JKopf wrote:
Counterclockwise running became the choice of men because most are right-handed and right-footed. As children begin to kick balls, which occurs quite early in life -- legs are stronger than arms, and hands are small, making it harder to throw balls used by adults -- most use a dominant right leg, which then becomes stronger and with longer bones.
That paragraph is still giving off steam from being pulled directly from your ass.
The Belgium experiment in the video with the reverse 400m race is biased because they finished on the turn which are tougher to run fast on/have best form for. The last 100m of a 400m is tough enough on the straightaway but these idiots had them run on the turn and then pretend its the same thing. Please tell me the results of that study were published and someone, somewhere has adjusted their training in some way. Modern science is great but don't presume that all research is correct because it's published.
The rotation of the earth makes running clockwise around a track nearly impossible
genuine random a hole wrote:
JKopf wrote:Counterclockwise running became the choice of men because most are right-handed and right-footed. As children begin to kick balls, which occurs quite early in life -- legs are stronger than arms, and hands are small, making it harder to throw balls used by adults -- most use a dominant right leg, which then becomes stronger and with longer bones.
That paragraph is still giving off steam from being pulled directly from your ass.
You do seem to be butt-centric. Did it steam up your spectacles?
* wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:They could change to clockwise in the south, but then they'd have to dig up all the left-turning tracks and replace them with right-turning tracks which would be prohibitively expensive. Are you gonna pay for all that, then quit complaining.
I know this was a joke. I hope this was a joke.
Pretty funny.
OMFG!!!!!
idk if this is technically pseudoscientific or whatever but I'm right handed and I hate running the opposite way (clockwise) around a track. My coach used to have me do 200s and 300s in the opposite direction sometimes, I just found it harder to do and my times were slower. I dont know if this was due to getting used to running the standard direction but I prefer counterclockwise much more. I think it makes more of a difference for sprint events. A fast 200 in the opposite direction would be brutal for my legs.
Runners are usually smarter than the general population and tend to go left.
It's all in the head. When I do multiple mile repeats, I do two in one direction and two in the reverse direction. I just start in the middle of the straight-away so I'm not finishing right off a turn.
Realism wrote:
idk if this is technically pseudoscientific or whatever ..
It's hypothetically technically psuedoscientific and anecdotal conjecture imo.
Of course I'm anti-clockwise, just like all decent people. Clockwise sucks. Only weirdos and perverts are pro-clockwise.
It's because most men "dress right."
Bad Wigins wrote:
Because of the Coriolis effect. Just as hurricanes go counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and water goes down the drain counter-clockwise, so when people run they tend to turn left. So they made the tracks go left.
In the southern hemisphere, it would be better to turn right. But there is more northern hemisphere than southern hemisphere so the standard is based on the northern hemisphere.
They could change to clockwise in the south, but then they'd have to dig up all the left-turning tracks and replace them with right-turning tracks which would be prohibitively expensive. Are you gonna pay for all that, then quit complaining.
I was going to post something about the Coriolis effect (which doesn't affect water in drains, by the bye), but you were faster and better.
Well played, sir. Credit where it's due.
PS The Iffley Road at Oxford was formerly a third of a mile in length--and races were run on it clockwise. Fortunately, it was changed to a quarter-mile (Roger Bannister played a hand in that as an undergraduate, IIRC) and its running direction reversed *before* 1954. With those changes in place, Sir Roger ran the first sub-4:00 mile there.
Coincidence? Suuuure...
After those
Because the proper mile track would be a single 1-mile circle with a sweeping second hand that the miler would race for one loop. It is like running faster than the Earth spins.
...And the miler runs in the proper direction, the direction that the Earth spins in the mind of a northern hemisiphere-minded runner: counter-clockwise.
Johnny Appleseed wrote:
Because the proper mile track would be a single 1-mile circle with a sweeping second hand that the miler would race for one loop. It is like running faster than the Earth spins.
A clock face should spin counter-clockwise beneath a stationary marker hand. Some clocks actually do operate like this, such as a timer used to open and close an electronic switch.
Johnny Appleseed wrote:
...And the miler runs in the proper direction, the direction that the Earth spins in the mind of a northern hemisiphere-minded runner: counter-clockwise.
Johnny Appleseed wrote:Because the proper mile track would be a single 1-mile circle with a sweeping second hand that the miler would race for one loop. It is like running faster than the Earth spins.
I think a bigger question is why do clocks move in a clockwise direction?
It's a NASCAR thing. You wouldn't understand.
Anti-Clockwise = Clockfoolish ?
Clear view wrote:
I think a bigger question is why do clocks move in a clockwise direction?
Yes. I like this answer.
An even deeper thought relates to the ancient Olympics and the direction they ran around the track.
They could not have run anti-clockwise before clocks were invented.
The Liberal conspiracy theory definately makes sense as they would want runners to lean left and subconsciously incorporate this posture into their political ideology.