Track and Field Blogs - Justin Kopunek

As the 2009 track season comes to a close and the World/US rankings for each event will be emerging soon, it makes one wonder what criteria takes precedent when ranking. For many events, who ranks #1 is clear as day. They dominate regular season meets, win the championship meets, and have the best performances of the year. Think LeShawn Merritt, Sanya Richards, Usain Bolt, Blanka Vlasic, Kenenisa Bekele, or Valerie Vili. There are others, however, who may come up big at the World Champs and be sub-par the rest of the year. One can also do the opposite and have a fantastic year with the only misstep being at the World Championships.

For some, championship races are the be-all-end-all of who is the best, but can one meet really reflect an entire season properly? In longer races, a slow, tactical race can allow people with a good kick or positioning ahead of runners who would be well ahead of them in a fast race. When it comes to field events, a slightly off day at a championship meet can be disastrous. Take Elena Isinbaeva, for example. She no heighted at the World Championships this year, but I do not think anyone would argue that she is not the best pole vaulter in the world right now. She even went on to set a new World Record after her disappointing performance in Berlin. On the other hand, being able to perform well at the season’s championship meets is a paramount trait.

There are a few events that will be quite tricky to rank this year. For US rankings, the men’s 5,000m and women’s 1,500m are two examples of this. For these two events, Americans are having the best year ever at these distances. In the 5k, two men broke 13 minutes, a feat that only a total of 2 Americans had ever accomplished before this year. On top of that, an American took silver in this event at the World Championships and he is not one of the two men under 13 this year. Dathan Ritzenhein ran an American record of 12:56.27 in his only competitive 5,000 of the season. Matt Tegenkamp became the third fastest American ever in running 12:58.56 a week later and he was the US Champion. Bernard Lagat was the top US finisher at the World Championships, placing 2nd. This makes doing the US rankings for the event a sticky situation. Ritzenhein is the fastest American ever to run the distance and that is hard to deny, but he did not run the 5,000m at any other major meets. Lagat is only the third fastest American this year, but his performance at Worlds certainly outshines his 13:03.06 season best time. Determining who fits where is not easy in this situation, On a side not, this was an absolutely phenomenal year for American men at 5,000m. In addition to the World silver, American Record and 2 men under 13 minutes, 3 Americans (Lagat, Tegenkamp, Chris Solinsky) made the finals of the event in Berlin. Only Kenya matched that number and the Americans out performed them in the finals. Two American Juniors (Chris Derrick and German Fernandez) broke the American Junior Record and Evan Jager ran 13:22.18 as only a 20 year old. Also, Galen Rupp broke the Indoor American Record for 5,000m and two high school athletes (Lukas Verzbicas and Solomon Haile) broke the National High School indoor record and the former is amazingly only a freshman. In total, an outstanding 19 American men ran under 13:30 this year, a number only outdone by Kenya.

The women’s 1,500m in the United States had a similar year. Three women broke a significant time barrier that only two American women had previously and a fourth woman medaled at the World Champs at 1,500m. Jenny Barringer (3:59.90), Christin Wurth-Thomas (3:59.98) and Anna Willard (3:59.38) became the third, fourth and fifth American women to break 4 minutes in the 1,500m. Shannon Rowbury, with a season best of 4:00.81, was the US Champ and the top finisher in Berlin with a third place performance. Barringer did not run the 15 at any major meets after Prefontaine. That will keep her low in the rankings for this event, despite the fact that she beat all the other Americans listed above at that meet. Of the three who competed at Worlds in the event, Willard has the fastest time of the year, followed by Wurth-Thomas and Rowbury, but the positions are reversed in how they placed at USAs and Worlds. This makes for a precarious ranking situation. Willard also finds herself in an interesting position for rankings in the 800m. Although she did not run the event at any championship meets, she picked up some key wins in Europe (including the World Athletics Final), is undefeated at the distance this year, and has run under 2 minutes more than any other American woman this year. Challenging her would be Hazel Clark, who is the US Champ and was the top American at Worlds, as well as, Maggie Vessey. Vessey has the fastest time of the year by an American at 1:57.84 (second fastest in the World this year behind the controversial Caster Semenya) and she had a few nice wins in Europe, but her inconsistency will bring her down a bit.

So what reigns supreme in rankings; time or place? Is Carmelita Jeter’s amazing #3 All Time 10.67 worth a #1 World Ranking over Shelly-Ann Fraser’s World Championship? Does Ritz’ American Record trump Lagat’s silver medal in the 5,000m? It is a debate that comes up every year and there is no concrete answer. With each event each year, variables come in to play that allow one to make an argument one way or another. For example, what if one does not compete in a specific event at a major championship? For example, Tyson Gay in the 200m and Willard in the 800m this year. There is no doubt their performances this year merit favorable rankings in those events, but they did not run these events at USAs or Worlds. Is running sub-par at World’s worse than not running at all in an event? This is why rankings can be tricky. I remember back in high school they had a formula set in stone for determining all county. Points were awarded for winning the county championship, having the fastest time, head-to-head victories and couple other factors. That worked decently on a small scale, but on a national and international scale do you need to use a more discerning eye?

All in all, I am glad I do not have the task of doing the year end rankings for these event, as I myself still do not know how heavily I weigh time and place. Obviously a major goal is always to beat people. Placing well at a championship means you have beat the majority of the world’s best. But with championship races, there is always the chance people could say, “It was a fluke.” Sometimes because the race went out slow, or somebody fell, somebody got DQed, or maybe certain studs were not in the race. Time is finite and you can not argue it, except perhaps commenting on the weather. When an athlete runs in a fast race it is not always about beating the people in that particular race, as much as beating ghosts of the past.

Perhaps this is an unanswerable question. Would one rather a World Record, or a World/Olympic Gold Medal? The former means you are the fastest to have ever competed in that event in history. The latter means you were the best competitor in that event that year. Put like that, the record sounds more enticing, but the medal can never be taken away. Records, however, can be broken. On the other hand, even as the former World Record Holder, you are automatically considered one of the greatest of all time. What is your opinion, which do you hold more important, time or place?