totally objective either).

So, let us start with the women's list (given in alphabetical order)

Tobi Amusan *
Chase Ealey
Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce *
Kimberly Garcia *
Shericka Jackson
Faith Kipyegon
Yaroslava Mahuchikh
Sydney McLaughlin *
Shaunae Miller-Uibo 
Yulimar Rojas *

Just six of the athletes in the WA list figure also in mine. I did not mention at all C. Ealey. I did mention S. Fraser-Price just to say that I am not going to include her in my list (somehow I do not manage to appreciate her). K. Garcia was mentioned and I would have included her to my list (despite the fact that race-walking is a no-no for me) but for pure nationalistic reasons I chose A. Drisbioti. I did mention S. Miller-Uibo although I did not include her in the top ten. 

I have also the impression that World athletics are coordinating their choice with that of European Athletics. There is no other way to understand the fact that F. Bol was absent from the top-ten list (and Thiam as well). Bol was the winner of the Golden Tracks trophy (for the second year in a row) which crowns the European athlete of the year. So, perhaps (but I am aware that this may sound as a conspiracy theory) the choices of the European federation may well influence those of World Athletics.

Let's move now to the men's list

Kristjan Ceh
Alison dos Santos
Mondo Duplantis *
Soufiane El Bakkali *
Grant Holloway
Jakob Ingebrigtsen *
Eliud Kipchoge *
Noah Lyles *
Anderson Peters
Pedro Pichardo

My list and that of WA have a 70 % overlap. The ones not figuring in my list are El Bakkali, Holloway and Pichardo. I think that El Bakkali cannot be compared to the best kenyan steeplechasers like Cherono, Kemboi or Kipruto. I may change opinion if he breaks the world record. Since the duel of G. Holloway with D. Allen never took place (for reasons I'll explain in a future post of mine) I decided to simply forget the 110 m hurdles. Finally Pichardo is a great triple jumper but I would have fully appreciated his world title had the two ex-cuban Diaz taken part in the championship. 

A. Duplantis is at the top of my list, but he just obtained the european Golden Tracks trophy (shared with J. Ingebrigtsen). I wonder whether I should start worrying about his chances to be nominated athlete of the year. The european choice for male rising star went obviously to V. Alekna. And there was a nice surprise in the female category with E. Tzengko. I have mentioned her in my list of rising stars but finally my choice went to A. Vilagos whom I find better technically. However, Tzengko is stronger so no-one knows how their rivalry will evolve over the years.

The WA rising star list was published with a substantial delay with respect to the initial schedule (and thus I had to wait before publishing this article). Here is the women's list

Jackline Chepkoech
Faith Cherotich
Mine De Klerk
Kerrica Hill
Adriana Vilagos

In my post on the year's rising stars I presented only a list of three but only A. Vilagos (who is my choice for this year's rising star) does appear in the WA list. I just have a minor objection concerning the choice of F. Cherotich, since she is in the same specialty as J. Chepkoech and I chose Clayton over Hill but all in all WA's choice is OK. (And, just to risk a prediction, J. Chepkoech looks like the favourite for this year's trophy). 

The men's rising star list is really bizarre.

Anthony Amirati
Jaydon Hibbert
Erriyon Knighton
Letsile Tebogo
Emmanuel Wanyonyi

Tebogo appears in my list and Knighton is also mentioned. But I find it preposterous that Alekna does not get even a simple mention. Does this mean that when somebody gets the european trophy he is de facto excluded from the world list? Anyhow, given the huge difference between Knighton and the others, he is, to my eyes, the favourite for this year's nomination. Unless the fact that he was chosen last year makes him ineligible. The procedures of World Athletics are becoming of byzantine complexity. 

PS World Athletics has just published their list of five finalists. Instead of publishing a special post I have added an asterisk at the end of the names of the finalists. I am really worried seeing S-A Fraser-Pryce among the five. Would WA dare ignore S. McLaughlin for the second year in a row? Everything is possible. (There is of course the outsider, T. Amusan, but if it comes to choosing between the two hurdlers I think that McLaughlin would prevail). I cannot understand why Dos Santos did not make the finalist list. Here the situation is far from clear. Duplanits and Kipchoge have already been nominated athlete of the year title. Duplantis and Ingebrigtsen obtained the european Golden Tracks. Could Lyles obtain the title this year? Had he beaten Bolt's world record we would have been the obvious choice. But as the things stand I cannot make any predictions.

