Let's consider, just for talking purposes, a "what if".
What if the pleas by various athletes to change the 100 false start rule back like it used to be ends up falling on deaf ears, and they are stuck in the foreseeable future with the rule as currently stated and implemented. The sport just "moves on" with the new rule, basically.
Should the previous records (World, national, etc) for the 100m be 'retired' and new records be established, using the same procedures as used for new events like the women's PV, women's hammer and implement changes like the men's & women's Jav a few years ago?
The argument is that the 100 is now fundamentally different than it was previously, and elite athlete seasonal bests are markedly slower, because they have to start under a much more restrictive rule.
There may be a bit of a learning curve- they may produce a bit faster times next year- BUT the overall progression curve appears to have been set back about three decades to where we were in the late 60's or early 70's.
Does it make sense to "re-set" the records and start over? Note that there are also some side-benefits in doing so, especially on the women's side.
The 100m is the most obvious case.
What about the pole vault, with the smaller pegs?
By the way, the very possibility of re-setting the records may be a reason that many European and African sprinters may SUPPORT keeping the new rule as is.
I'm interested in your opinion within the 'stuck with the rule as is' "what-if" framework.
Answering that 'the rule has to be changed period, nothing else is acceptable' is a copout. No need to post an answer in that case- there's plenty of other threads on that one.
What if the pleas by various athletes to change the 100 false start rule back like it used to be ends up falling on deaf ears, and they are stuck in the foreseeable future with the rule as currently stated and implemented. The sport just "moves on" with the new rule, basically.
Should the previous records (World, national, etc) for the 100m be 'retired' and new records be established, using the same procedures as used for new events like the women's PV, women's hammer and implement changes like the men's & women's Jav a few years ago?
The argument is that the 100 is now fundamentally different than it was previously, and elite athlete seasonal bests are markedly slower, because they have to start under a much more restrictive rule.
There may be a bit of a learning curve- they may produce a bit faster times next year- BUT the overall progression curve appears to have been set back about three decades to where we were in the late 60's or early 70's.
Does it make sense to "re-set" the records and start over? Note that there are also some side-benefits in doing so, especially on the women's side.
The 100m is the most obvious case.
What about the pole vault, with the smaller pegs?
By the way, the very possibility of re-setting the records may be a reason that many European and African sprinters may SUPPORT keeping the new rule as is.
I'm interested in your opinion within the 'stuck with the rule as is' "what-if" framework.
Answering that 'the rule has to be changed period, nothing else is acceptable' is a copout. No need to post an answer in that case- there's plenty of other threads on that one.
Comment