David Oliver runs 12.93 and not one thread about it?

Not a slow start...he's just one of those sit and kick guys Let's Run folk are always complaining about.

Malmo,

Try track & field news message board or letshurdle.com.

Pretty sure 99.9% of the posters on this board are into distance running not sprint hurdling.

Saddest Sack Of Shyt wrote:

Malmo,

Try track & field news message board or letshurdle.com.

Pretty sure 99.9% of the posters on this board are into distance running not sprint hurdling.

this isn't true.

I'd guess the majority of people are track and field fans.

this is "letsrun" not "letsXC" or "letsGoForALongRun"

letsrun means all types of running...distance, sprints, hurdles.

I also thought it was interesting there was almost nothing on here about the three best performances of the meet. Oliver's 110's, Jackson's 400H and the woman's high jump AR.

Instead just a bunch of crap about the slow and boring 1500 and 800.

nickHpaulson wrote:

I also thought it was interesting there was almost nothing on here about the three best performances of the meet. Oliver's 110's, Jackson's 400H and the woman's high jump AR.

Instead just a bunch of crap about the slow and boring 1500 and 800.

That is...following the complaints that ESPN did not show the slow and boring races.

Big ups to David representing Howard University!!!!

nickHpaulson wrote:

I also thought it was interesting there was almost nothing on here about the three best performances of the meet. Oliver's 110's, Jackson's 400H and the woman's high jump AR.

Instead just a bunch of crap about the slow and boring 1500 and 800.

The women's HJ record blew my mind. 2.05!!!!

Saddest Sack Of Shyt wrote:

Malmo,

Try track & field news message board or letshurdle.com.

Pretty sure 99.9% of the posters on this board are into distance running not sprint hurdling.

Exhibit A. Precisely the reason why our sport is relegated to the fringe, even though track is one of the most popular by participation at the high school level.

malmo wrote:

Saddest Sack Of Shyt wrote:

Malmo,

Try track & field news message board or letshurdle.com.

Pretty sure 99.9% of the posters on this board are into distance running not sprint hurdling.

Exhibit A. Precisely the reason why our sport is relegated to the fringe, even though track is one of the most popular by participation at the high school level.

I wrote a reply on one of the idiot threads that said: 'Worst championships...' because he/she (almost certainly a he, especially with the 99.9% type of comments). In that thread I listed the large number of extraordinary performances (2.05/22-7 HJ/LJ double (best ever one-day double in the combo); 7.08 LJ; 4.89; 44.61...; 49.64; 1:59, five <=2:00; great w10,000 race; great w1500; 47.2/47.5 college; 12.93; etc. However, even T&FNews board had more than the usual share that think that they know better than the athletes and coaches

[Biggest example, winner has a ~3:32PR with very good closing speed, others have 3:35-3:38 PRs with good closing speed ... assumption is that letting it come to a sprint is a flaw of the 3:37 guy who should have set a 3:36 pace at the front so he could die at 1100m and finish last rather than sit in an hope that his 52 is good enough with the 51 guys caught in traffic. Many versions of this comment and not a single one actually lays out a mechanism that gives a plausible scenario for his own 'insight' that those who finished in the pack are idiots.]

don't forget collegian Johnny Dutch with a 47.6! a huge drop making him a contender for the gold or silver in the coming years.

a note on the criticism from those who don't know squat about hurdling or life: it is very easy to criticize performances because mistakes and differences among competitors are very often easily visible by everyone with eyes to see. It doesn't take any knowledge at all to point it out if one person starts after the others, or knocks into a hurdle (incidentally, the great two time gold medalist Roger Kingdom made it his strategy to power through the hurdles), or stumbles. So, the person may be an idiot or know nothing about the sport he's yammering on about, yet his criticism might be right. What he should remember, though, is to not miss the forest for the trees. This was a great performance and indicative of a possible world record later in the year. So, you can talk about the obvious area left for improvement, but the really striking thing was the ability to run 12.93. Similarly, the criticism of Symmonds's strategy should be muted, because the important thing is that he won in dominating fashion by over a second and took another national title. What makes stating the obvious weakness in as nasty a manner as possible the default position on this anonymous message board?

David is a fine, fine gentleman and sportsman. He ran fast enough to win the $25,000 Visa prize, but the +1.7 favorable wind dropped his score to 1255, just one small point behinf Batman's awesome 1256.

There is a conversion which always made DO's 110h potential limited :

110m time = (2.2 *60m time ) - 3.20

Now, he ran 12.93 off 0.177 with a 1.7 :

JRMs calculator gives 1% for +2m/s over 100m flat = ~ 13.05 basic if same factor over stix

Knock off 0.05s for an ideal RT which ->~ 13.00

His best ever 60mh is 7.44

The implication is that he finishes last 50m of a 110H in

~ 12.86 basic

He does have the greatest last 50m in history, but, he does need a better initial 60m to get the WR

Unfortunately, he never gets the <7.40 in the indoor season which is the pre-requisite

Dude has the biggest shoulders I've ever seen.

Nat Turner wrote:

Big ups to David representing Howard University!!!!

3rd place was Ronnie Ash formerly of Bethune-Cookman. MEAC in the house!