You are weaselling around this issue. You and others have argued repeatedly that the pole-vault record is likely clean because you say the event is "soft".
But you now fall back to saying it "could" be clean, which is effectively an admission it may also not be. That happens to be my position. The difference is I think it more probable than not. The arguments that it is a "soft" event and the only one which is not susceptible to doping are not persuasive. But as usual on Letsrun, I have been attacked for saying what you and others are also conceding may be true, that the record in the event may not be clean.
I find myself curious; do you use such off-putting, aggressive language in your interpersonal relations, in discussions that are nothing more than hypothetical conjecture and intended to entertain? Do you approach general conversations as if they are arguments, to be "won" or "lost"? And do you typically misquote people, or attribute to them things that they never said?
For example, nobody put forth a position that the pole vault is not susceptible to doping. You are making that up, attributing that position to others, so you can argue against it. But NOBODY thinks that is true.
As for the rest of your post, I've made a case in this thread that the men's pole vault record could be clean (with a number of well-founded reasons to support that as tenable). By definition, that also means it might not be. That is literally the definition of "could," when used in the context that something "could be true, but it is uncertain."
That is not a "fall back position." That is my position and has been throughout.
So you play the card that I am not talking to you as though we are having a conversation over a cup of coffee. This site - and this thread - is nothing like that.
You are also wrong - and I don't say that to "win" an argument, I don't actually care about that - but wrong in fact that "nobody" here thinks the pole vault is susceptible to doping, which means the best could be doped. If the consensus had been that the pole-vault was as doped as any other event there would have been no taking issue with my point that its records are likely no more clean than any other event. Yet over pages of this thread you and others have not simply taken issue with me but made it personal. If the context had been the kind of face to face social encounter that you describe I would have politely told you all to f*ck off. But, fortunately, in my personal life I don't run into what is the norm here.
In respect of the issue of the thread, your view you express above is that the pole-vault could be clean; mine is that it is unlikely. That means you are also necessarily acknowledging I may be correct. I have read your reasons and remain unconvinced - as you have been by mine. So there it apparently rests. The personal stuff is irrelevant to any of this.
You are never answering any concrete question. I don't know the participating level for any event. I'm just pretty sure that there are just a few pole vaulters COMPARED to sprinters. Do you disagree with this? And that this much higher participating level in sprinting than pole vaulting (10x?, 100x?) will most likely result in a higher overall level and records closer to some limit. Do you disagree? Please explain why.
My questions are relevant to the claim made here that a record will be "soft" based on the numbers participating in the event. To support that claim you (or whoever makes it) must be able to say what those numbers are and at which point an event no longer is "soft" because of the numbers participating. Without those numbers and arguments supporting them as a measure of the competitiveness of the event the claim about an event being "soft" is unsupported assertion only. It is why I haven't accepted it.
I used the "numbers" argument to say that all records are "soft" by that measure, because the sport has a fewer participants than a number of other major sports, like football - which, incidentally, offer much more in the way of financial inducements. The best athletes aren't necessarily heading to T and F.
Regarding world records, a term like "soft" is relative, not absolute, so there is no number of participants chasing a record that magically makes it "hard."
An existing record could be softer (again, a comparative term) if there is suddenly a new inducement to break it that leads millions of new people to pursue it, or if there is a new technology or training technique available that allow for greater achievement by virtually the same athletes (the change from bamboo and steel to fiberglass poles in the 1950s made older records soft by comparison), if new doping techniques are created that increase performance in that specific event (the radical re-writing of records when EPO became available), etc.
A "harder" record would be one that is already pursued by millions of people, offers great inducement, requires very specific physical characteristics (so most people can't approach it, regardless of training and desire), and approaches the current limit of known human potential. Broken only once since 1968, and standing since 1991. the world long jump record for men has proven to be a hard record to break.
Ask yourself:
If we offered $100 million dollars to anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meter record, in the next six months, would it be broken?
Probably not. You already have incredible, highly trained, possibly doped athletes, with elite coaching, chasing that record, and they come from a huge population (everyone in the world who competes in sprint races). That is a hard record to break.
Offer that same $100 million dollars to any group of 100 women who can break the 100x1 mile relay record.
That record was set in June of 2023, at an average of 5:35 per mile. It had stood for 24 years, not because it was a hard record to beat, but because almost nobody tried to break it. When a group tried, they succeeded.
