physicist wrote:
We may not like it, but Bad Wigins is right.
Wrong, you just failed to read the comments above. There is more than the cm involved here.
physicist wrote:
We may not like it, but Bad Wigins is right.
Wrong, you just failed to read the comments above. There is more than the cm involved here.
Yes, but it was a lateral 14 cm. How fast can YOU run 14cm laterally?
This is such a dumb argument. It really is. I understand that people are responding to the claim that Montano would have won the race if she hadn't drifted. And sure, this is a mathematical response that mathematically and logically proves that no, she would still have lost if she ran straight.
But the point of the whole thing is that it's not good racing to drift like that. Regardless of the fact that drifting didn't cost her the race, it still cost her time. And what if the race was closer? What if she was neck and neck with Sum and then drifted. Now that would be weird. There are races that are decided by .01 or .05 seconds, and in those races, this would have cost Montano.
Therefore, the final statement on Montano's drifting should be this: no, it did not cost her the race, but it's a strange action and not a good racing strategy, and hopefully she addresses it before it possibly costs her a race in the future.
These kinds of big ordeals that people go through over the smallest things in order to prove people wrong are emblematic of why this country and this world can't get along. People just want to disagree. And that's sad.
Strange, wierd, stupid...enough! There's a very good reason she drifted, though admittedly it may have been subconscious.
How many times has a runner out ahead eased up in the last couple of meters when they think they're alone? Very possible to steal a win in lane 5 if the lane one runner doesn't know she's there.
DMVarea wrote:
This is such a dumb argument. It really is. I understand that people are responding to the claim that Montano would have won the race if she hadn't drifted. And sure, this is a mathematical response that mathematically and logically proves that no, she would still have lost if she ran straight.
But the point of the whole thing is that it's not good racing to drift like that. Regardless of the fact that drifting didn't cost her the race, it still cost her time. And what if the race was closer? What if she was neck and neck with Sum and then drifted. Now that would be weird. There are races that are decided by .01 or .05 seconds, and in those races, this would have cost Montano.
Therefore, the final statement on Montano's drifting should be this: no, it did not cost her the race, but it's a strange action and not a good racing strategy, and hopefully she addresses it before it possibly costs her a race in the future.
These kinds of big ordeals that people go through over the smallest things in order to prove people wrong are emblematic of why this country and this world can't get along. People just want to disagree. And that's sad.
Because of possibilities written about in this thread, she could have won, but she could also have lost, most probably lost. BUT: the issue here that most argue isn't if she would have won, but how ridiculous the drifting was. Wigins are focusing on what wejo wrote instead of focusing how stupid that running was like most of us.
Bad Wigins wrote:
you really hate having to admit I'm right, don't you?
I have PWNED you all today.
Ya, and I also had sex last night... Go get a life you loser.
A few things to point out.1. She lost2. No matter what any one says, it does not change the out come of the race3. Mo Farrah is legend.4. Just because you had sex does not mean you have a life.
What a chump wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:you really hate having to admit I'm right, don't you?
I have PWNED you all today.
Ya, and I also had sex last night... Go get a life you loser.
physicist wrote:
We may not like it, but Bad Wigins is right.
/thread.
Montano was aboout 15 meters out from Sum at the finish, not 4.8. Each lane is 4 feet wide and Montano finished in lane 5. This means she ran an extra 1.33 meters IF she traveled in a straight line to the fininsh. Since it was more of a weave, the real value was undoubtedly over 2 extra meters run. In other words, she blew it.
Montano ran over 1.33 more meters than Sum. Montano was at least 15 meters wide of Sum, not 4.8 meters as you show. Each lane is 4 feet wide and Montano finished in lane five.
The sides of the triangle are 84m x 15m x 85.33
(The sides of the triangle are 84m x 15m x 85.33 (for Montano).
Sorry that my post got so spread out. Not sure what happened with that. All I did was click on the "Post Message" button. Internet gremlins, no doubt. Now that I know about this issue with my computer I'll preview future messages before posting them.
Clear view wrote:
Sorry that my post got so spread out. Not sure what happened with that. All I did was click on the "Post Message" button. Internet gremlins, no doubt. Now that I know about this issue with my computer I'll preview future messages before posting them.
Even worse is how wrong it is, point to point lanes are 50 inches wide, finishing in lane 5 is 200 inches away from finishing in lane 1, ~17 ft, ~ 5 meters
You are right. I botched up that post up in all respects. OH well. It's been a long day!
------------------------------------------------------------
Even worse is how wrong it is, point to point lanes are 50 inches wide, finishing in lane 5 is 200 inches away from finishing in lane 1, ~17 ft, ~ 5 meters
I see that you're just going to ignore all the posts proving you wrong then.
