I will explain it to you more clearly if that is what you need.
You are arguing that a non world record time by someone who didn't win the olympics is the most significant performance of the year. You make comments about it meaning the non 6 ft sprinter is back and Bolt can theoretically be beaten.
You are saying that a performance is significant because of some extrapolations that you made up.
I think the contest is between Bolt in the OG, for winning the 100/200, and Rudisha, for setting a WR leading wire to wire.
Most significant T&F performance of 2012
Pro News/Info/Results
History
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Correct. And for men the answer is 40 years for long distance, Viren in Munich (after falling), and 52 years for Mid D, Elliot in Rome 1500 unless you count Doubell in Mexico City 800.
An unbelievable performance with 7 of 8 fastest place finishes of all time.
Rudisha. When is the last time a world record went in the Olympics in a middle or long distance event. He had the bottle to risk WR pace leading the whole way[/quote] -
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Rudisha. When is the last time a world record went in the Olympics in a middle or long distance event. He had the bottle to risk WR pace leading the whole way
By IAAF points, Rudisha's 800 would be barely good enough to medal in the 100m. He is tied with Blake on points.
I see the USA 4X100 first and Bolt second. I don't see how any objective person can put Rudisha ahead of Merritt's other-worldly WR.
Contrary to someone on this thread who once claimed that London sprint times were going to suck :), this has been a great summer for sprints/hurdles. Rudisha has a WR, but it might only be the #5 performance this year. -
Very good observation. I think it would be interesting to see how all the performances stack up in IAAF points.
Also, does anyone have any insight into how the IAAF points table was developed? -
wtfunny wrote:
And body master's post shows a glaring ignorance of the reason for rabbits; it's not because 800m runners don't know what a pace is, but that the benefit of sitting behind someone and drafting is great enough that, without a rabbit, the incentive is lost for anyone to lead. Anyone who is not absolutely, completely, unquestionably dominant. i.e., David Rudisha.
whodaname wrote:
-----------
Body master, you just lost whatever credibility you may have had with such a biased argument with no evidence. Simply putting down all of the athletes in a particular event is childish at best.
I'm sure Rudisha gets drafting benefits from being 10meters behind his rabbit. *sarcasm*
The drafting benefit has never been scientifically proven... this isn't Need for Speed by EA SPORTS. In fact, it's quite controversial. Stay away from the video games kids.
The incentive to lead? I'm quite positive that Rudisha knows he's in first place because he knows who the rabbit is. This isn't a double blind study whereupon the athletes don't know if someone is a rabbit or not.
There is no psychological advantage to having a rabbit when you know that person is a rabbit. That's ludicrous. You know they will stop running. So you know you're in first and not following anyone who is in the actual race. Are you going to argue that you AREN'T leading just because a rabbit is in front of you? The only thing rabbiting does is allow you to never have to train for pace. The rabbit does it for you.
It's one of the reasons the 400m dash is a harder event then the 800m. And more of a MAN event. -
Predictor wrote:
I will explain it to you more clearly if that is what you need.
You are arguing that a non world record time by someone who didn't win the olympics is the most significant performance of the year. You make comments about it meaning the non 6 ft sprinter is back and Bolt can theoretically be beaten.
You are saying that a performance is significant because of some extrapolations that you made up.
I think the contest is between Bolt in the OG, for winning the 100/200, and Rudisha, for setting a WR leading wire to wire.
Dude.... what? I guess i can say "Thank You" for restating what I already said. My argument needed no further explanation.
I thought you were going to explain what YOU were saying in your ridiculous little post about a 5k and how it relates to the 100m dash.
I think you are getting too caught up with the whole "Olympics" thing. Just because it happened in the Olympics does not make it the most significant. Which is why this thread is called "Most Significant in T&F etc" NOT "Most Significant in Olympics etc"
Once again we need to revisit the correlating terms being thrown around in this thread. "Impressive" does NOT equal "significant". And we have a whole lot of posts doing a GREAT job of clarifying why something was so IMPRESSIVE, but doing a poor job of explaining why it was SIGNIFICANT.
As for Bolt winning... it was hardly significant. Just like Rudisha it was in the same vein. They both reestablished that they are the greatest 100m and 800m runners of all time. Bask in their glory etc etc....
Don't get me wrong! They both were significant. But not like I believe Yohan's to be.
Tell me something. Read carefully as it's a simple question.
Which do you believe ingrains more hope into the losing athletes? Blake running a 9.69 into a headwind? Or Rudisha leading the entire race for a WR?