For $100 million to the first team that breaks that record, it would be gone in a week, at most. If the money goes to the FIRST team that breaks the record, it will be broken in a day or two, in spite of the logistical headaches. Why? Far fewer people have pursued it and there is less reward for doing so, and as a result it is comparatively soft.
If many people pursue something in earnest, it is likely the best person will be better than if very few pursue it. That's Stats 101.
My questions are relevant to the claim made here that a record will be "soft" based on the numbers participating in the event. To support that claim you (or whoever makes it) must be able to say what those numbers are and at which point an event no longer is "soft" because of the numbers participating. Without those numbers and arguments supporting them as a measure of the competitiveness of the event the claim about an event being "soft" is unsupported assertion only. It is why I haven't accepted it.
I used the "numbers" argument to say that all records are "soft" by that measure, because the sport has a fewer participants than a number of other major sports, like football - which, incidentally, offer much more in the way of financial inducements. The best athletes aren't necessarily heading to T and F.
Regarding world records, a term like "soft" is relative, not absolute, so there is no number of participants chasing a record that magically makes it "hard."
An existing record could be softer (again, a comparative term) if there is suddenly a new inducement to break it that leads millions of new people to pursue it, or if there is a new technology or training technique available that allow for greater achievement by virtually the same athletes (the change from bamboo and steel to fiberglass poles in the 1950s made older records soft by comparison), if new doping techniques are created that increase performance in that specific event (the radical re-writing of records when EPO became available), etc.
A "harder" record would be one that is already pursued by millions of people, offers great inducement, requires very specific physical characteristics (so most people can't approach it, regardless of training and desire), and approaches the current limit of known human potential. Broken only once since 1968, and standing since 1991. the world long jump record for men has proven to be a hard record to break.
Ask yourself:
If we offered $100 million dollars to anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meter record, in the next six months, would it be broken?
Probably not. You already have incredible, highly trained, possibly doped athletes, with elite coaching, chasing that record, and they come from a huge population (everyone in the world who competes in sprint races). That is a hard record to break.
Offer that same $100 million dollars to any group of 100 women who can break the 100x1 mile relay record.
That record was set in June of 2023, at an average of 5:35 per mile. It had stood for 24 years, not because it was a hard record to beat, but because almost nobody tried to break it. When a group tried, they succeeded.
For $100 million to the first team that breaks that record, it would be gone in a week, at most. If the money goes to the FIRST team that breaks the record, it will be broken in a day or two, in spite of the logistical headaches. Why? Far fewer people have pursued it and there is less reward for doing so, and as a result it is comparatively soft.
If many people pursue something in earnest, it is likely the best person will be better than if very few pursue it. That's Stats 101.
I'm not really interested in a detailed discussion about what constitutes "softness" in a record. It is really quite tangential to the subject of the thread. In any case, I don't think increasing prize money is what produces better records and I don't think there are currently any soft records in professional athletics.
However the question posed by the thread is whether any record today can be "guaranteed" to be clean. I take it that you have given up on arguing that and you are confining yourself to a lesser position of "could be" clean.
Regarding world records, a term like "soft" is relative, not absolute, so there is no number of participants chasing a record that magically makes it "hard."
An existing record could be softer (again, a comparative term) if there is suddenly a new inducement to break it that leads millions of new people to pursue it, or if there is a new technology or training technique available that allow for greater achievement by virtually the same athletes (the change from bamboo and steel to fiberglass poles in the 1950s made older records soft by comparison), if new doping techniques are created that increase performance in that specific event (the radical re-writing of records when EPO became available), etc.
A "harder" record would be one that is already pursued by millions of people, offers great inducement, requires very specific physical characteristics (so most people can't approach it, regardless of training and desire), and approaches the current limit of known human potential. Broken only once since 1968, and standing since 1991. the world long jump record for men has proven to be a hard record to break.
Ask yourself:
If we offered $100 million dollars to anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meter record, in the next six months, would it be broken?
Probably not. You already have incredible, highly trained, possibly doped athletes, with elite coaching, chasing that record, and they come from a huge population (everyone in the world who competes in sprint races). That is a hard record to break.
Offer that same $100 million dollars to any group of 100 women who can break the 100x1 mile relay record.
That record was set in June of 2023, at an average of 5:35 per mile. It had stood for 24 years, not because it was a hard record to beat, but because almost nobody tried to break it. When a group tried, they succeeded.
