NEW 300M WORLD RECORD!!!

All three americans under it.....WOW...........

Very impressive. First 3 broke the old record of 32.18. 4x4 record should go down tomorrow with the first 2 running on it - or is Merritt also on it?

weak record

I agree with a lot of people here. The record is pretty weak. A Kenyan can erase it anytime - No Doubt!!!!!

I agree with a lot of people here. The record is pretty weak. A Kenyan can erase it anytime - No Doubt!!!!!

Great werk! :)

Weak record? I guess you would consider it weak if you could run faster than a 10.62x per 100 meters for 300 meters. Since it is not run that much, it is not a weak record. Heck, I guess you could say the 44.xx world indoor record is weak as well.

i think that if three people managed to break the record in one race then, yes, it was a weak record.

chuck d wrote:

i think that if three people managed to break the record in one race then, yes, it was a weak record.

Or maybe those three runners are just plain "fast?" If the 300 were to be run on a regular basis, like the 400, it would be one of those events that eventually, only a few could come close or even beat the WR. As for the time and the 3 who crushed it, they are among the fastest 200 to 400 meter runners in the world. Also, they were running on the Ark track; a track that has seen the 400 WR broken, the 300 "WR" broken, the 200 American record broken and other NCAA records "smashed."

as you point out, the record was weak because the event isn't run. sure they're fast. but, again, you're not going to see the 200 or 400 record obliterated by three guys in one race. why? because those records are tough. simply because a record is weak does not diminish the guy who breaks it because it's arguably at a much more appropriate level now.

If I remember when El G broke the world record in the mile he wasn't the only person to dip under the previous record that day. I guess the old mile record was weak then too.[quote]chuck d wrote:

chuck d wrote:

as you point out, the record was weak because the event isn't run. sure they're fast. but, again, you're not going to see the 200 or 400 record obliterated by three guys in one race. why? because those records are tough. simply because a record is weak does not diminish the guy who breaks it because it's arguably at a much more appropriate level now.

So, would you consider the fact the record, now being .3 seconds faster, is at a "non-weak" level? Or would you say the record would not be considered "weak" if one or more ran sub 31 seconds? When does a "record" become "valid?" When it stands for N number of years and only one person breaks it? As for the old record being "weak," the average 100 meter time was +-10.73. Add that out over 400 meters, you have a new world record (42.92). Taking into consideration the runner actually getting tired over the last 150 meters, one could argue that he would have run a 43 mid to high 400 meters, which would still have been a world record. That record wasn't "too" weak.

sprint records, for reasons that should be obvious, are not generally lowered by such generous amounts as .3s over 300m. distance records, for reasons that should again be obvious, often do get lowered by proportionally similar amounts. that is why, for example, MJ's 200m record performance is considered so stunning.

a record becomes "valid" when it is generally in line with other records. i don't think anyone would have argued before tonight that the 300m record was in line with the 200m or 400m record.

and i have no idea what you are doing with this adding.

Mercier equates it to mid-44 400, seems about right considering these guys' PRs.

chuck d wrote:

a record becomes "valid" when it is generally in line with other records. i don't think anyone would have argued before tonight that the 300m record was in line with the 200m or 400m record.

and i have no idea what you are doing with this adding.

Would you now consider it more in line with the 2 and 4 records? Is it still weak or does another .3 seconds need to be shaved off? I know what you answer will be. Something along the lines of "...time will tell...." or "...it needs to run on a regular basis...", etc., etc., etc. As for the "adding," pretty simple math. When Kerron broke the WR last year, he did not go out in a 32.xx 300 meters. As a matter of fact, his 300 meter time was 33 high to 34 low (I forget the actual number). He might have lowered the record a bit more if he left his "balls" on the track. The point being is that the 32.18 "old" record was not weak and it makes the times tonight very impressive; especially, since 3 of the world's top sprinters (from different specialities) broke it by such a margin.

Seriously, shut up none of you could run that fast. it's fast reguardles and you could go either way saying that 3 people broke it so it's weak, yet these 3 guys are among that fastest in world indoor track history. Kerron having the 400 world record, Merrit have running the 4th best time for the indoor 400 ever, and spearman is probably the next hope for ever coming close to MJ''s 19.32 (which i doubt he will break)...so i don't know why you are even arguing....you should just be saying "that's damn fast"...reguardless of the old record! - the end

snkshp wrote:

Seriously, shut up none of you could run that fast. it's fast reguardles and you could go either way saying that 3 people broke it so it's weak, yet these 3 guys are among that fastest in world indoor track history. Kerron having the 400 world record, Merrit have running the 4th best time for the indoor 400 ever, and spearman is probably the next hope for ever coming close to MJ''s 19.32 (which i doubt he will break)...so i don't know why you are even arguing....you should just be saying "that's damn fast"...reguardless of the old record! - the end

snkshp, what are you, the forum monitor? We, as the general public can "discuss" anything we wish. I personally think it's a good topic and chuck d has stated some good points. It's obvious that none of us could run that time (or even come within 5+ seconds of it), but that is not the point. If you do not like the discussion thread, feel free not to respond. But if you do, BE NICE!! Don't tell people to "shut up" because that turns a good discussion thread into a "pissing" match of who can insult the other better. And yes, "THAT'S DAMN FAST." -- the end.....

you are either passionate about the 300m or you are extremely bored. i'm neither and i've said my piece on the subject. i'm sure if you want to joust some more, someone with either of the two aforementioned qualities will step in.