On one hand we have someone who shattered the perception that you have to be 6'5 to run that fast. And that's HUGE. Almost every user on these boards specifically stated that Bolt's height was the reason he was running so fast. Don't deny it. There are too many instances to even need to quote. So now Blake shows that you don't need to be that height. Under 6 foot is fine.
On the other hand we have Rudisha the King. He leads "wire to wire" and runs a WR with no rabbit. Perhaps you give other athletes hope that they can run from the front and pull out a victory? Well, like I said, Blake's performance has already given the spark of hope. Rudisha's is unproven to work for anyone but him. -
For significance, I don't think anything can beat the combination of a WR + Olympic gold in the same race. The Olympic final is the world's biggest stage and pinnacle of the event.
A WR set at a Diamond League event that only trackheads watch just can't compare to a WR at the Olympics, and a 2nd fastest time in an event at a Diamond League event is even less significant.
For that reason, Bolt's performance was most significant in 2008 (and 2009, counting WC gold as being fairly equivalent to an Olympic gold, even if the general public doesn't pay as much attention), and Rudisha's was in 2012.
For Rudisha, you also have to add in an incredibly deep and fast field that together ran the greatest 800m in history with Rudisha still winning after leading wire to wire - the hardest way to win an 800. One other point that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that Rudisha set the WR after running rounds, unlike, for example, a one-off rabbited 800 like his prior WR. To still set a WR in the Olympic final under those conditions is incredibly impressive.
A case can be made for Eaton, but his WR was not at the Olympics and was at home for him, so I don't think it equals Rudisha, even if I have a sentimental inclination toward Eaton.
The women's 4x1 was terrific and very exciting (so was the men's for that matter) but I just don't think relays are comparable to individual events. It was just the right combination of very fast women, none of whom is individually at the level of FloJo. I wouldn't expect any of them to start breaking FloJo's times, and if they did I would be suspicious about how they managed to do it. -
body master wrote:
The drafting benefit has never been scientifically proven... this isn't Need for Speed by EA SPORTS. In fact, it's quite controversial. Stay away from the video games kids.
Nor has the height advantage of Bolt (in fact, given your own argument, it's been DISproven. But nor has the wind advantage. Or track speed. ad infinitum. The point is that it is accepted; hence races where rabbits are paid to run, and requested to run.
body master wrote:
The incentive to lead? I'm quite positive that Rudisha knows he's in first place because he knows who the rabbit is. This isn't a double blind study whereupon the athletes don't know if someone is a rabbit or not.
You're being obtuse. It's not about a need to know who's winning. It's about the benefits of sitting behind someone and having them do the work. You don't think that makes a difference? Talk to Daniel Komen and Haile Gebreslassie. Does it make a difference in the 800m? Ask all those folks who Rudisha just led to unprecedented 7/8 personal records.
body master wrote:
There is no psychological advantage to having a rabbit when you know that person is a rabbit. That's ludicrous. You know they will stop running. So you know you're in first and not following anyone who is in the actual race. Are you going to argue that you AREN'T leading just because a rabbit is in front of you?
Physiological advantage. And if you don't think so, why do you suppose Rudisha's run was the first non-rabbited wr in such an event in forever?
body master wrote:
The only thing rabbiting does is allow you to never have to train for pace. The rabbit does it for you.
Nonsense. You're now stating that world class middle and long distances don't "train for pace"? That's a ridiculous thing to say. Your argument for Blake looks all the more foolish when you say things like this alongside it.
body master wrote:
It's one of the reasons the 400m dash is a harder event then the 800m. And more of a MAN event.
And just when I thought you wouldn't be any more ridiculous.
body master wrote:
I think you are getting too caught up with the whole "Olympics" thing. Just because it happened in the Olympics does not make it the most significant. Which is why this thread is called "Most Significant in T&F etc" NOT "Most Significant in Olympics etc"
All other things being equal, I'll argue that it happening in the Olympics DOES make it more significant. And you ask any athlete who's striven to run in the games, and I'll bet you another dollar they agree with me. Which is more significant to Carl Lewis? His gold medal runs or his wins on the E. circuit? Ask Bolt the same question. Or, ask Rudisha which is more significant to him, the WR and OG gold medal, or being beaten by Aman 2 weeks ago?
body master wrote:
As for Bolt winning... it was hardly significant. Just like Rudisha it was in the same vein. They both reestablished that they are the greatest 100m and 800m runners of all time.