For $100 million to the first team that breaks that record, it would be gone in a week, at most. If the money goes to the FIRST team that breaks the record, it will be broken in a day or two, in spite of the logistical headaches. Why? Far fewer people have pursued it and there is less reward for doing so, and as a result it is comparatively soft.
If many people pursue something in earnest, it is likely the best person will be better than if very few pursue it. That's Stats 101.
I'm not really interested in a detailed discussion about what constitutes "softness" in a record. It is really quite tangential to the subject of the thread. In any case, I don't think increasing prize money is what produces better records and I don't think there are currently any soft records in professional athletics.
However the question posed by the thread is whether any record today can be "guaranteed" to be clean I take it that you have given up on arguing that and you are confining yourself to a lesser position of "could be" clean.
If you don't want to discuss whether some records are softer than others, why do you keep bringing it up?
To suggest that none are softer than others would be to say that they are all exactly equally difficult to break. That would be an absurd position. I hope you don't take that position. That some are softer than others is a given, if you understand that "softer" is a relative term.
Yes, the question posed was "If we were guaranteed one WR was clean, which one would it be?" The best answer to that would be, you cannot guarantee that any are clean. But you also cannot guarantee that any are not. The definition of "guarantee" would preclude you from making a guarantee either way. You could make an accusation, a logical guess, and have a higher degree of certainty than in other cases (the women's 800 meters is likely from a doped runner), but you cannot guarantee.
Once you accept that, the post leads to a richer discussion if you approach it from the position, "which most likely could be clean?"
I never argued that I could guarantee anything. I never would. That would be stupid. Because I never took that position, I cannot "give up" on that position.
And after all that, the men's pole vault, for a variety of reasons, remains a great answer for "IF there is a clean record, which one COULD it be?"
Regarding world records, a term like "soft" is relative, not absolute, so there is no number of participants chasing a record that magically makes it "hard."
An existing record could be softer (again, a comparative term) if there is suddenly a new inducement to break it that leads millions of new people to pursue it, or if there is a new technology or training technique available that allow for greater achievement by virtually the same athletes (the change from bamboo and steel to fiberglass poles in the 1950s made older records soft by comparison), if new doping techniques are created that increase performance in that specific event (the radical re-writing of records when EPO became available), etc.
A "harder" record would be one that is already pursued by millions of people, offers great inducement, requires very specific physical characteristics (so most people can't approach it, regardless of training and desire), and approaches the current limit of known human potential. Broken only once since 1968, and standing since 1991. the world long jump record for men has proven to be a hard record to break.
Ask yourself:
If we offered $100 million dollars to anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meter record, in the next six months, would it be broken?
Probably not. You already have incredible, highly trained, possibly doped athletes, with elite coaching, chasing that record, and they come from a huge population (everyone in the world who competes in sprint races). That is a hard record to break.
Offer that same $100 million dollars to any group of 100 women who can break the 100x1 mile relay record.
That record was set in June of 2023, at an average of 5:35 per mile. It had stood for 24 years, not because it was a hard record to beat, but because almost nobody tried to break it. When a group tried, they succeeded.
For $100 million to the first team that breaks that record, it would be gone in a week, at most. If the money goes to the FIRST team that breaks the record, it will be broken in a day or two, in spite of the logistical headaches. Why? Far fewer people have pursued it and there is less reward for doing so, and as a result it is comparatively soft.
If many people pursue something in earnest, it is likely the best person will be better than if very few pursue it. That's Stats 101.
I'm not really interested in a detailed discussion about what constitutes "softness" in a record. It is really quite tangential to the subject of the thread. In any case, I don't think increasing prize money is what produces better records and I don't think there are currently any soft records in professional athletics.
However the question posed by the thread is whether any record today can be "guaranteed" to be clean. I take it that you have given up on arguing that and you are confining yourself to a lesser position of "could be" clean.
For sure, you are not interested to discuss a subject to which you are repeatedly posting.
Are there currently "soft" (world) records in athletics? Depends on your definition of "soft" - but some records are "softer" than others. This easy to accept fact was explained now several times to you - but it seems you still struggle to understand it.
You deny that the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performances. Please explain this (to me: strange) position.
It would be an extreme exception if Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are as strong as Bolt's 9.58. So many more athletes try to excel in the sprints compared to the pole vault. Don't you agree to this?
