[quote]HI DE HO wrote:
yeah about that...why the hell build a 307m track. why not just add another 93m so everyone can leave their calculators home.
[quote]
Ummmm, maybe cause it doesn't fit?
[quote]HI DE HO wrote:
yeah about that...why the hell build a 307m track. why not just add another 93m so everyone can leave their calculators home.
[quote]
Ummmm, maybe cause it doesn't fit?
um, make the building a little bigger or engineer the building differently.
Coe wrote:
[quote]HI DE HO wrote:
yeah about that...why the hell build a 307m track. why not just add another 93m so everyone can leave their calculators home.
[quote]
Ummmm, maybe cause it doesn't fit?
Just thought I'd point out that Rupp's final 3k was 7:55 on a regular-sized track.
Just sayin'.
With ridiculously banked turns.....just sayin.
Oh yeah, you're right. It's totally meaningless.
Then again, German's 3:00 final 1200 was right around Rupp's all out mile pace.
I dunno, maybe they're both great?
[quote]HI DE HO wrote:
um, make the building a little bigger or engineer the building differently.
[quote]
stupid.
What I don't get is this: German is a freshman. Why is he so intent on racing so much. I recall Rupp being very careful and picking his races...now look at him. Rupp has been able to reach this stage without a devastated body, but I would be willing to bet that Fernandez will be pretty beat up by the time he is 22. We shall see, but I don't favor what they are doing with Fernandez. I think he should be taking it much slower and enjoying it more. On the other hand, maybe he is planning to turn pro next year. In that case, it really doesn't matter....Webb turned pro early and look at how it has benefited his career.
wait a minute- wasn't it the common letsrun copnsensus to tear rupp up because he DIDN'T race as much "as he should have"? make up your mind! and yeah....whatever webb has done, it has worked wonders....4th or 5th in 4.05 was really stellar friday night...i wonder what you would have said about steve scott and johnny walker 25 years ago? good thing they weren't fans of your logic...
yeeeeah but wrote:
With ridiculously banked turns.....just sayin.
are you for real?
Partlikewind wrote:
[quote]HI DE HO wrote:
um, make the building a little bigger or engineer the building differently.
[quote]
stupid.
Seems like a reasonable comment to me. If you're going to spend the money to build a fancy indoor track, why build one that's 307 meters long? Why not build a 200-meter record-quality track that complies with national and international standards, or a 400-meter track that eases the turns even more and permits more runners and joggers on the track at one time, or a 300-meter track that at least makes splits easier to take and distances easier to compute? You could even make the track 3/16 of a mile, which is something like 301.3 meters. But why on earth would you make it 307 meters long?
As with many athletic facilities around the country, Dempsey was built for football. The track was a secondary consideration.
Actually that would be the case if there were not a sport called football. Basically, am indoor track needs to make sense with the football program.
In any case, Rupp is the best we have seen in a while and German will probably beat all his records within the next 2 years.
Well, I don't particularly think that the university of Washington cares too much, seeing as how they've already been the home course for various nat'l indoor records to fall (I remember some hs kids running 5k's a couple years ago). That and the quality fields that they attract establish them as one of the premiere indoor track races of the season.
RE: the thread about how all the ncaa provisional's are going to come from UW
joyride wrote:
Well, I don't particularly think that the university of Washington cares too much, seeing as how they've already been the home course for various nat'l indoor records to fall . . . .
I think one of us is missing the other's point. As far as I know, a "nat'l indoor record" cannot "fall" by virtue of a performance on a track that is more than 200 meters long. (It wouldn't shock me if performances on 220-yard tracks were grandfathered in, but performances on a 307-meter don't make the cut.) I can see why some runners who are on the bubble for qualifying for the NCAA indoor championships might seek out a race on a 307-meter track as long as the NCAA continues to allow performances on that track to be used as provisional qualifiers, but that doesn't seem like a compelling reason to design such a track at the outset, especially since the NCAA could change its mind if it sees that performances are significantly enhanced by an oversized track. And I would think (although I don't know) that a 307-meter track would not be seriously considered for the venue of any major national track championships.
A couple of people mentioned football as the reason for the track size. I guess the point is that the football team is able to practice on a 100-yard indoor field contained inside the track.
I can't remember where I read it, but I read that the world cross race is the most difficult long distance race around. They supported this argument by stating how many more Africans are allowed to compete because of the size of the teams. E.g. at an Olympic race the teams only consists of three runners, where as cross teams are much larger. Hence, if you are a non-African, you have many more Africans that you have to beat at a cross race.
Now what I read was talking about the adult race, but I would imagine the same is true for the juniors. So, I would agree with the above posters who say he probably can't get a top three spot. Now if he does, that would be very exciting, but I would guess the odds are against. him.
Avocados Number wrote:
A couple of people mentioned football as the reason for the track size. I guess the point is that the football team is able to practice on a 100-yard indoor field contained inside the track.
At the Akron track, which is exactly 300m the track cuts off the corners of the end zones on a regulation football field. So I would guess that making it 307 is just large enough to get all the way around. The ncaa has now banned building tracks larger than 300m I believe.
Yes, I am. There used to be conversion formulas for BOTH 200m banked, and 300m tracks. Guess what? They were roughly the same. Do they not do that anymore?
The track at Arkansas is not a flat 200m track. And it's not "slow" by any means. In fact, like Galen said, it's "bouncy" and has "higher banked turns".
If you think he would have run 13:18 on a flat 200m track, you're nuts.
Avocados Number wrote:
I think one of us is missing the other's point. As far as I know, a "nat'l indoor record" cannot "fall" by virtue of a performance on a track that is more than 200 meters long. (It wouldn't shock me if performances on 220-yard tracks were grandfathered in,
This comment had me wondering if there ever was a 220 yard banked indoor facility built. The Armory was one track which was 220 yards but that was a flat slippery surface not conducive to records.
"NCAA's will be his 2nd real test. Talented yes, gamer to be determined."
- what in the world are you talking about??? the kid has raced 3 TIMES since cross. he has won 3 TIMES- in 3.56 (wjr), jr xc champ over derrick and puskedra by 2-0 SECONDS, and 7.47 last night with last 1200 in 3 minutes. what more do you want to be a "gamer"??? seriously, please answer because i want to know. are you that stupid?