bumfeeler wrote:
"The men didn't have unusually fast times" argument holds no water. By their own standards, yes they did, and considerably so.
Fundamentally false.
The men's performances were in line with what you generally see at the National Games and were in no way Earth shattering, unlike the women's performances.
1997 National Games Men's Winning Marks
10.22
20.55
45.46
1:49.35
3:36.54
13:25.14
28:17.71
13.41
49.34
8:10.46
39.23
3:04.89
2001 National Games Men's Winning Marks
10.25
20.60
45.72
1:49.09
3:41.27
13:40
28:59
13.36 (Liu Xiang)
8:36.25
39.56
3:06.27
2005 National Games Men's Winning Marks
10.24
20.73
46.15
1:48.21
3:40.88
13:58.02
28:16.40
13.10 (Liu Xiang)
49.19
8:32.36
39.41
3:06.97
2009 National Games Men's Winning Marks
10.25
20.79
46.02
1:49.19
3:44.98
13:38.77
28:15.06
13.34 (Liu)
50.04
8:25.11
39.22
3:06.37
Compare that with what the women ran in '93 and '97. It's off the charts.
The short track would make less difference as the distance shortens. Suppose each lap was 10m short that would be about 5m off the 200m race. Around about .5secs difference? Adding that on to his 20.96 would give 21.46. So about 0.8s off his PB. Feasible.
Applying the same hypothetical measurements to the 800m... what would 20m difference be? Less than 3s?
When do you ever see a 20.6 guy run 21.5 in a final outdoors?