To me, the exact title of the thread is completely useless: to evaluate prerequisites we don't know they are true in reality - what's the point at all? (assumed, exactly 10 records are clean - which ones would that be? - what's the point, if in reality maybe just 5 are clean?).
I think it was meant like this: you should name exactly one world record. If this world record was achieved clean, you will get some high price. Which record would you name? (there must be a chance (in reality there isn't) to find out if the record really is clean - and anybody must accept this answer).
Like some others, I think I would name the men's pole vault.
Just for you, Army: this not even says anything if I believe this record is clean or not. Yes, Army, your "position" (the record was achieved due to doping) still can be true. As far as I know, really nobody in this thread has said this record is clean. Or this record is doped. Because nobody here knows the answer.
I'm not really interested in a detailed discussion about what constitutes "softness" in a record. It is really quite tangential to the subject of the thread. In any case, I don't think increasing prize money is what produces better records and I don't think there are currently any soft records in professional athletics.
However the question posed by the thread is whether any record today can be "guaranteed" to be clean I take it that you have given up on arguing that and you are confining yourself to a lesser position of "could be" clean.
If you don't want to discuss whether some records are softer than others, why do you keep bringing it up?
To suggest that none are softer than others would be to say that they are all exactly equally difficult to break. That would be an absurd position. I hope you don't take that position. That some are softer than others is a given, if you understand that "softer" is a relative term.
Yes, the question posed was "If we were guaranteed one WR was clean, which one would it be?" The best answer to that would be, you cannot guarantee that any are clean. But you also cannot guarantee that any are not. The definition of "guarantee" would preclude you from making a guarantee either way. You could make an accusation, a logical guess, and have a higher degree of certainty than in other cases (the women's 800 meters is likely from a doped runner), but you cannot guarantee.
Once you accept that, the post leads to a richer discussion if you approach it from the position, "which most likely could be clean?"
I never argued that I could guarantee anything. I never would. That would be stupid. Because I never took that position, I cannot "give up" on that position.
And after all that, the men's pole vault, for a variety of reasons, remains a great answer for "IF there is a clean record, which one COULD it be?"
I keep bringing "softness" up? It is your brain that is a little soft, as I am only responding to that argument because it has been raised here by others - including yourself, who have just argued it once again at considerable length. I don't accept that argument and am not really interested in further exploring it.
You are really quite good at calling the kettle black with your criticisms of my approach here, with your contorted take on the use of "guarantee any record is clean". Saying you can't guarantee a record is clean is not saying its opposite, that one is guaranteeing it is not. You are merely saying you don't know if it is clean or not. If that is all you are saying one has to wonder why you think it is either informative or interesting that you keep saying it in every post here.
I have stated my view that all records are likely not to be clean. Since you make it apparent you don't know either way you have nothing to offer that changes my view.
I'm not really interested in a detailed discussion about what constitutes "softness" in a record. It is really quite tangential to the subject of the thread. In any case, I don't think increasing prize money is what produces better records and I don't think there are currently any soft records in professional athletics.
However the question posed by the thread is whether any record today can be "guaranteed" to be clean. I take it that you have given up on arguing that and you are confining yourself to a lesser position of "could be" clean.
For sure, you are not interested to discuss a subject to which you are repeatedly posting.
Are there currently "soft" (world) records in athletics? Depends on your definition of "soft" - but some records are "softer" than others. This easy to accept fact was explained now several times to you - but it seems you still struggle to understand it.
You deny that the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performances. Please explain this (to me: strange) position.
It would be an extreme exception if Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are as strong as Bolt's 9.58. So many more athletes try to excel in the sprints compared to the pole vault. Don't you agree to this?
To me, the exact title of the thread is completely useless: to evaluate prerequisites we don't know they are true in reality - what's the point at all? (assumed, exactly 10 records are clean - which ones would that be? - what's the point, if in reality maybe just 5 are clean?).
I think it was meant like this: you should name exactly one world record. If this world record was achieved clean, you will get some high price. Which record would you name? (there must be a chance (in reality there isn't) to find out if the record really is clean - and anybody must accept this answer).
Like some others, I think I would name the men's pole vault.
Just for you, Army: this not even says anything if I believe this record is clean or not. Yes, Army, your "position" (the record was achieved due to doping) still can be true. As far as I know, really nobody in this thread has said this record is clean. Or this record is doped. Because nobody here knows the answer.
