.troof be told wrote:
Aurora Borealis wrote:Because no one wants to run an honest pace (see: no balls).
Except those three Japanese ladies in the 10k & the 5k. Balls all the way for them.
Cheers to that!
.troof be told wrote:
Aurora Borealis wrote:Because no one wants to run an honest pace (see: no balls).
Except those three Japanese ladies in the 10k & the 5k. Balls all the way for them.
Cheers to that!
Callinmout wrote:
We will never forget:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4710616&page=0
bump
boomsauce wrote:
Sprintgeezer, you need to create a new user name and start fresh. You have proven your one of the least knowledgeable people on these boards regarding track. Btw that's being kind, you actually have no knowledge of track and im wondering whether you have ever done it.
bump
Maybe they measured the track during build with that laser that was once six meters off in the women's hammer throw... ;-)
Hmm... the men's long jump pit most have been off in the other direction, 8,12 for bronze, that's ridiculus...
categorically wrote:
is it possible that the stagger was marked wrong? If so the advantage would be larger in the outside lanes. US women started in lane 7. Jamaican men started in lane 6.
I hope this track gets remeasured during the WR ratification process.
It's a bit convenient that the track will be ripped up shortly after the games.
If you know what goes into measuring an NCAA D1 track, you would have to be on crack to think any IAAF certified track let along the Olympics track is short.
RIGHT TO THE GILLS BABY!!!!!!!
Soprano wrote:
But when it comes down to it, I believe the performances were aided by the track. All these times weren't getting put out at once on your standard track.
What is a "standard track"? In what way does its specifications differ from those in the IAAF facilities manual?
'So the OP was right to suggest something is up, but I think it's just the technology behind the track, rather than any mistake in construction.'
No he wasn't he said the track was short and is clearly talking crap at least on this matter. Everyone know the track is fast like they have been for all new tracks in recent champs.To even think the timing could be out when anyone can check it is cleary ridiculous. The stand is built to cut win but that could also cut following wind
As for front page posts I've seen some go up with about 7 threads.. and on busy days
I think it's funny that I got referenced as too harsh on a message board (posted as rimot originally...horrible typo), I thought I was quite mild. That being said, I wouldn't have even responded if it wasn't for the title being "Either the timing, the track, or both are bogus in London" which in itself completely justifies my response. ukatheliticscoach, being a computer nerd myself, my guess is that the front page posts are most likely a result of 'views', not posts, in the recent past.
TrackCoach wrote:
categorically wrote:is it possible that the stagger was marked wrong? If so the advantage would be larger in the outside lanes. US women started in lane 7. Jamaican men started in lane 6.
I hope this track gets remeasured during the WR ratification process.
It's a bit convenient that the track will be ripped up shortly after the games.
If you know what goes into measuring an NCAA D1 track, you would have to be on crack to think any IAAF certified track let along the Olympics track is short.
It's impossible that lane 1 is short. I only think the stagger could be off, which would only affect 400m, 400mH and 4x1. When certifying a track for the NCAA do they measure every lane and every stagger?
Soprano wrote:
rimot wrote:Good Troll, even got the brothers to post it on the main page. But to think it is anything besides the combination of better athletes (doping or not) and a better track technology is ridiculous (AND the fact that it's the biggest event per four years!). Just think logically:
1. 'Maybe the track is short?' No way, they would be found out the first time someone takes a wheel to the track and proclaims WAIT A MINUTE IT'S SHORT!
2. 'Maybe the clocks are running slow?' No way, it's video recorded all over the place, not only via NBC and BBC but also on people's cell phones.
So what else is there????
First of all, as said many times before, the "Super Hot on LetsRun" thing on the homepage is automated by how many views a thread gets. No one "posts it" there.
Second, I think you and most people in this thread are being a little too harsh on the OP. I had thoughts along the same lines after the first couple days of competition actually. And those thoughts led me to not put as much stock in times throughout these two weeks when measuring the overall quality of a performance. For example, I was a lot more impressed with Duane Solomon and Nick Symmonds going 4-5 than I was with them running under 1:43. People asked Lolo Jones if she got any solace in running a time that would have medaled at any other Olympics and she said no and that didn't mean anything to her. And my thoughts were, "I agree, it shouldn't because there was no way you weren't running fast on this super fast track; everyone was."
That said, I never thought it was a timing malfunction or a short track. There is no way they messed up the timing for every race and while it could be hypothetically possible to screw up the placement of lines on the track, I highly doubt that would happen at the Olympics.
