Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2022 Keino Classic

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Atticus View Post
    I remember when Bolt and Blake were burning up the track and we heard how the men's pipeline of domination couldn't be turned off again . . .
    Not sure if I agree. The pipeline was weak during Usain's era.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FleetingRedux View Post
      Not sure if I agree. The pipeline was weak during Usain's era.
      In the peak year, 2012 (4x1 WR), there was

      Bolt 9.63
      Blake 9.69
      Powell 9.85
      Ashmeade 9.93
      Frater 9.94
      Carter 9.95
      Bailey-Cole 9.97
      Clarke 9.99

      that's a pretty decent torrent.

      By 2016, there were 6 under 10s,
      and last year there was . . . one . . . sub-10 (USA had 13).
      Last edited by Atticus; 05-10-2022, 10:32 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Atticus View Post
        In the peak year, 2012 (4x1 WR), there was

        Bolt 9.63
        Blake 9.69
        Powell 9.85
        Ashmeade 9.93
        Frater 9.94
        Carter 9.95
        Bailey-Cole 9.97
        Clarke 9.99

        that's a pretty decent torrent.

        By 2016, there were 6 under 10s,
        and last year there was . . . one . . . sub-10.
        will Jamaica have one runner make the m100 final at Eugene? the fact that one can even post such a question tells you all you need to know about the state of men's sprinting in Jamaica

        Comment


        • Perhaps oblique Seville? He ran a 10 flat or so into a head wind in his last race but the men's 100 is honestly so stacked at the moment, I would not be surprised at all if he doesn't.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Atticus View Post
            In the peak year, 2012 (4x1 WR), there was

            Bolt 9.63
            Blake 9.69
            Powell 9.85
            Ashmeade 9.93
            Frater 9.94
            Carter 9.95
            Bailey-Cole 9.97
            Clarke 9.99

            that's a pretty decent torrent.

            By 2016, there were 6 under 10s,
            and last year there was . . . one . . . sub-10 (USA had 13).
            Bailey-Cole never reached his potential and neither did Ashmeade. Injury plagued careers for both. And I see the same happening for Forte and Tracey. Fitness doesn’t favour these men it seems.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CookyMonzta View Post

              Ottey was 36 when she ran 10.74. She could only muster 10.85 at 35.
              It doesn't matter, he was right. You just have to be that age or older to have the age record. So a 36-year Ottey running 10.74 was still considered the age-35 record.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Track78 View Post

                It doesn't matter, he was right. You just have to be that age or older to have the age record. So a 36-year Ottey running 10.74 was still considered the age-35 record.
                You are the one that is wrong.

                Given that the IAAF does not have WRs for older athletes, it is perfectly legitimate to maintain a WR list on the bases of "actual age" OR "actual age + younger ages with inferior performances" or, indeed, "five year age groupings" like Masters sport. In fact anybody can prepare a list on any basis they want.

                This is just an oldies version of the aaronk "19 means U-20" vs IAAF "can't have 20th birthday in the calendar year" definitions, neither of which are inherently right but which are absolutely equally legitimate classifications. Preferring one doesn't delegitimise the other.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by El Toro View Post

                  You are the one that is wrong.

                  Given that the IAAF does not have WRs for older athletes, it is perfectly legitimate to maintain a WR list on the bases of "actual age" OR "actual age + younger ages with inferior performances" or, indeed, "five year age groupings" like Masters sport. In fact anybody can prepare a list on any basis they want.

                  This is just an oldies version of the aaronk "19 means U-20" vs IAAF "can't have 20th birthday in the calendar year" definitions, neither of which are inherently right but which are absolutely equally legitimate classifications. Preferring one doesn't delegitimise the other.
                  Here we go again!!!
                  In MY Record Book (& blog), I determine an Age Record to be exactly that--- "AN" Age Record!
                  Meaning, during the year in which the athlete is Age 35, said athlete can break THAT particular Age Record---and NO OTHER!!!
                  So when SAFP ran 10.67,at Age 35, she broke Ottey's Age 35 Record----NOT the Age 36 record, or the Age 37 record and so on ad infinitum!!

                  That said, my Record Book Age Records go from 17 to 40!
                  However, the lower bookend is labled "0 to 17", meaning that a 15 or 16 OR 17 year old can set that record!
                  Ditto with my higher bookend---which is labled "40 & over"!
                  Thus, a 41 or 42 or 43 etc etc athlete can break that record, as well as someone Age 40!
                  ALL OTHER ages are for THAT age ONLY!