It's taken you a while to get to it but you are saying you can't "guarantee" any record is clean. Suggesting the pole vault may be or "could be" does not make an argument that it is. The alleged "softness" of the record - which I didn't raise - I don't find convincing. I remain of the view that all records are probably doped. Doping is throughout the sport, and has been so for decades, and because it is performance-enhancing I don't think the best clean athletes will beat the best doped athletes.
I'm not really interested in a detailed discussion about what constitutes "softness" in a record. It is really quite tangential to the subject of the thread. In any case, I don't think increasing prize money is what produces better records and I don't think there are currently any soft records in professional athletics.
However the question posed by the thread is whether any record today can be "guaranteed" to be clean I take it that you have given up on arguing that and you are confining yourself to a lesser position of "could be" clean.
If you don't want to discuss whether some records are softer than others, why do you keep bringing it up?
To suggest that none are softer than others would be to say that they are all exactly equally difficult to break. That would be an absurd position. I hope you don't take that position. That some are softer than others is a given, if you understand that "softer" is a relative term.
Yes, the question posed was "If we were guaranteed one WR was clean, which one would it be?" The best answer to that would be, you cannot guarantee that any are clean. But you also cannot guarantee that any are not. The definition of "guarantee" would preclude you from making a guarantee either way. You could make an accusation, a logical guess, and have a higher degree of certainty than in other cases (the women's 800 meters is likely from a doped runner), but you cannot guarantee.
Once you accept that, the post leads to a richer discussion if you approach it from the position, "which most likely could be clean?"
I never argued that I could guarantee anything. I never would. That would be stupid. Because I never took that position, I cannot "give up" on that position.
And after all that, the men's pole vault, for a variety of reasons, remains a great answer for "IF there is a clean record, which one COULD it be?"
Literally zero reason to argue with this tw#t. He will find a way to disagree and insult you regardless of what you write. Every reasonable person understands what you’re saying and agrees with you. Best to leave the old man to his bitterness.
For sure, you are not interested to discuss a subject to which you are repeatedly posting.
Are there currently "soft" (world) records in athletics? Depends on your definition of "soft" - but some records are "softer" than others. This easy to accept fact was explained now several times to you - but it seems you still struggle to understand it.
You deny that the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performances. Please explain this (to me: strange) position.
It would be an extreme exception if Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are as strong as Bolt's 9.58. So many more athletes try to excel in the sprints compared to the pole vault. Don't you agree to this?
To me, the exact title of the thread is completely useless: to evaluate prerequisites we don't know they are true in reality - what's the point at all? (assumed, exactly 10 records are clean - which ones would that be? - what's the point, if in reality maybe just 5 are clean?).
I think it was meant like this: you should name exactly one world record. If this world record was achieved clean, you will get some high price. Which record would you name? (there must be a chance (in reality there isn't) to find out if the record really is clean - and anybody must accept this answer).
Like some others, I think I would name the men's pole vault.
Just for you, Army: this not even says anything if I believe this record is clean or not. Yes, Army, your "position" (the record was achieved due to doping) still can be true. As far as I know, really nobody in this thread has said this record is clean. Or this record is doped. Because nobody here knows the answer.
It's taken you a while to get to it but you are saying you can't "guarantee" any record is clean. Suggesting the pole vault may be or "could be" does not make an argument that it is. The alleged "softness" of the record - which I didn't raise - I don't find convincing. I remain of the view that all records are probably doped. Doping is throughout the sport, and has been so for decades, and because it is performance-enhancing I don't think the best clean athletes will beat the best doped athletes.
No, Army, It's not taken me a while to say that "I can't guarantee any record is clean". But it's completely useless to explain this to you (several have tried), you will come back and change anything someone has said and interprete it the way you want it.
For sure I can't "guarantee" any record is clean. How could I guarantee something like this? I'm pretty sure many (world) records are doped. How many? Which ones? I don't know - and I have never ever said anything else.
You are completely avoiding any concrete question regarding your strange point that the no. of participants has no influence on the level of top performances. It clearly has (mathematical fact).
Do you think the women's hammer throw WR is on the same level than Bolt's 9.58? I know you will not answer. Your reply (it will come soon) will include that you are not interested in it, that the question is stupid, or something like this. Because you have no interest in discussions (which includes accepting convincing arguments from others).
You were wrong so often. For example wrong in not debatable facts like race statistics - even then you have never admitted to be wrong.
If you don't want to discuss whether some records are softer than others, why do you keep bringing it up?