All the other Montano threads have finally fallen off page 1 because I've got you Montano-haters going full retard on this one. By confining you all to a single thread, I have quarantined your stupidity and done a great service to the LRC.
sp23 wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:sqrt(84^2 + 4.8^2) = 84.14.
Just to clear that up.
Too bad Wilson didn't drift wide of Poistogova, eh? 14 centimeters is a small price to pay for being in the clear.
Holy Christ, this is truly the stupidest statement I have seen all year.
So, in the strange reality you choose to wrap yourself in, this was somehow a clever 'racing maneuver' by Alysia to 'get clear???'
Are you out of your tiny freaking mind?
Get clear of WHAT? There was no one and nothing within five meters of her.
She was 'clear' of everything and everyone by the time she got to Lane 2, for Chrissake, but, to you, it was somehow WISE of her to run across Lane 2, across Lane 3, across Lane 4, and into Lane 5??!!
It was the single weirdest, and dumbest 'maneuver' I've ever seen a world-class runner make.
Not to mention that her idiotic violent lurch to her right, and right into Akkaoui (for which she absolutely should've been DQ'ed), cost her a lot more than a few centimeters.
First she goes to sleep with 200 left, and lets three girls go by (like she *expected* her legs to be all rigged up at that point, like they usually are when she goes out in 56), lets herself get badly boxed in, and then realizes, "Hey, my legs don't actually feel that bad, since I ran a sane first lap today; maybe I should actually try and finish this race," then completely panics, runs deeper into the box she's in, and then lurches out, right into Akkaoui, and then, once she's out, decides to run for the exit tunnel instead of the tape.
God only knows WTF that was supposed to be.
The good thing is she looked a hell of a lot stronger down the stretch than she has in a long time, and was damn close to winning the race, even with the idiotic line she ran.
If she can ever get her mind right (which really looks like the big 'If'), she is absolutely capable of 57-low, 59-low on the right day.
A super talent, could and should be a champion, but Jesus, she's got to learn to use her head just a little bit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're a moron, you just posted a massive response to a post you completely misunderstood. He said "too bad Wilson didn't drift wide." He was talking about the elbowing incident with Ajee Wilson and the Russian in the WC final, saying she should have drifted wide.
Did the two names in that sentence really not clue you in?
she is a great runner. refine her race tactics n we should see her on the podium often..
she is a world beater . Refine her race tactics and she will be on the podium often.
I read this as far less "bizarre" than nearly anyone else. My gut reaction was that she knew she would likely be dq'd for cutting off the other runner (clearly should have been) and she considered the race a throw-away, then behaved a little erratically, going out to lane 5, as a result.
What did she actually say after the race? Does this have to be a mystery?
Xcguy0988 wrote:
A few things to point out.
1. She lost
2. No matter what any one says, it does not change the out come of the race
3. Mo Farrah is legend.
4. Just because you had sex does not mean you have a life.
1. Yup
2. 'Outcome' is one word.
3. Nope
4. Actually, it does. "Without life, sex itself would be impossible."
sp23 wrote:
something long-winded and stupid
failbooker wrote, about that:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're a moron, you just posted a massive response to a post you completely misunderstood. He said "too bad Wilson didn't drift wide." He was talking about the elbowing incident with Ajee Wilson and the Russian in the WC final, saying she should have drifted wide.
Did the two names in that sentence really not clue you in?
sp23's nonsense did remind me of one interesting point that I was going to mention a while ago.
To get out of her box (which she got into by trusting the pacemaker) Montano had to bust out early, which was worth risking DQ if Akkaoui protested.
At which point, Sum and Wilson had lane 1 and the inside of lane 2 locked up. So Montano had to go to the outside of lane 2 in any event. The alternative would have been to count on Wilson to fade, pass her in lane 1 and then move outside, and that truly would have been stupid because Wilson might have pulled even with Sum instead.
So the real "extra" lateral distance was only about 2 1/2 lanes, not 4 lanes. 3 meters, rather than 4.8. The overall "extra" distance was sqrt (84^2 + 9) = 84.05.
So I was wrong. She didn't run 14 centimeters extra. Only 5 centimeters.
The really amusing thing about all this is how many people can't wrap their minds around how insignificant the break distance is. I am sure that none of these people are 800 runners, because every 800 runner has done enough 600 meter repeats to figure it out for themselves.
The miniscule extra distance is actually figured in to the first 1-turn stagger on an IAAF standard track. The 800 and 200 staggers may look the same, but the lane 5 mark on turn 1 is in fact at 15.151m, and on turn 3 it's at 15.017m. It's slightly less than 14cm ahead because the line of running in the outer lanes is at 20cm while in lane 1 it's 30cm.