Most significant T&F performance of 2012

---

800m Coach wrote:

Rudisha's WR and Olympic gold was the best performance of the year, but we are talking "significant" here.

To me, significant means that it could change the way people think, or change a group of atheletes' take on an event. A significant performance (like Bannister's breaking of the 4 minute mile) changes the way people think.

Male distance running in the past 20 years has been dominated by African born runners. Arguments were made that Europeans and Americans didn't genetically stack up or couldn't put the work in to win a distance medal.

The genetic argument was not offered too often as it was seen to racist, but inside distance running, it was often referred to. For years American and European distance runners seemed to give up, and the media tried to find new endurance events (Triathlon) to cover and televise over distance running races. The European and American interest in distance running wained.

Along came Galen Rupp from Oregon, born and trained in the US, winning the silver medal. Caucasian runners, born and trained in their home countries now know, if they work hard enough, for long enough, they have hope to race with and challenge the great African runners. This is very significant - the most significant.

---

---

OnceARunner2012 wrote:

---

800m Coach wrote:

Rudisha's WR and Olympic gold was the best performance of the year, but we are talking "significant" here.

To me, significant means that it could change the way people think, or change a group of atheletes' take on an event. A significant performance (like Bannister's breaking of the 4 minute mile) changes the way people think.

Male distance running in the past 20 years has been dominated by African born runners. Arguments were made that Europeans and Americans didn't genetically stack up or couldn't put the work in to win a distance medal.

The genetic argument was not offered too often as it was seen to racist, but inside distance running, it was often referred to. For years American and European distance runners seemed to give up, and the media tried to find new endurance events (Triathlon) to cover and televise over distance running races. The European and American interest in distance running wained.

Along came Galen Rupp from Oregon, born and trained in the US, winning the silver medal. Caucasian runners, born and trained in their home countries now know, if they work hard enough, for long enough, they have hope to race with and challenge the great African runners. This is very significant - the most significant.

---

+5

---

---

whodaname wrote:

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?

---

USC's 6 track/field medals and 25 medals overall at London 2012 makes it certain that Los Angeles will bid on the next available Summer Olympics.

The great part is that all of the stadiums, sub-ways, rail lines, airports, TV facilities, and hotels, necessary to host the Olympics and millions of tourists are already built and wide use today.

Security and anti-terrorism L.A. is unrivalled by any city in the world. LAPD SWAT teams can physically defeat, and tactically beat any Pentagon land, sea, and air special forces units i.e. USSOCOM units.

[quote]clock master wrote:

Rudisha's 800m world record.

No contest!

I respect your opinion, but by your standard, the women's 4x100m WR would be more significant, don't you think?

Although Rupp's performance is somewhat significant to male distance running in general, your argument is that it is especially significant to white male distance runners.

Consider that the 4x100WR is especially significant to all female sprinters and middle-distance runners.

Also, Rupp's performance only permits white male distance runners to "hope to race with and challenge the great African runners", while the USA 4x100 permits all female sprinters and middle distance runners to believe that they can beat the best in recorded history.

I've still got the women's 4x100m WR as the most significant. Nobody, NOBODY has argued that Rudisha's prior 800m WR, or Kipketer's previous WR should be wiped from the books because it was effectively unbeatable, yet almost everybody has argued the same about the women's track records, especially those up to 800m.

The women's 4x100WR affects more people, to a greater degree, than does Rupp's performance, IMO.

**********************

For most impressive performance, I've still got Rudisha and Eaton tied.

**********************

For most impressive race, I'd have to give it to the Olympic 800m. Phenomenal.

**********************

For gutsiest performance, I'd have to give it to Manteo Mitchell in the Olympic 4x400m.

**********************

For the biggest wanker performance, I'd give it to Uceny.

**********************

How about the "most unexpected individual performance"??? Both good, and bad??

I think that Merritts 12.80 was the most significant but it probably is Bolts 100 victory in London. He pretty much needed to win. A loss would have been really bad for the sport.

Merritts is significant because you will never see another 8 step to H1 WR again. We have seen the evolution the past few years. First Xiang, than Robles, last year with Richardson, now Merritt. Oliver never made the switch. He should have. Merritt also destroyed the record.

I think a couple of the 2nd place finishes were pretty significant. Amos in the 800 tied the old Seb Coe mark. For the commonwealth that is pretty significant.

Also the mens 4x1. The American team tied the old WR, broke a 20 year old American record, ran real close to Jamaica and almost went sub 37. Significant because it shows that a squad that practices together can get the job done. Now the pressure is on Jamaica.

---

800m Coach wrote:

Rudisha's WR and Olympic gold was the best performance of the year, but we are talking "significant" here.

To me, significant means that it could change the way people think, or change a group of atheletes' take on an event. A significant performance (like Bannister's breaking of the 4 minute mile) changes the way people think.

---

I would say most impressive (as well as most signifcant) is easily Rudishia.

For the Americans, its Rupp. He proved that American distance running can hang when it counts.