Pardon me, but reestablishing that you're the greatest 100m or 800m of all time seems to be somewhat significant, to me. Establishing that you've equaled the 3rd fastest legal 100m run of all time somewhat LESS significant. IMO. But Bolt set himself, clearly, as the greatest sprinter of all time. Not just the 100m. The 100-200m double, never ever repeated at the games.
body master wrote:
Which do you believe ingrains more hope into the losing athletes? Blake running a 9.69 into a headwind? Or Rudisha leading the entire race for a WR?
Hopefully there's a little more to the measurement of significant that ingraining hope into the 'losing' athletes. But, even given that poor yardstick, Rudisha's run led the entire field to the fastest 800m race ever, and 7 out of 8 athletes in the race PR'ed. 2 Teenagers established themselves in the top 10 fastest 800m runners ever.
body master wrote:
On one hand we have someone who shattered the perception that you have to be 6'5 to run that fast. And that's HUGE.
Well, not really. Because (a) Blake didn't run "that" fast. He ran slower than Bolt ran in the games, and over 1/10th of a second slower than the WR. And that's HUGE. And Tyson Gay is nowhere near 6'5", and he's run the exact same time. Carrying an injury.
body master wrote:
Almost every user on these boards specifically stated that Bolt's height was the reason he was running so fast. Don't deny it.
Please re-read that statement. Especially the first 3 words of it. And then pull your head from your ar**.
body master wrote:
On the other hand we have Rudisha the King. He leads "wire to wire" and runs a WR with no rabbit. Perhaps you give other athletes hope that they can run from the front and pull out a victory? Well, like I said, Blake's performance has already given the spark of hope. Rudisha's is unproven to work for anyone but him.
Really? And just who has Blake's run proven to work for other than Blake? But you did say one thing here which is correct. Rudisha led wire to wire, and ran a WR with no rabbit. Add to that he won the Olympic gold medal. Add to that he won (and orchestrated) the fastest 800m race ever seen. Add to that he showed a whole group of world class athletes they can run faster than they ever imagined they might (see Nick Symmonds' comments after the race). Add to that he's the boss. -
Why does ingraining hope in losing atheletes equal significance?
-
I'm arguing with an idiot. You keep spinning around and around with these rebuttals that absolutely bring nothing to the central argument itself. I really don't know why you state some of the things you say when it doesn't matter to my argument and does nothing to give yours the advantage.
It's annoying. You know you've got nothing left to say but you keep blabbing anyway. The only thing keeping you from looking like a fool is the majority of distance fans rooting for Rudisha along with you.
You have YET to explain to me the central theme of this ENTIRE thread.... why is it significant? I've reiterated my facts about why it's significant so many times and you have given me nothing. Which is why it's annoying. You keep dodging the question and arguing around it.
Rudisha is impressive. More so than Blake. But no... not more so SIGNIFICANT. Look up the definition and maybe you can stop dodging the question and making meaningless mini arguments from my posts.
I don't quote people phrase for phrase. That's retarded and it can easily make you look like the smarter man. You must read the entire post as a whole and realize that each phrase builds on each other to form a whole complete train of thought. You have jagged, haphazard trains of thought that jump from place to place. There is nothing rational or complete about them. It's like you're doing a Q&A instead of forming a proper response.
You blatantly spew BS out when you know otherwise. Such as your opening phrase that Bolt's height is disproven. Where? It's been proven. For god's sake he takes 41 strides as opposed to 43. He has more speed endurance. His block start is not atrocious like Carl's (probably because of PED's) so it is now a distinct advantage. 5'10 guys cannot cover this same ground like Bolt.
And what is this work you speak of? "Sitting behind someone and letting them do all the work" As if just because you're behind someone you magically use less energy. Seems to me like a mental problem for 800m runners. I can understand staying in last and kicking because the pace is too quick. That is not being rabbited nor drafting. That is called tactics.
As for your physiological advantage retort, I guess you don't know what outliers are. And especially since Rudisha is the first "in forever" to do this.
"And if you don't think so [that rabbits are a physiological advantage], why do you suppose Rudisha's run was the first non-rabbited wr in such an event in forever?" -wtfunny
So how then did he run a PR and WR without a rabbit? Not only did that mini-reply make no sense in context but it further solidifies my stance that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Also, you argue that something happening in the Olympics makes it MORE significant and then rant about how you're correct. When in reality i clearly said, "it does not make it MOST significant." Big difference.
Let's not forget the last paragraph of your reply. "Really? And just who has Blake's run proven to work for other than Blake?" -wtfunny
Once again making absolutely no sense. Blake proved that you can be under 6foot and run 9.6 (9.5 with a strong tailwind). Rudisha's run has been unproven to work for anyone but him (running in front without a rabbit). How can you not understand this?
