Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What was the worst event at the Worlds?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Powell
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    You're probably right, but 70 degrees is hardly below freezing point... You may remember Frankie Fredericks running 9.87 in Helsinki with temperature in mid-50s (that was in 1996) - now that's what I call sprinting !

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    I would posit that the explosive needs of the 100 (and 200) compared to the 400 are far more constricted by cooler/damper weather.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    >men's 100: 70 degrees, 53% humidity

    That doesn't sound too bad... In fact these conditions were very similar to the women's 400 final (72 degrees, 53% humidity), where Guevara ran 48.89 and the other women were fast as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    men's 100: 70 degrees, 53% humidity
    women's 100: 79 degrees, 39% humidity

    men's 200: 63 degrees, 82% humidity
    women's 200: 75 degrees, 61% humidity

    Leave a comment:


  • Jnathletics
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    The other races, ie womens were fast 100 & 400. So why was the mens 100 and 200 so slow?

    Also, Atlanta's track was the hardest allowed by IAAF standards.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    Who said it was supposed to be fast? Here's a post I made the day before the meet started (see "Paris Track"):

    <<OK, it has been 7+ years since I walked on the Atlanta track, so my memories are probably a bit fuzzy, but i took a cruise around the Paris oval yesterday and I would say it's substantially softer than the Atlanta one, for whatever that's worth. (In theory,at least, it would mean sprint times might be a bit slowish, but also means that distance runners--especially doublers like Bekele--won't be chewing their feet up like Geb did in '96.

    Note: It's also not the same stadium where Monty ran the 100 WR last year.>>

    You're probably thinking it's whre the WR was set.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jnathletics
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    The 100 mens. The track was supposed to be fast and it was the slowest winner since the first outdoor WC. Over hyped also.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    For the record: I was in the stadium in Paris, and I was excited by the sprint finals - of course, the 100 final is one of the most anticipated moments of any major championship, so you get excited by it by definition. This, however, does not mean I'm not able to look at the actual quality of these races and say they were very poor by WCh-final standards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jefferson Buffalo
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    >>>will repeat my point again: if you're only
    looking for close finishes, you are as likely to
    find them at your local elementary school meet -
    they do not, in and of themselves, make a race
    great.<<

    This is true. But the fact that these races were World Championships races made them very exciting. The outcome did matter, and in almost every race on the track, the outcome was in doubt at a very late stage of hte race.

    I think you really have to be at a WC or OG to understand just how exciting those events are, even when they're not so great on paper. In fact, it kind of calls to mind an old joke, which I can repeat here only in a very bowdlerized version:

    Describe the worst event at the World Championships.

    FAN-TASTIC!

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    >>You guys are too hung up on final times. It
    >was
    >an intriguing race, to say the least! Who
    >can't
    >be thrilled when kilo 3 is faster than 2,
    >4 is
    >faster than 3 and 5 is faster than 4?
    >Funny
    >things happen when the tempo keeps
    >picking up and
    >it was absolutely amazing to
    >watch first
    >Sullivan, then Szabo, then Adere
    >slide out the
    >back door.

    Gary, I am not
    >"hung up on final times." Also, the tempo
    >didn't pick up that much, and not dramatically at
    >all. Come on, 3:04.3, 3:05.6, 2;59.0, 2:57.5 is
    >not exactly "putting down the hammer." The only
    >thing I found "intriguing" was that those
    >runners let go despite the fact that the pace was
    >not tough and there were no surges.

    Good point. Plus O'Sullivan wasn't in great shape this year to begin with, and I believe Adere and Szabo were in it until the last lap, when they just couldn't put in as much of a sprint finish as the others did. The race was actually very boring for the first 4600 meters - it's not just that it wasn't very fast, but none of the women was trying to do anything there.

    As for the sprint finals, i will repeat my point again: if you're only looking for close finishes, you are as likely to find them at your local elementary school meet - they do not, in and of themselves, make a race great. The men's 100 and 200 finals certainly had excitement (as in 'not sure who will win until the last meters'), but they were the sort of races nobody will remember in a few years. To me, a great final is one in which athletes really rise to the occasion, while in these two nearly everyone folded (after running well in earlier rounds) - Darren Campbell was probably the only exception to that in both of them.

    And to make one thing clear - to me, the 'worst' in the title of this thread refers more to quality than to the level of excitement generated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    >You guys are too hung up on final times. It was
    >an intriguing race, to say the least! Who can't
    >be thrilled when kilo 3 is faster than 2, 4 is
    >faster than 3 and 5 is faster than 4? Funny
    >things happen when the tempo keeps picking up and
    >it was absolutely amazing to watch first
    >Sullivan, then Szabo, then Adere slide out the
    >back door.

    Gary, I am not "hung up on final times." Also, the tempo didn't pick up that much, and not dramatically at all. Come on, 3:04.3, 3:05.6, 2;59.0, 2:57.5 is not exactly "putting down the hammer." The only thing I found "intriguing" was that those runners let go despite the fact that the pace was not tough and there were no surges.

    >We have Dibaba's last lap in 60.1
    >by the way. That's faster than what Yegorova ran
    >in Edmonton last time in a race which I think
    >everybody recalls as having a dynamite-kick last
    >lap.

    My 62 was leader to finish, not on a specific runner. IIRC, Yegorova just ran away from everyone on the last lap, and I thought that race was relatively boring, too. It's not that this was a terrible race, but I'm talking about compared to the other distance races.

    Cheers,
    Alan Shank

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    At the real big-time meets, or on TV, there is a tendency to look at the finish-line clock right away, and that may temper one's opinion about a race, but think about 99% of the meets you go to. You may not know the results for 5 minutes up to an hour afterwards (if it's a HS meet with no announcer). Do you sit on your hands and say, "I'm not cheering until I see the time?" I think not.

    And even if you do have access to a clock, do you hold your applause until they cross the line? Of course not. You're standing up and roaring all the way up the homestretch. Watching the athletes get there is more fun than knowing how long it took them. You know this in your heart, don't you?

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    I'll just repeat what I said above. The men's 200 was a terrific race as was the 100. Fast is ok, but competitive and interesting have nothing to do with the time. For true track fans, those were two great events in Paris.

    Leave a comment:


  • viva voz
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    >Men's 200 gets my vote. The times were awful, and
    >I can think of about half a dozen people who
    >should have won it but weren't competing.

    the times were crap, although it had recently rained so that slowed them down.

    runner up: men's 100. Exciting to see all the men lunge for the line, not knowing who had won but it was the slowest 100 in a WC/Olympics final since 1983 or so. not very impressive.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: What was the worst event at the Worlds?

    You guys are too hung up on final times. It was an intriguing race, to say the least! Who can't be thrilled when kilo 3 is faster than 2, 4 is faster than 3 and 5 is faster than 4? Funny things happen when the tempo keeps picking up and it was absolutely amazing to watch first Sullivan, then Szabo, then Adere slide out the back door.

    We have Dibaba's last lap in 60.1 by the way. That's faster than what Yegorova ran in Edmonton last time in a race which I think everybody recalls as having a dynamite-kick last lap.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X