Cfftfftttff wrote:
vivalarepublica wrote:
Purduen't with the 2nd place finish, WTF is this alternate universe that we are living in.
They were seeded second.
In my mind, the alternate universe is that a Harvard woman is the 200m champion and has the CR.
Yes, this is true.
But after living most my life in Hoosierland, I am accustomed to Indiana being the track powerhouse of the state. Purdue is putting up some good performances in XC and track&field, I'm flummoxed.
Not a new face wrote:
Cfftfftttff wrote:
They were seeded second.
In my mind, the alternate universe is that a Harvard woman is the 200m champion and has the CR.
She's finished 3rd outdoors the past two years and 6th at the Olympic Trials.
Pay attention.
3rd outdoor to 5th in the world all time, 2nd all time in the US and CR.
The only people in front of her are Ottey, Privalova, Dreschler and Torrence.
From the Harvard sprint powerhouse.
Yep, alternate universe.
vivalarepublica wrote:
Cfftfftttff wrote:
They were seeded second.
In my mind, the alternate universe is that a Harvard woman is the 200m champion and has the CR.
Yes, this is true.
But after living most my life in Hoosierland, I am accustomed to Indiana being the track powerhouse of the state. Purdue is putting up some good performances in XC and track&field, I'm flummoxed.
Lonnie Greene, formerly of Arkansas, has been the head coach at Purdue for several years now. The 4X4 has always been his bread and butter.
Poyt wrote:
rose colored boy wrote:
This is what I was trying to say.
Yes.
Why not?
It wouldn’t be a meaningful record. Assembling the four best runners in the world and putting them on a relay team would produce a stupid fast time, but what would be the point? Relays only make sense if there’s a meaningful connection between the athletes on the team. Same school, same country, ok. Same sponsor is tenuous at best. If you’re going to assemble a group of international elites, it’d be more interesting to just have them run an individual race.
How can you possibly quantify "meaningful record"?
Even if you insist that having some sort of connection between the runners is necessary, why are we privileging "being from the same nation state" as a prerequisite over "having the same sponsor" or "being friends" or whatever?
It's a nonsense rule.
Poyt wrote:
It wouldn’t be a meaningful record. Assembling the four best runners in the world and putting them on a relay team would produce a stupid fast time, but what would be the point?
Relays are not meaningful for records, because they have more than one runner.
If you want to have a record, then get in an individual race, and run faster then anyone else has run.
A team at the world level is defined as a country. A team at the NCAA level is defined as a college. 4 guys in Europe could probably get together to run a 4x4 in under 3:00. It means as much as if 4 guys from the SEC get together at a random meet for fun to run sub 3:00 and claim it as an NCAA record.
rose colored boy wrote:
How can you possibly quantify "meaningful record"?
Even if you insist that having some sort of connection between the runners is necessary, why are we privileging "being from the same nation state" as a prerequisite over "having the same sponsor" or "being friends" or whatever?
It's a nonsense rule.
Perhaps because it's up to a member federation to sumbit a mark to the IAAF for ratification.
rose colored boy wrote:
Poyt wrote:
It wouldn’t be a meaningful record. Assembling the four best runners in the world and putting them on a relay team would produce a stupid fast time, but what would be the point? Relays only make sense if there’s a meaningful connection between the athletes on the team. Same school, same country, ok. Same sponsor is tenuous at best. If you’re going to assemble a group of international elites, it’d be more interesting to just have them run an individual race.
How can you possibly quantify "meaningful record"?
Even if you insist that having some sort of connection between the runners is necessary, why are we privileging "being from the same nation state" as a prerequisite over "having the same sponsor" or "being friends" or whatever?
It's a nonsense rule.
Nobody’s trying to “quantify” anything, you fool. You wanted “qualify”.
Anyway, by extending your logic, the natural conclusion is that there should simply be no world relay records, which I think is a perfectly valid solution. Leave them to schools.
Vgvygygyg wrote:
Where does Southerland come from? Huge PB!!!
Sabrina graduated from Georgetown last year and is running her graduate year in Oregon. She is from NY originally.
wejo wrote:
Jon and I both thought Dani had it when she moved up on her around final bend. But spent extra distance going around and purrier had something.
Jones did have her. Purrier didn't hold her line and should have been DQ'd. She comes out of the turn on the rail and ends up in the middle / outside of lane 2. There would be a legit case for a protest by Jones if they would have pursued it.
Ehso wrote:
vivalarepublica wrote:
Yes, this is true.
But after living most my life in Hoosierland, I am accustomed to Indiana being the track powerhouse of the state. Purdue is putting up some good performances in XC and track&field, I'm flummoxed.
Lonnie Greene, formerly of Arkansas, has been the head coach at Purdue for several years now. The 4X4 has always been his bread and butter.
The last three legs for Purdue were all within 0.1 sec of 52.0 (1st leg is from blocks and likely would have been very close as well).
That points to excellent coaching.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
rose colored boy wrote:
Absolutely agree, it's a truly moronic stipulation. Why on earth should a school or club not be able to set a relay world record? Can anyone shed any light on what possible justification the IAAF could have for this?
Do you think Nike should be able to run a 4x800m relay with Nijel Amos, Donavan Brazier, Makhloufi and Alfred Kipketer to go for the world record?
Being against this is why t&f sucks lol.