To suggest that none are softer than others would be to say that they are all exactly equally difficult to break. That would be an absurd position. I hope you don't take that position. That some are softer than others is a given, if you understand that "softer" is a relative term.
Yes, the question posed was "If we were guaranteed one WR was clean, which one would it be?" The best answer to that would be, you cannot guarantee that any are clean. But you also cannot guarantee that any are not. The definition of "guarantee" would preclude you from making a guarantee either way. You could make an accusation, a logical guess, and have a higher degree of certainty than in other cases (the women's 800 meters is likely from a doped runner), but you cannot guarantee.
Once you accept that, the post leads to a richer discussion if you approach it from the position, "which most likely could be clean?"
I never argued that I could guarantee anything. I never would. That would be stupid. Because I never took that position, I cannot "give up" on that position.
And after all that, the men's pole vault, for a variety of reasons, remains a great answer for "IF there is a clean record, which one COULD it be?"
Literally zero reason to argue with this tw#t. He will find a way to disagree and insult you regardless of what you write. Every reasonable person understands what you’re saying and agrees with you. Best to leave the old man to his bitterness.
So you can't "guarantee" any record is clean, either? Thanks for agreeing with me.
It's taken you a while to get to it but you are saying you can't "guarantee" any record is clean. Suggesting the pole vault may be or "could be" does not make an argument that it is. The alleged "softness" of the record - which I didn't raise - I don't find convincing. I remain of the view that all records are probably doped. Doping is throughout the sport, and has been so for decades, and because it is performance-enhancing I don't think the best clean athletes will beat the best doped athletes.
No, Army, It's not taken me a while to say that "I can't guarantee any record is clean". But it's completely useless to explain this to you (several have tried), you will come back and change anything someone has said and interprete it the way you want it.
For sure I can't "guarantee" any record is clean. How could I guarantee something like this? I'm pretty sure many (world) records are doped. How many? Which ones? I don't know - and I have never ever said anything else.
You are completely avoiding any concrete question regarding your strange point that the no. of participants has no influence on the level of top performances. It clearly has (mathematical fact).
Do you think the women's hammer throw WR is on the same level than Bolt's 9.58? I know you will not answer. Your reply (it will come soon) will include that you are not interested in it, that the question is stupid, or something like this. Because you have no interest in discussions (which includes accepting convincing arguments from others).
You were wrong so often. For example wrong in not debatable facts like race statistics - even then you have never admitted to be wrong.
If you can't "guarantee" any record is clean - as the thread asks - you are in effective agreement with me. Your argument about the "softness" of some records - which I don't agree with and am not particularly interested in - doesn't change that or you would hold a different view.
However, on that point regarding "softness" I asked you what number of participants are required to show that an event is "soft" and what is their critical mass that means it isn't. You don't answer that. You can't. In any case, I could argue all the records are "soft" because many of the best athletes engage in sports other than T and F. "Softness" isn't an effective argument for suggesting a record is clean - as you have shown. As I said, if it was you might "guarantee" it is clean. But you don't. You don't even say it is likely or probable but only that you don't know. All that argument to come to no conclusion.
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.
Literally zero reason to argue with this tw#t. He will find a way to disagree and insult you regardless of what you write. Every reasonable person understands what you’re saying and agrees with you. Best to leave the old man to his bitterness.
So you can't "guarantee" any record is clean, either? Thanks for agreeing with me.
But he and everyone else can guarantee you are a worthless twat.
21st century WRs only. Please try to put the fan inside you aside when rating a WR from an athlete you like.
I would go with one that requires a lot of technique and is not too impressive.
I hesitate between :
the 110h : the top guys have unimpressive 100/200 PRs. Very technical. The performance isn't the most oustanding.
3000sc (shaheen one) : 3000/5000 PR possibly clean (tough the 5k would be the clean WR imo). Quite a lot of room for being improved.
Decathlon : easier to be good at everything than the best ever in 1 discipline without PEDs I think. Also the technical and training aspect is the most complex of all. But is it possible without any help for recovery at least?
I don't know all the women WRs so I might be missing one there.
