Blogs : CollegeHammer.com - Updates on collegiate hammer throwing

Comparing the regions

            National    East        Mideast     Midwest     West
Qualifiers  119         30          33          22          34
No. 1       73.07m      68.83m      73.07m      68.94m      69.05m
No. 5       68.83m      65.10m      65.98m      62.53m      65.98m
No. 10      67.43m      62.49m      64.23m      59.60m      63.29m
No. 25      64.18m      58.23m      59.07m      -           59.45m

            National    East        Mideast     Midwest     West
Qualifiers  96          20          36          16          24
No. 1       70.18m      65.21m      68.79m      65.36m      70.18m
No. 5       65.36m      61.60m      61.13m      61.99m      62.42m
No. 10      63.47m      56.72m      59.22m      56.97m      58.32m
No. 25      60.51m      -           55.11m      -           -

Untitled Comment

08:42, 28 May 2008 .. Posted by Anonymous

Thanks for looking at the numbers instead of just say "I like regionals" or "I don't like regionals" - but I think looking at the numbers in JUST ONE event is not really a fair way to judge whether regionals is a fair system or not. There are 19 men's and 19 women's events contested at regionals each year - what do the numbers look like in each of these events? I don't have the answer to that.

Another number we should look at is the number of entries in each event. That determines the number of flights/heats. I don't think it's fair if one region has four flights in an event and another has only one. Same goes for if a runner in one region has to run rounds or heats against time while a runner in another region in the same event goes straight to the finals. What do these numbers look like?

Again, thanks for bringing up those numbers for the hammer - it sheds a little more light on regionals, although it doesn't give a full picture. I'd like to see a comparison like that for all of the events!

Untitled Comment

09:13, 28 May 2008 .. Posted by Anonymous

well then go find one because this is a hammer only website, why would Martin do research on events that he doesnt cover?

re: Regionals

13:59, 28 May 2008 .. Posted by bingisser

I agree that the results of studying one event cannot be extrapolated to the system as a whole. However, I do not have the time to analyze and compare every event in all four regions. As a blog about the hammer throw, i was just looking to see if the system is a fair method of qualifying the top hammer throwers for the NCAA championships. It seems that it is. Furthermore, in years past, there would have been little difference in the hammer throw qualifiers under the regional system versus the descending order qualifying method used indoors. The main losers to the regional system are those who foul out at regionals. Another thing we should remember is that the regional system is also responsible for expanding the size of the fields at the NCAA Outdoor Championships.

re: Regionals

12:39, 29 May 2008 .. Posted by Anonymous

Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I was unclear in my response - I don\'t expect YOU to look at those numbers for every event! I was just kind of thinking out loud that I would like to see them after seeing how well you drew out the qualifying for the hammer.
<br>
<br>Thanks again for taking a look at the numbers.

Untitled Comment

16:34, 30 May 2008 .. Posted by Anonymous

Well try looking at events like the sprints where for example u have 8 100m people in the mideast running under 10.36 where in the west region the top sprinter is running 10.36.. when all the guys in the mideast running faster then people on the west will not make in the top 4 of the region