You are arguing against a phantom. A ghost. Certainly not me. You seem to be clueless as to what you're arguing for or even about. Your statements take my posts out of context in most everything you type. You desperately try to claim I'm ridiculous without explaining anything, merely hoping that quoting me justifies this stance. And don't forget your Q&A style of posting. As if each individual phrase I type stands naked and alone instead of intact for a complete train of thought.
There are so many flaws in your ability to decipher and formulate a proper response that it is painstaking to reply to your posts. It has consumed a great deal of my time even formulating the words to explain what you're doing wrong and why you make no sense.
I hope you never reply again in this thread at me, because undoubtedly we'll once again see these inconsistencies and flaws. Just let it go. -
Predictor wrote:
Why does ingraining hope in losing athletes equal significance?
Well pardon me, it seems like both of you look at the world from a very slanted, one dimensional perspective.
Let me clear this up. With the word "impressive" - which you all are clearly talking about- comes the need to cater to your own personal preferences. So when asked what is most impressive you obviously talk from a very egotistical perspective.
With the word "significant" comes a need to understand the events from more than one dimension or perspective. You can no longer think about these performances from your own perspective but outward as well.
So with significance you have to take into account mainly the other athletes, the fans, the whole sporting world. Whilst with impressive you are only concerned with your own view.
In this case, Blake is NOT more IMPRESSIVE than Rudisha. I'll admit it, putting aside significance. Rudisha was the man. After heats and rounds, and from the front. Wow.
But for significance, thinking about the other athletes and the world of sport, it was Blake who usurped all. He made it known that the 5'10 sprinter was fully capable of running 9.5 and that you did not need to run 41 strides or be 6'5 to run that fast.
It seems everyone thought it was impossible [9.58] but in reality Bolt just can do it easier and with less training. So naturally it happened.
So here comes Blake, this super hard working athlete, and he finds he can do it. Just takes harder/smarter work. This new knowledge is now imparted to all the 100m sprinters and now they realize that they aren't limited to 9.7
This is HUGE as mentality in history has always put a limit on performance till someone new comes along and shatters that mentality. -
A good example to further explain is like the atomic bomb:
What is the significance of the atomic bomb?
vs
What is impressive about the atomic bomb?
For significance, to put it bluntly, it showed that we were capable of blowing the whole damn world up and destroying humanity.
For impressiveness, it can destroy an entire city in seconds!
Notice how one looks at it from a worldly perspective and the other from a personal standpoint.
These two words have big differences. -
Lots of stupidity in this thread... I think people need to understand that significance varies between each individual.
for me the most significant is Merritt's 12.80. I never thought the WR was strong in that event seeing how the top 10 times were .01 apart(or for most I think), but that time for me makes ti seem like some fast times are actually possible in the event.
I also think Nijel Amos's 1:41.74 is pretty significant, just because of his age and the fact that he was running 1:48 (or 1:47) the year earlier.
Blake's time to me was expected following his progression, and Bolt's wasn't that fast when you factor in the wind... -
I have to disagree with you, significance too can depend on the individual. The question asked was not the significance to the world/track fans, and it was not personal significance either, so it's kinda vague.
If it's to the world it's probably going to be Bolt for obvious reasons. For people who follow track I think more would go with Rudisha or Merrit, but for personal significance it could be anyone -
body master
You said "I don't quote people phrase for phrase." -- a couple paragraphs later you do exactly that. Repeatedly.
World records are significant. The OG are significant. Please don't pretend you need that explained to you.
Nor did I say Bolt's height is unproven .. he's 6'5". You argued of a "the perception that you have to be 6'5 to run that fast" and that "Bolt's height was the reason he was running so fast." - and that has most certainly never been scientifically proven. All kinds of different people run fast, or slow, for all kinds of different reasons. Height is one ingredient in the mix. For Usain, it's clearly a factor. For Ben Johnson, PEDs were more of a factor than his height.
You talk of this 'scientifically proven' argument, then wrap that same commentary up with "(probably because of PED's)" .. the word "probably" makes your entire post look silly.
Yes; sitting behind someone running at pace, you DO use less energy.
How did Rudisha do what he do? I don't know, and nor does anyone else .. we've never seen anything like it before, or since, from anyone. He ran faster for 800m than anyone else has ever done.
"significance" .. we keep track of world records and championship places for a reason.
Blake proved that he can be under 6' tall and run 9.69. He didn't prove he can run 9.5 with a tailwind. He didn't prove that anyone else can do anything.
