I would very much like the Brojos to stop calling 200m+ tracks "illegal"

No one is knocking a performance on an oversized track. The performance is aug.enter by virtue of its track size and it needs to be noted as such.

Is there a less pejorative term that you prefer -- for example, "oversized" or "non-record-quality"? Or do you just believe that the distinction is one that should be avoided, glossed over, or obscured, because it "diminishes" or "knocks" a performance?

I'm much more sympathetic to the former position than the latter. But whether the distinction or terminology is appropriate is, in my view, highly dependent on the context of the remark. If it's in the context of comparing or assessing race times or proclaiming records, I think that the distinction is entirely appropriate, and it's useful information for some of the more persnickety fans (like me) for whom it makes a difference. The word "illegal," however, is harsh, and I'd be inclined to use it sparingly (perhaps in some debate about the wisdom of building oversized indoor tracks, holding major championship meets on such tracks, or recognizing purported records on such tracks). And in some contexts, where the focus is on winners and losers rather than time, the distinction may simply be out of place.

Similar issues come up all the time in road racing, where courses are routinely recognized as aided, point-to-point, or non-record-quality rather than loop or record quality. Again, the distinction is significant to some of us in comparing or assessing times or making assertions about records (or personal bests), and likely out of place in some other contexts. Thus, for example, if the web site's headline for the 2014 Boston marathon were "Meb Triumphs on Illegal Marathon Course," I would wonder about the motives of the author or editor. If, on the other hand, the discussion were about whether Ryan Hall is the fastest marathoner in U.S. history, I would find the distinction (if not the precise terminology) to be entirely appropriate, and any author who fails to acknowledge the distinction would be less credible in my eyes.

I do not, by the way, find it very persuasive to observe that "athletes who run a certain time over a certain distance did, in fact, achieve that time over that distance." (Similar sentiments are often voiced in discussions about road racing times. Less so, I think, in discussions about wind-aided sprinting and jumping performances in outdoor track, where precision seems to matter more.)

"Oversized" tracks are simply ineligible for official indoor records. There is nothing "illegal" about them.

When I was a youngster, the 200m track was OVERSIZED. We ran mostly on 160 yd tracks. (11 laps/mile)

In a few years, all the 200m indoor tracks will be torn up and replaced by 300m.

Illegality of oversizing wrote:

1) When I was a youngster, the 200m track was OVERSIZED.

2)We ran mostly on 160 yd tracks. (11 laps/mile)

3) In a few years, all the 200m indoor tracks will be torn up and replaced by 300m.

1) 200m tracks were never oversized.

2) Doubtful

3) Will not happen.

300m flat = 200m banked. The NCAA will figure this out at some point, but LR should lead the way.

Indoor T&F is not a major sport nor an Olympic sport.

Plausible Denial wrote:

300m flat = 200m banked. The NCAA will figure this out at some point, but LR should lead the way.

The NCAA already has that figured out. Look up the conversions.

been around 'ya know wrote:

"Oversized" tracks are simply ineligible for official indoor records. There is nothing "illegal" about them.

What he said-- record ineligible. Not illegal.

Escape from New York wrote:

Illegality of oversizing wrote:

1) When I was a youngster, the 200m track was OVERSIZED.

2)We ran mostly on 160 yd tracks. (11 laps/mile)

3) In a few years, all the 200m indoor tracks will be torn up and replaced by 300m.

1) 200m tracks were never oversized.

2) Doubtful

.

Why would I make that up?

This is from Wiki

"Another common adaptation is a 160-yard track (11 laps to a mile) that fits into a common basketball court sized arena. This was quite popular when races were held at imperial distances, which gradually was phased out by different organizations in the 1970s and 1980s. Examples of this configuration include the Millrose Games at Madison Square Garden, and the Sunkist Invitational formerly held in the Los Angeles Sports Arena"

This is from another site

"You have to go back and look at what a standard indoor-sized facility was in the 1940s or '50s," he explains. "They shoehorned tracks into existing buildings. They were 160 yards, not 220 yards. The buildings they were putting these things into couldn't accommodate what they considered at that point to be huge tracks."

This school even lists a record for the 4 X 160yd relay

The only 200m track I ran on in high school was at the French Field house at Ohio State.

Plausible Denial wrote:

300m flat = 200m banked. The NCAA will figure this out at some point, but LR should lead the way.

According to this document, they consider oversized and banked tracks equivalent, which supports my contention even if a bit generalized (e.g. doesn't differentiate a 300m from a 400m track)

"Evidence supports equivalence between a banked and an oversized facility with regard to

qualifying performance."

I agree with the premise of the thread.

An indoor track larger than 200m is not illegal.

You won't get arrested for competing on one.

And it's perfectly fine to hold competitions, including conference championships.

These tracks are not record eligible. That's all.

Not eligible for indoor records, that is.

If someone runs a 3:42 mile on a 300m track indoors it will count as the world record in the mile.

If anything, 200m banked tracks should be illegal.

You get a clear assisted performance from the bank.

And they are generally faster than flat 300m tracks.

RunninReed wrote:

No huge issue here, but it sure does sound like the founders (and anyone else who uses similar terms in these forums) are discrediting any performance not on a 200m track. I understand that different track configurations can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the event, but to go as far as to call certain tracks "illegal" is going way too far.

Agreed. I believe we should use the term "undocumented".

Calling a track "illegal" makes it sound like Fight Club where the runners are hoping the cops don't show up to raid the track meet.

Would you ever say that Ryan Hall ran 2:04:58 at the "illegal" Boston Marathon? Of course not. You would say he ran the time on a course where the times are not eligible for national or world records.

For 300m tracks, I think "oversized" is the best shorthand. People who follow track know what that means -- a track larger than 200m and therefore times run on it are not eligible for records.

illegality of oversizing wrote:

The only 200m track I ran on in high school was at the French Field house at Ohio State.

OK. name the indoor 160y tracks that YOU ran on in high school?

Join the movement!

https://www.raceforward.org/practice/tools/drop-i-word-campaign

Ashland (ohio)DennisonOtterbeinRan at a couple others but would have to dig out old running logs to see where they were. Ashland was a banked wood track. Our team ran at Dennison and Otterbein all four years I was in high school. My junior year I ran more meets on my own and ran 7 meets. The following year the state changed the rules and you had to have a coach with you to compete. Trust me, when you have to run 22 laps for the two mile, you remember that.

Escape from New York wrote:

illegality of oversizing wrote:

The only 200m track I ran on in high school was at the French Field house at Ohio State.

OK. name the indoor 160y tracks that YOU ran on in high school?

Illegality of oversizing wrote:

When I was a youngster, the 200m track was OVERSIZED. We ran mostly on 160 yd tracks. (11 laps/mile)

In a few years, all the 200m indoor tracks will be torn up and replaced by 300m.

When everyone has the money and space to tear down the indoor arenas and build new, bigger ones that could house a 300m track.

You don't seriously expect the Brojos to know the meaning of the word "illegal" do you?