Discuss Certainly, assessing the difficulty and technicality of world records (WRs) in the 21st century while putting personal preferences aside can be a subjective exercise. Taking into account your criteria of requiring technique and not being too "impressive" in terms of performance, here's an evaluation of the events you mentioned: 1. 110m Hurdles: This event requires a combination of speed, agility, and precise hurdling technique. The 110m hurdles world record holders have often been accomplished hurdlers who might not have the fastest 100m/200m PRs, but their mastery of hurdling makes them stand out epoxy flooring boston. The technique involved in navigating hurdles at high speed is challenging, and this event certainly requires a unique skill set.
Certainly, assessing the difficulty and technicality of world records (WRs) in the 21st century while putting personal preferences aside can be a subjective exercise. Taking into account your criteria of requiring technique and not being too "impressive" in terms of performance, here's an evaluation of the events you mentioned: 1. 110m Hurdles: This event requires a combination of speed, agility, and precise hurdling technique. The 110m hurdles world record holders have often been accomplished hurdlers who might not have the fastest 100m/200m PRs, but their mastery of hurdling makes them stand out. The technique involved in navigating hurdles at high speed is challenging, and this event certainly requires a unique skill set. 2. 3000m Steeplechase (Saif Saaeed Shaheen's record): The 3000m steeplechase is indeed a unique middle-distance event with its water jumps and barriers. The combination of speed, endurance, and the technical aspect of hurdling barriers and water jumps requires skillful execution. The world record in this event, held by Saif Saaeed Shaheen, leaves room for improvement, indicating that it's a challenging event that requires both speed and technique. 3. Decathlon: The decathlon is often considered the ultimate test of an athlete's all-around abilities, as it requires proficiency in ten different track and field events. Decathletes need to excel in sprints, jumps, throws, and distance events. Achieving world-class performance in each discipline and managing the mental and physical demands of the decathlon is a significant feat. While the decathlon does cover multiple events, its complexity and technical challenges make it a demanding discipline. All three of these events have their own unique challenges and technical demands. Ultimately, the assessment of which event is the "most" technically challenging or less "impressive" in terms of performance can vary based on individual opinions. It's important to recognize the incredible dedication, training, and skill that athletes in all disciplines put into their pursuit of world records.
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
If you don't want to discuss whether some records are softer than others, why do you keep bringing it up?
Literally zero reason to argue with this tw#t. He will find a way to disagree and insult you regardless of what you write. Every reasonable person understands what you’re saying and agrees with you. Best to leave the old man to his bitterness.
Through this thread, I have come to appreciate your position and must agree.
While I enjoy a spirited debate and hypothetical discussion, it must be rooted in some common sense, and the parties should be honest brokers.
When one side continuously makes personal jabs and misrepresents the other side, and ignores areas of commonality and agreement for the sake of dragging the discussion into the mud, it’s time to move on from either the discussion or at least from addressing that person.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
2. 3000m Steeplechase (Saif Saaeed Shaheen's record): The 3000m steeplechase is indeed a unique middle-distance event with its water jumps and barriers. The combination of speed, endurance, and the technical aspect of hurdling barriers and water jumps requires skillful execution. The world record in this event, held by Saif Saaeed Shaheen, leaves room for improvement, indicating that it's a challenging event that requires both speed and technique.
Well, Boulami ran faster than Shaheen, but got his WR removed because of EPO. Shaheen also ran his WR during the height of the EPO era...
Also, Girma broke Shaheen's WR two months ago. So yes, there was room for improvement, although 1.5 seconds in 19 years with superspikes is not a lot.
Why in the world would you pick Aries Merritt 12.80 110m High Hurdles as the most likely to be clean?
He smashed the previous world record by 0.07 seconds, his second best that year was 12.92 (still real good but 0.12 slower) and he never ran sub 13.00 in any year before or since his record year.
That really doesn't say much. 110 and 100h requires a level of mechanics that most events don't need, and it is immensely difficult to stay consistent in the event over a long period of time.
You can make huge leaps in the 110 that you never really touch again - it's actually quite common. Remember Holloway's 12.81? Allen 12.84? Those are just the ones at the top. Many men who run under 13 will never do it again.
The high hurdles aren't like the 10k where you can just take EPO and HGH to stay on top. The hurdles are really, really hard - and honestly, 12.80 is probably the weakest men's record in the books right now. It just hasn't seen a prodigy of the same level as the other events have.
Let's not forget the fact that the very next year he got diagnosed with a rare kidney disease and had to be put on dialysis and eventually get a transplant which completely took him out of the sport for a while. His bone marrow was attacked by a parvovirus too. He was still able to get a bronze in the following Worlds though.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.