No, I just credit the fast times to a very very fast track. Maybe the fastest track ever. It's very "hard" from what I've heard and that makes for super fast sprint times. And it's not just the surface. The stadium and track were built to greatly reduce wind resistance. I've read articles about other features as well (maybe I'll google them later). There's a lot that went into building this stadium and clearly it worked.
And that's not to take away from the performances. They are still World Records; they covered the distance in that time. And peaking and quality of competition have a lot to do with it obviously. Improvement in technology is just part of sport though. World records used to be run on cinder tracks. Modern tracks are obviously a lot faster and this London track even faster still.
But when it comes down to it, I believe the performances were aided by the track. All these times weren't getting put out at once on your standard track. So the OP was right to suggest something is up, but I think it's just the technology behind the track, rather than any mistake in construction.
Those are my thoughts anyway.
You don't seem to be understanding the problem here. Everyone knows the track is really hard and made for fast times in the sprints.
The problem however, is thet Geezer often accuses tracks of being too short and the timing for being wrong. Over and over he does this. Its outrageous how stupid he is. Its clearly trolling.
He didn't suggest the track was fast, mostly he suggested there was something else up, which is absolutely ridiculous and something he does over and over. That is also one of the reasons people are being so harsh on him.
How has nobody mentioned those new Nike unis that were supposed to make sprinters more aerodynamic. distance runners weren't wearing 'em
The track has to meet IAAF specification before it can host an IAAF sanctioned meet.
wha
MG wrote:
The track has to meet IAAF specification before it can host an IAAF sanctioned meet.
what are the specifications for track hardness/energy return??
It's not the individual great times, it's the seemingly overwhelming frequency of PB's, WR's, SB's, and NR's, in the sprints.
In the men's 100m:
prelims (29 athletes): 5 SB's, 8 PB's, 1 NR
round 1 (54 athletes): 8 SB's, 3 PB's, 2 NR's
semi's (23 athletes): 2 SB's, 1 PB, 1 NR
final ( 8 athletes): 1 SB, 3 PB's, 1 OR
In the women's 100m:
prelims (32 athletes): 1 SB, 9 PB's, 1 NR
round 1 (56 athletes): 7 SB's, 3 PB's, 5 NR's
semi's (24 athletes): 3 PB's, 1 NR
final ( 8 athletes): 2 SB's, 2 PB's
I don't know if those numbers are unusual, but to me, it seemed like more athletes than usual were performing at or beyond their potential.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
It's not the individual great times, it's the seemingly overwhelming frequency of PB's, WR's, SB's, and NR's, in the sprints.
In the men's 100m:
prelims (29 athletes): 5 SB's, 8 PB's, 1 NR
round 1 (54 athletes): 8 SB's, 3 PB's, 2 NR's
semi's (23 athletes): 2 SB's, 1 PB, 1 NR
final ( 8 athletes): 1 SB, 3 PB's, 1 OR
In the women's 100m:
prelims (32 athletes): 1 SB, 9 PB's, 1 NR
round 1 (56 athletes): 7 SB's, 3 PB's, 5 NR's
semi's (24 athletes): 3 PB's, 1 NR
final ( 8 athletes): 2 SB's, 2 PB's
I don't know if those numbers are unusual, but to me, it seemed like more athletes than usual were performing at or beyond their potential.
First, you should look and see if that is unusual. Next, if you think that the weather wasn't ideal, consider that perhaps sprinters do fine in ~70 degree weather.
Men's 5000M went through 8:43 for 3000M which is about 9:21 to 9:23 for 2 miles meanning the last 2000M was about 4:58 for the leaders.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I don't know if those numbers are unusual, but to me, it seemed like more athletes than usual were performing at or beyond their potential.
With your vast wisdom, would it be unusual for virtually all competitors to have planned their season (and last couple of seasons) so as to be peaked for this meet?
Are athletes more likely to run their PBs when peaked or at some other point in their season?
Um--
Planning is different from actual delivery.
Again, I don't know if these numbers are unusual. Yes, I "should" find out if they are, but I have neither infinite time nor infinite knowledge.
I was hoping somebody else more knowledgeable would chime in with historical specifics.
Nordic Thunder wrote:
Sprintgeezer wrote:Thoughts?
Rudisha would break 12 out of the blocks on the London track. Then you would cry.
Rudisha has a 21.3 200 to his name as well as a 45.5 400m
He's comfortably sub 11 out of blocks
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06