So what? It's very impressive... but at the same time, it was a sprint event. You don't need rabbits for sprinting. When was the last time someone broke the World Record without a rabbit in the 800? If anything, the 800 is by far the most unpredictable race of all. It is the most tactically challenging by far, and probably the most painful race so it requires immense mental strength. Bottom line is, so far as Bolt is around, Blake isn't going to touch his WR. I can see Bolt breaking his WR again this year in Moscow. Just to have the balls to lead an Olympic level race from start to finish -acting as everyone else's pacesetter and making it easier for them - now that is impressive. Everyone in the field literally had a rabbit for the full 800 meters, and that rabbit happened to be the greatest 800m runner of all time. Nijel Amos and Timothy Kitum won't be running the times they ran in the 800 final anytime soon, I can assure you that. 800m races now are lacking in good pace setters, even Scherer (the best rabbit in the business) can only handle getting through the first 400-500 because the only people capable of running 1:13-1:14 for 600 are already elite 800m athletes. Bottom line: you're far too biased in favor of Blake. You're basically the only one defending him; hell, Bolt's double-triple is way more impressive than Bolt's 9.69. The immense pressure he had going into the final, expected to defend his titles and cement his living legend status, and being able to dominate both fields with such ability, that's more impressive than Blake's 9.69. The entire point of 2012 isn't to run a fast time, it's to win a gold medal. I can guarantee you Blake would be more than willing to trade his new PR for an upgrade to Bolt's gold.

Elana Lashmanova, 20 years old, sets WR in Olympic 20K Walk. Sub 7:00's all the way around.

---

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Well, now that the 2012 outdoor season is basically over, I'm wondering what people think was the most significant performance this year...

My finalists would include Blake 9.69, Bolt 9.63, Makhloufi's Olympic 1500m, Eaton's deca WR, Merritt 12.80 WR, Felix 200m at trials, 4x100 WR Jamaica men, 4x100 WR USA women, among others.

Note that I believe all of these types of performances to have been juiced, except for possibly Eaton and Felix.

It's tough to pick just one. I would eliminate Bolt and Blake because there is precedent for them both. There is also precedent for Makhloufi's time and winning style.

Of all the performances, I'd have to say the USA Women 100m WR was the biggest. There have been some great relay teams in the past, but this time crushed everything, blowing away a massively juiced record in the process. It is, IMHO, a testament to the systemic quality of athletics, and is therefore more important than the performance of any single athlete. Likewise it is more important than the Jamaican men's 100m WR because they only broke their own WR, and everyone believed it possible, and many predicted it accurately--I myself was off by only .01, having had Powell instead of Frater on 2nd.

That women's 4x100 is huge, absolutely huge. Imagine somebody taking down the women's 100, 200, 400, or 800, or any of the Chinese records.

IMHO it heralds the dawn of a new era in women's T&F, where in order to compete with the guys (who have been breaking WR's left-and-right) more successfully, a new echelon of incredible times will be achieved. The new 4x100 WR is a harbinger of things to come, just the same as Blake's 19.26 was last year.

Blake's 19.26 last year foreshadowed the fastest-ever Olympic 100m final this year, his own 9.69 and Bolt's 9.63, Merritt's 12.80, etc.

Look for women's athletics, the sprints in particular, to become more exciting than the men's in the next couple of years, as they play catch-up. IMHO their rate of improvement will be significant, and some unbelievable records may very well fall before Rio. Jeter has already equaled anything FloJo ever did in the 100 except for the 10.49 Felix is, incredibly, closing in on the 200. Pearson is widely believed to have a good shot at the 100mH. These are all bogus records once thought to be unbeatable.

The USA womens 4x100 WR begs to differ.

---

[quote]Sprintgeezer wrote:

I respect your opinion, but by your standard, the women's 4x100m WR would be more significant, don't you think?

Although Rupp's performance is somewhat significant to male distance running in general, your argument is that it is especially significant to white male distance runners.

Consider that the 4x100WR is especially significant to all female sprinters and middle-distance runners.

Also, Rupp's performance only permits white male distance runners to "hope to race with and challenge the great African runners", while the USA 4x100 permits all female sprinters and middle distance runners to believe that they can beat the best in recorded history.

I've still got the women's 4x100m WR as the most significant. Nobody, NOBODY has argued that Rudisha's prior 800m WR, or Kipketer's previous WR should be wiped from the books because it was effectively unbeatable, yet almost everybody has argued the same about the women's track records, especially those up to 800m.

I don't understand why you think this is so significant. Is it because they beat a record that was largely held to be set by drug cheats? If this is the case, that means you think the Americans were not drug cheats. And on what basis do you believe this? Jeter? Really? And even though for some reason i think Felix is not a drug cheat, any athlete that would choose to have Bobby Kersee as their coach should know they will immediately be under suspicion, as he may be the most notorious drug supplier in history.

Rofl you're the same person as that fool i've been arguing with the whole time.