                  So, again, that's why SAFP's 10.67 is the Age 35 record ONLY, even if it also betters the Age 36 or Age 37 et al records!!
                  Thank you!
                  Creator, Compiler, Author & Editor of Aaron K's Track and Field Record Book and blog of the same title!
                  LOL

                  Comment


                  • According to IAAF second placed in 1500m, Birke Haylom, is14 years old. There you have an age record!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by El Toro View Post

                      You are the one that is wrong.

                      Given that the IAAF does not have WRs for older athletes, it is perfectly legitimate to maintain a WR list on the bases of "actual age" OR "actual age + younger ages with inferior performances" or, indeed, "five year age groupings" like Masters sport. In fact anybody can prepare a list on any basis they want.

                      This is just an oldies version of the aaronk "19 means U-20" vs IAAF "can't have 20th birthday in the calendar year" definitions, neither of which are inherently right but which are absolutely equally legitimate classifications. Preferring one doesn't delegitimise the other.
                      lol how that does make me (or Diara31) wrong? I never said Cooky was wrong, just that the original poster was correct. There's a difference. You pretty much stated this and then by saying Im wrong, completely contradict yourself.

                      Besides, the Masters W35 100m record has Ottey's 10.74 at age 36 listed. And technically, it is still there alongside Shelly's 10.67 last week due to the altitude.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...rd_progression
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ters_athletics

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by aaronk View Post

                        Here we go again!!!
                        In MY Record Book (& blog), I determine an Age Record to be exactly that--- "AN" Age Record!
                        Meaning, during the year in which the athlete is Age 35, said athlete can break THAT particular Age Record---and NO OTHER!!!
                        So when SAFP ran 10.67,at Age 35, she broke Ottey's Age 35 Record----NOT the Age 36 record, or the Age 37 record and so on ad infinitum!!

                        That said, my Record Book Age Records go from 17 to 40!
                        However, the lower bookend is labled "0 to 17", meaning that a 15 or 16 OR 17 year old can set that record!
                        Ditto with my higher bookend---which is labled "40 & over"!
                        Thus, a 41 or 42 or 43 etc etc athlete can break that record, as well as someone Age 40!
                        ALL OTHER ages are for THAT age ONLY!

                        So, again, that's why SAFP's 10.67 is the Age 35 record ONLY, even if it also betters the Age 36 or Age 37 et al records!!
                        Thank you!
                        Creator, Compiler, Author & Editor of Aaron K's Track and Field Record Book and blog of the same title!
                        LOL
                        That's fair but your last paragraph wouldn't really apply because you can't go the other way. Of course, SAFP's Age-35 10.67 can't be compared to an Age-36 or Age-37 record. You generally slow down as you get older in your mid 30s...otherwise almost every age record 35 and higher would be set by a 35-year old!!! It's the other way that I am arguing. A 39-year old running the best time in history gets the M35 record in my book.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Track78 View Post

                          lol how that does make me (or Diara31) wrong? I never said Cooky was wrong, just that the original poster was correct. There's a difference. You pretty much stated this and then by saying Im wrong, completely contradict yourself.

                          Besides, the Masters W35 100m record has Ottey's 10.74 at age 36 listed. And technically, it is still there alongside Shelly's 10.67 last week due to the altitude.

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...rd_progression
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ters_athletics

                          Aah, I see that we are talking at cross purposes.

                          You were talking about the "Masters 35-39 age group record" whereas CookyMonzta's response to Diara31 was talking about the "single age record" for 35, which was slower than the age 36 record.

                          Because you responded to CM's post, and didn't mention "Masters" or "age group", I assumed you were also talking about the single age records for 35 and 36 referred to by CM and responded accordingly.

                          My point remains that there are different ways of keeping records so assuming being explicit about what you're talking about avoids confusion, especially with more and more world class performers continuing careers past 35 years.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by LNO View Post
                            According to IAAF second placed in 1500m, Birke Haylom, is14 years old. There you have an age record!
                            Except for the fact that Jakob Ingebrigtsen ran about 14 seconds faster when he was still age 14.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by El Toro View Post
                              Given that the IAAF does not have WRs for older athletes, ...
                              Although World Athletics doesn't maintain WRs for Masters athletes, World Masters Athletics does.
                              https://world-masters-athletics.com/records/

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by wamego relays champ View Post

                                Except for the fact that Jakob Ingebrigtsen ran about 14 seconds faster when he was still age 14.
                                Then she has 3:42 potential...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X