[/quote]So with significance you have to take into account mainly the other athletes, the fans, the whole sporting world. Whilst with impressive you are only concerned with your own view. [/quote]
Yet, you're the only person making the argument for Blake right now; and most folks here have said Rudisha's performance was more significant. So who's really only concerned with their own view? -
So with significance you have to take into account mainly the other athletes, the fans, the whole sporting world. Whilst with impressive you are only concerned with your own view. [/quote]
wtfunny wrote:
body master
You said "I don't quote people phrase for phrase." -- a couple paragraphs later you do exactly that. Repeatedly.
World records are significant. The OG are significant. Please don't pretend you need that explained to you.
Nor did I say Bolt's height is unproven .. he's 6'5". You argued of a "the perception that you have to be 6'5 to run that fast" and that "Bolt's height was the reason he was running so fast." - and that has most certainly never been scientifically proven. All kinds of different people run fast, or slow, for all kinds of different reasons. Height is one ingredient in the mix. For Usain, it's clearly a factor. For Ben Johnson, PEDs were more of a factor than his height.
You talk of this 'scientifically proven' argument, then wrap that same commentary up with "(probably because of PED's)" .. the word "probably" makes your entire post look silly.
Yes; sitting behind someone running at pace, you DO use less energy.
How did Rudisha do what he do? I don't know, and nor does anyone else .. we've never seen anything like it before, or since, from anyone. He ran faster for 800m than anyone else has ever done.
"significance" .. we keep track of world records and championship places for a reason.
Blake proved that he can be under 6' tall and run 9.69. He didn't prove he can run 9.5 with a tailwind. He didn't prove that anyone else can do anything.
Yet, you're the only person making the argument for Blake right now; and most folks here have said Rudisha's performance was more significant. So who's really only concerned with their own view?[/quote]
I quoted you as a means to an end. You quote me to spark miniature, trivial arguments that don't matter to the grand central argument. I quoted you to expose how warped your context is and clearly explained that in my closing statements.
You must not be reading my posts because every one is the same babbling. When will you post WHY Rudisha's is more significant than Blake's? You can't keep hiding behind the false assumption that just because its a WR makes it more important.
I gave you facts as to why Bolt's height gives him a unique advantage and you still say its not proven? What more do I have to prove? I just did. There is no need to scientifically prove that longer limbs allow you to cover more ground than shorter limbs. Or that a taller athlete has more speed endurance in a 100m. Are you stupid?
You keep saying the same lines over and over. "Silly, ridiculous" etc." I look silly because i said the word probably? lol? No where do you see me dismissing your post as silly or ridiculous without a CLEAR explanation. Using my word 'probably' as the explanation just makes YOU look silly.
Give me a FACT or even a THEORY about how sitting behind someone allows you to use less energy despite running the same pace as him. That's all i deal with especially coming from such an opinionated individual like yourself. You never give details kid.
As far as Blake how far are you going to go with this nonsense that he didn't prove he can run 9.5? Are you unaware of wind application? Or are you assuming that with a 2.0 wind Blake would somehow stumble and crash out before the finish line because his body somehow cant cover 100meters in 9.5 seconds.
You're correct in that I AM the only one making the argument for Blake. Because I can stand by my opinion with details supporting it. And no one can give details supporting Rudisha except some "revolutionary" concept that now 800m runners can run fast without rabbits.
Why do you think I'm trying so hard to help you realize the difference between impressive and significant? GIVE ME A REASON WHY RUDISHA'S WAS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN BLAKE'S. Hell, just give me a reason WHY it was significant to the sporting world and the athletes themselves. No personal bias. -
Excellent post... check out Athletics World Weekly for great track & field coverage along with road running. If you follow the sport as accurately as your writing reflects then you will enjoy the program.. see link below..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7spB4XCk_Co&feature=youtu.be
jx. -
dude..check out best track and field tv coverage on Athletics World Weekly... Will do a serious 1 hour end of year review with all the top performances at the end of the year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7spB4XCk_Co&feature=youtu.be
jx. -
Trollist wrote:
No one gave a sh*t about Rudisha's record because Bolt was going to run soon.
Too bad this thread is about actual performances, not hype.
Check the fan-made videos of that don't screen out the noise. They were going nuts. -
Bad Wigins wrote:
Trollist wrote:
No one gave a sh*t about Rudisha's record because Bolt was going to run soon.
Too bad this thread is about actual performances, not hype.
Check the fan-made videos of that don't screen out the noise. They were going nuts.
Read the post I responded to. Millions of people were not awestruck by Rudisha because Bolt was coming up.