What is so significant about a bunch of juiced up sprinters from the US beating the time from a bunch of juiced up East Germans. Is it because only 2 of the Americans were juiced, yet 4 of the East Germans were? Or is it because they were "American" juiced up sprinters?

---

800m Coach wrote:





[quote]Sprintgeezer wrote:

I respect your opinion, but by your standard, the women's 4x100m WR would be more significant, don't you think?

Although Rupp's performance is somewhat significant to male distance running in general, your argument is that it is especially significant to white male distance runners.

Consider that the 4x100WR is especially significant to all female sprinters and middle-distance runners.

Also, Rupp's performance only permits white male distance runners to "hope to race with and challenge the great African runners", while the USA 4x100 permits all female sprinters and middle distance runners to believe that they can beat the best in recorded history.

I've still got the women's 4x100m WR as the most significant. Nobody, NOBODY has argued that Rudisha's prior 800m WR, or Kipketer's previous WR should be wiped from the books because it was effectively unbeatable, yet almost everybody has argued the same about the women's track records, especially those up to 800m.

I don't understand why you think this is so significant. Is it because they beat a record that was largely held to be set by drug cheats? If this is the case, that means you think the Americans were not drug cheats. And on what basis do you believe this? Jeter? Really? And even though for some reason i think Felix is not a drug cheat, any athlete that would choose to have Bobby Kersee as their coach should know they will immediately be under suspicion, as he may be the most notorious drug supplier in history.

---

---

toro wrote:

---

800m Coach wrote:

Rudisha's WR and Olympic gold was the best performance of the year, but we are talking "significant" here.

To me, significant means that it could change the way people think, or change a group of atheletes' take on an event. A significant performance (like Bannister's breaking of the 4 minute mile) changes the way people think.

---

And that's exactly why I think Rudisha's performance was most significant.
It changed the way people think you can approach the race.

The thinking was you can't go out hard. You can't lead and set the others up.
In the 2000 Olympics, WR holder Kipketer hung back. The pace went out in 53.
He had gone out in 48 before but was tentative here, without a rabbit.

We never see championship distance races go real fast.
Even last year at WC's, Rudisha did lead, but he went out in 51.3 not 49.2 like this year.

Rudisha, this year changed the athletes take on the event.

---

As a 6 4 white guy Rudisha and Bolt both give me confidence that I can use my long stride to obliterate the competition in the 400.

Well, a couple of things on that:

First, there are many who believe that Rupp is juiced, just as there are many who believe that members of the W4x100 team are juiced--so if you're going to trash the W4x100 team, you should fairly consider Rupp at the same time.

Aside from that, though--because I am convinced that members of the W4x100 team are in fact juiced--the record is significant for the reasons that I have outlined, whether they are juiced or not.

There have been plenty of juiced athletes since the 80's, who haven't been able to come close to those records, let alone best them. Now you have Jeter who in 2009 was as good as FloJo ever was in the 100m except for the 10.49, Felix who has posted the best 200m time in history since Marion in 1998--the only other better ones were Ottey in 1990 and 1991, and FloJo in 1988--and even SAFP, who would have been only the 4th person ever in the 10.6's, with the slightest more puff of wind to add to the meager +0.6 she had.

My point is that even if they are juiced, they are coming closer to the records--which are all juiced themselves. Again, I don't know if what they are currently using is legal or not--there is a fair chance that it IS currently legal, and that people are suppressing its availability to delay the development of a good test by doping control authorities. Even if it isn't legal, neither are the records.

Drug cheats beating drug cheats IS significant. It may very well be the case with your beloved Rupp. We have to put the drug whining behind us, because it is a FACT, and it is entirely possible that every single T&F WR is assisted.

I'm not taking anything away from Rupp, I enjoy his running very much--and, the pool of white male distance runners may indeed be larger than the pool of female sprinters/middle distance runners--but to do something that was not believed possible is still IMHO more significant than doing something than doing something like Rupp did, because I don't think that his performance transcends the age in which he runs.

Of course, I could be wrong about that, his performance may resonate down throughout history--but the W4x100 WR most certainly WILL resonate down throughout history, which gives them the edge.

---

SC fan wrote:

USC's 6 track/field medals and 25 medals overall at London 2012 makes it certain that Los Angeles will bid on the next available Summer Olympics.

The great part is that all of the stadiums, sub-ways, rail lines, airports, TV facilities, and hotels, necessary to host the Olympics and millions of tourists are already built and wide use today.

Security and anti-terrorism L.A. is unrivalled by any city in the world. LAPD SWAT teams can physically defeat, and tactically beat any Pentagon land, sea, and air special forces units i.e. USSOCOM units.

---

Let me give a simple answer instead of the 1000 word disertations that you seem to love.

Actual performances are more significant than implied potential.

Rudisha went from the dominant 800m runner of the current time to arguably the best of all time with his performance.

Same with bolt.

Blake's performance, according to you, suggested short people can run fast.