A brief history of the IAAF/WA scoring tables: The 1985 tables

The Ulbrich/Jörbeck tables managed to survive for more than 20 years. This is another proof (if there were ever a need for that) of the extreme conservatism of the IAAF/WA. They had a set of tables which were manifestly unfair and, moreover, they have been offered a possibility to remedy that, through the work of G. Purdy. And, still, they clung to their tables despite the fact that they were counterproductive for the combined events. Finally they saw the light. Or perhaps Jörbeck had at that time retired (he passed away in 1989) and the technical committee could, at last, move forwards. Be that as it may, in 1982 the IAAF appointed a working group, under the direction of V. Trkal, tasked to prepare new scoring tables.

J. Trkal, the mastermind behind the 1985 tables

It is funny to point out here that Purdy's was not the only proposal for new scoring tables. Bob Sparks, a renowned athletics statistician, proposed in 1981 a new set of tables which were in fact accepted by the 1981 IAAF Congress. However, just like Purdy's, these  tables were highly progressive and this led to strongly voiced protests from coaches and athletes. So the IAAF backpedaled and asked the Technical Committee to prepare a new proposal. 

The important thing is that Trkal understood the physical/physiological basis of scoring. In his own words:

"My starting point was the idea that athletic performance is physical work. This is represented primarily by kinetic energy of the given system, irrespective of whether a run, jump, or throw is involved. Speed v is to the second power in all cases, and this indirectly implies a progressive form for the necessary curve. The American J. Gerry Purdy, PhD., has published two articles on the evaluation of performances in athletics, and I studied these".

Under his guidance the working group organised their quest for the new scoring tables along a set of nine principles:

1. The tables should only be used for combined events.

2. The results in different disciplines that are evaluated with approximately the same point value should be comparable as far as the quality and difficulty of achieving these results are concerned.

3. The tables in all disciplines should be:

a. a modification of current tables,

b. linear in all disciplines,

c. very slightly progressive in all disciplines (it was proposal 3c that was favoured by Trkal and that was finally adopted).

4. The tables must be usable with combined events for beginners and juniors as well as top-class athletes.

5. There will be separate tables for men and women.

6. The tables must be based on decathlon statistics, taking into account the statistics of specialist athletes in the individual disciplines.

7. The tables should be usable now and in the future.

8. The sum of points scored by world-class athletes should remain approximately the same.

9. As far as possible, the tables should eliminate the possibility that an athlete specialising in one discipline is able to acquire sufficient points in that discipline to overcome low scores in weaker disciplines and beat more versatile, all-round athletes.

The new tables were adopted in 1984 and were used in combined event competitions from 1985 onwards. They are valid today with just a few modifications in order to account for the changes in the javelin implement and the introduction of the women's decathlon. 

Zarnowski in his history of scoring tables is particularly unfair towards the new tables. He says that the IAAF has issued neither a mathematical nor a statistical explanation of the tables. And concludes that "on the whole [they] prove to be less reliable than their 1962 counterpart".

The mathematical expression of the new scoring tables is particularly simple where x is the performance for field events.

When it comes to track events, though, instead of using a velocity-based scoring

the authors of the tables opted for the use of time

which, transcribed in terms of velocity, would read as

A scoring based on such an expression would be, in principle, regressive. Fortunately, in practice, the domain of variation of velocity is rather small (there is just a factor of 2 between the null-score and the max-score velocities) and in this domain the relation of points to velocity is practically linear.

In a future publication I will explain how the scoring formula of the WA tables is related to the Weibull probability distribution which has been proposed as an adequate descriptor of the human performance. (But the mathematically oriented readers can find all the details in "Distribution of performances and scoring in athletics", by J. Meloun, J.G. Purdy and myself which appeared in Math. and Sports 3 (2022) 1). 

With this post the second season of scoring theories is complete. But just as in the case of the "Long and arduous road of women to the Olympics", there will be bonus tracks, like the one where I told the story of the travel of G. Purdy to Copenhagen and his meeting with the IAAF technical committee.