Is the Tokyo track short? ... Update: Track designed admits it's juiced

Track makers have been tinkering to tune them for faster sprints because that is what people want.

You literally just said it though - "return energy" meaning that you have to put energy in to get energy out.

testaccount123 wrote:

You literally just said it though - "return energy" meaning that you have to put energy in to get energy out.

As opposed to the surface absorbing all of the energy that you put in. Not sure what your point is.

bike moit wrote:

The tracks return energy and the shoes return energy. At some point it becomes a different sport. No longer about human performance.

Do you guys like....read the sh1t you write?

"No longer about human performance"

Uh huh. Sure. Totally doesn't matter at all how good the human racing is.

Yes, I know what you're trying to say and the point you're trying to make. I'm just in awe of how badly you made it. Why not use the words that actually convey your intended meaning though?

Springy.

Someone else mentioned this in another threat but I think it's interesting: what about a boost from less competition during Covid, sort of a not over raced boost?

Another story about the track:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/sports/olympics/Olympic-Stadium-fast-track-records.html?smid=em-share

Conventional wisdom is that fast=hard and slow=soft. Fast/hard is good for sprinters and slow/soft is better for distance because it's easier on your body.

Perhaps Mondo's track in Tokyo can give more of the energy return of a hard surface without being as punishing on the body. That would be the goal. However, track suppliers talking up their tracks are a bit like shoe manufacturers talking up their shoes. Sometimes it might be a real improvement, but you also have to suspect some marketing spin.

I remember we always used to differentiate between red tracks (or blue) and black asphalt tracks in high school. The asphalt tracks were most common (Illinois in the 1990s). I wonder how slow a cheap high school asphalt track is compared to one of these tracks. I am willing to take 5% off of my high school PRs.

Parsec wrote:

bike moit wrote:

The tracks return energy and the shoes return energy. At some point it becomes a different sport. No longer about human performance.

Do you guys like....read the sh1t you write?

"No longer about human performance"

Uh huh. Sure. Totally doesn't matter at all how good the human racing is.

Yes, I know what you're trying to say and the point you're trying to make. I'm just in awe of how badly you made it. Why not use the words that actually convey your intended meaning though?

Say the next Olympic track gives another 2% boost, and the one after that gives another 2%. The shoes continue to improve giving another 2% boost. So, is a new record set a superior human performance or is it due to superior technology? It's no longer about human performance. That's why you have athletes racing in disguised shoes or switching sponsors to get the newest and springiest. It just seams as if track and field is about to jump the shark, if it hasn't already. It's becoming a different sport. Running on trampolines isn't the same sport as running on the ground.

Juiced track worth .3 second per lap ... WA how can u exclude some ladies with high T and allow a track that seems illegal ffs

BuckleUp wrote:

ALL the w400 qualifiers, out of a not particularly stellar field, were under 50. Has that ever happened before?

Mondo Vaportrack 2%

Trampoline track confirmed.

If we go back to barefoot on cinders, someone will come up with 4% sole injections for feet and bounceback super cinders.

"It's always SOMETHING!"

+1

It's a conspiracy between WA and Mondo to improve the % speed of tracks to the extent that the embarrassing obviously doped world records are eventually broken.

TrackBall wrote:

Another story about the track:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/sports/olympics/Olympic-Stadium-fast-track-records.html?smid=em-share

Conventional wisdom is that fast=hard and slow=soft. Fast/hard is good for sprinters and slow/soft is better for distance because it's easier on your body.

Perhaps Mondo's track in Tokyo can give more of the energy return of a hard surface without being as punishing on the body. That would be the goal. However, track suppliers talking up their tracks are a bit like shoe manufacturers talking up their shoes. Sometimes it might be a real improvement, but you also have to suspect some marketing spin.

On the Letsrun Podcast, Sydney McLaughlin was quoted as saying there's something different about the Tokyo track, it feels faster than the track in Eugene.

Tokyo used to have a decent meet. What happened? Shame to waste a track that could've become the new Monaco.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

It's a conspiracy between WA and Mondo to improve the % speed of tracks to the extent that the embarrassing obviously doped world records are eventually broken.

I would like that. Humans become better: better training technology, better recovery methods, better shoes and better tracks. Improvement through the mind goes hand in hand with improvement of the body.

People comparing everything to runners on cinder and grass 60 years ago need to stop doing that. The world was much more primitive back then and it reflected on the results. Let that be in the past and enjoy the present.

Why does anyone actually think the track is magic?

Men’s 100, 200, 400 open, relays, high jump, pole vault, 110h, 800, 1500 (so far I think) have been nothing special.

McLaughlin and Warholm had both already set a WR this season before the Olympics. Maybe it’s the shoes, maybe it’s the athletes themselves.

Maybe they’re anomalies. Athing is anomalous, Erriiyon is anomalous AF. And beating flojo’s record , well, it’s good, but all it took was being 15 hundredths above the WR.

Why didn’t we question the london Olympic mens’ 800? That was sus if anything ever were.

lke_4:25 wrote:

Sceptic chap wrote:

World records and PBs galore on multiple events.

Bolt, Koch and Kratochvilova more impressive imo.

I don’t understand why people like you even watch the sport anymore. It’s either shoes drugs the track is short the track is too bouncy you don’t like the coach etc go find something else to follow

Give them some black people to verbally assault and they are all salivating at the mouth…

calfshrug wrote:

Why does anyone actually think the track is magic?

Men’s 100, 200, 400 open, relays, high jump, pole vault, 110h, 800, 1500 (so far I think) have been nothing special.

McLaughlin and Warholm had both already set a WR this season before the Olympics. Maybe it’s the shoes, maybe it’s the athletes themselves.

Maybe they’re anomalies. Athing is anomalous, Erriiyon is anomalous AF. And beating flojo’s record , well, it’s good, but all it took was being 15 hundredths above the WR.

Why didn’t we question the london Olympic mens’ 800? That was sus if anything ever were.

The London 800 had Rudisha rabbiting at the peak of his powers.

The two 400H WRs and McLaughlin herself saying the track is faster than the Eugene track.

My guess to the reason behind those fast times: 40% competition, 40% track, 20% shoes.

Probability theory would allow for all the "suspicious" times. It's not impossible that all the times just happened at this time at that place, without there being intervening "manipulations" and

contrivances.

Some of those performances made my eyebrows raise pretty high, too. Seemed just too much, too sort of coincidental that so many happened at this meet.

To me all the possible reasons--chemical, construction, manipulations--seem plausible, but I like to think it all just came about.....naturally. I'd rather be naive than as cynical as I'm tempted to be.

Wait until I'm gone, please, to pull back the curtain and show the rotten workings of my Emerald City.

Our h.s. track was earth-toned. Because it was earth. With intermittent gravel.

It was so rough the race starters had to describe the course.