After the IAAF introduced the option for organisers to allow all competitors four trials rather than applying the usual 3+3 format, there has been an increasing tendency even by national and state organisers to limit the number of attempts for horizontal field events to four, presumably to make competitions shorter and sharper.
This may be what the broadcasters wanted, and this format may be suitable for high-level international one day meets. But for championships the usual 3+3 format has been retained, and therefore it should be used for all youth, junior, open and masters lower level meets as well. The format, which has stood the test of time, strikes a good balance.
Athletes of all abilities have at least three trials. Those who are more serious and who have achieved a certain level of proficiency earn the privilege of a further three trials. Trying to qualify for the Top 8 final is a competition within the competition. Those who don’t make it have something to aim for. Those who are more ambitious learn to pace themselves and get used to the championship format as they encounter it even at international level.
There is no good reason to award an extra attempt to weaker athletes and take away two attempts from the more serious athletes. Depending on the number of competitors, the time saving of a 4-throw competition versus a 3+3 competition is minimal, but more about that later.
The argument that athletes usually don’t improve in the last three rounds anyway can be easily refuted.
I’ve done the maths for the throwing events, and the results are unequivocal (see table 1 at the end of this post).
I collated the results from all Olympic Games and World Championships since 2000, a sample of 72 competitions, to see how throwers fared in the finals.
Across all four events, on average 2.2 throwers achieve a season’s best in the course of the final, ranging from 0 to 5.
The number of throwers who improve in their last three attempts averaged around 3.3 across all events except in the men’s javelin, where 2 throwers improved, although there were only 2 men’s javelin competitions where the competition was decided after the first three rounds.
On the other hand, in the men’s hammer on average 4.3 athletes improved in the Top 8 rounds. In all competitions other than the men’s javelin the range was between 1 and 5.
In 82% of competitions the placings changed in the last three rounds (see Table 2). The average is dragged down by the javelin, where the figure is 50%. In the shot put, discus and hammer the figure is close to or above 90%.
If we look at how many athletes improved in their last two trials, the average across all events is still at 2.4. Again, the men’s javelin is lower, and the men’s hammer higher than the average.
Clearly, the Top 8 finals are more often than not quite competitive. It can hardly be generalised that athletes don’t improve in the last three rounds or even the last two rounds.
Also, in terms of saving time, there is not much to be gained by applying the four trials rule (see Table 3). Once there are more than 8 competitors, the time saving reduces steadily until at 24 competitors, the number of trials to be carried out per competition are equal, and from that point on the 3+3 format is in fact more time efficient. In any event, the Top 8 rounds tend to be over more quickly, especially when throwers can judge whether to make invalid any trials that are clearly sub-par. Distance lines in or along the sector would be useful for that purpose as well.
It is also important to note that the relevant IAAF rule (180.5 Note (iii)) states that the four-attempt rule can only be applied where there are more than 8 athletes competing.
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
