Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's the track!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Speaking of which, I'm not old enough to have trained long and hard enough on a cinder track, but it's said that they are better on the joints than synthetic tracks for training, is it really the case?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by xw View Post
      Speaking of which, I'm not old enough to have trained long and hard enough on a cinder track, but it's said that they are better on the joints than synthetic tracks for training, is it really the case?
      Definitely, IMO.

      Comment


      • #18
        I believe it when they say Eugene has the fastest straightaway. One sprint after another clocks faster than the visual impression, plus I can't get over Sydney going 15.26 from hurdle 8 home last year, more than two tenths quicker than Tokyo

        Comment


        • #19
          That is why all that matters is winning big races. You cannot compare the times of one year to another. Too many variables.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by spartacus View Post
            That is why all that matters is winning big races. You cannot compare the times of one year to another. Too many variables.
            Or even one track to another. The Manchester and Birmingham tracks seem slower, even factoring in the perennially bad weather.

            Comment


            • #21
              very true Atticus. An earlier post made mention of the great Bob Hayes. Who knows how fast his 1964 OG time would have been on a brand new and superfast mondo track.
              While it would great to get some analysis, the difference between a cinders track (1964) and a modern mondo track is likely to be a few tenths.
              Last edited by spartacus; 06-27-2022, 06:41 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by spartacus View Post
                very true Atticus. An earlier post made mention of the great Bob Hayes. Who knows how fast his 1964 OG time would have been on a brand new and superfast mondo track.
                While it would great to get some analysis, the difference between a cinders track (1964) and a modern mondo track is likely to be a few tenths.
                Can we stop with the Bob Hayes nonsense. Time and time again we hear this same tripe that he would beat Bolt or run this "if he had the same access to tracks and spikes" etc. And as I say time and time again, it was a completely different time with no dope testing, and steroids were not illegal. Everyone lives in a fantasy land regarding the stars of the 60's. So give him the fancy spikes and the fancy track, but also dope test him 10+ times a year like athletes are today, and then we shall have an equal footing. Until then, there is absolutely no comparison, not with tracks, spikes or access to PEDs.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post

                  Can we stop with the Bob Hayes nonsense. Time and time again we hear this same tripe that he would beat Bolt or run this "if he had the same access to tracks and spikes" etc. And as I say time and time again, it was a completely different time with no dope testing, and steroids were not illegal. Everyone lives in a fantasy land regarding the stars of the 60's. So give him the fancy spikes and the fancy track, but also dope test him 10+ times a year like athletes are today, and then we shall have an equal footing. Until then, there is absolutely no comparison, not with tracks, spikes or access to PEDs.
                  Be nice, 10.06 minus two tenths is nowhere near 9.6. I never said anything about beating Bolt. I was talking about possible time differences from different tracks..

                  The Hayes reference is 100% relevant because that was the last major 100m run on cinders.
                  Last edited by spartacus; 06-27-2022, 07:55 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I have an uncomfortable prediction. This track is so bouncy and incredibly fast there will be unexpected casualties during the heavily anticipated 400 hurdles races. I don't see how it can be avoided, even if it's something comparatively non-injurious like Shamier Little clipping hurdle 8 last year and missing the Olympic team as a result.

                    I base this on watching athletes like Anna Hall and Rai Benjamin open the race in rapid fashion and suddenly noticing their preferred stride pattern was way off. Benjamin is ultra talented and experienced so he adjusted after only one hurdle. Hall never figured it out until she tired sufficiently that her 15 strides fit the final three hurdles.

                    This is a faster track than Tokyo and it impacts 400 hurdles more than any other race. There's no way Britton Wilson should be able to run that raw and unevenly yet drop all the way down to 53.08. Likewise the men's race with the two runner ups at mid 47s. Dos Santos has to run an excellent race to get below that by 2 or 3 tenths.

                    The track lends to exciting 400 hurdles prospects but I hope the foreign athletes and coaching staffs are aware, especially if they have never run in Eugene. Otherwise there are going to be examples of the heats and semifinals appearing to be no problem, then during a much faster paced final you're coming up on the next hurdle from a shorter distance than you've ever experienced or are prepared for.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Awsi Dooger View Post
                      I have an uncomfortable prediction. This track is so bouncy and incredibly fast there will be unexpected casualties during the heavily anticipated 400 hurdles races. I don't see how it can be avoided, even if it's something comparatively non-injurious like Shamier Little clipping hurdle 8 last year and missing the Olympic team as a result.

                      I base this on watching athletes like Anna Hall and Rai Benjamin open the race in rapid fashion and suddenly noticing their preferred stride pattern was way off. Benjamin is ultra talented and experienced so he adjusted after only one hurdle. Hall never figured it out until she tired sufficiently that her 15 strides fit the final three hurdles.

                      This is a faster track than Tokyo and it impacts 400 hurdles more than any other race. There's no way Britton Wilson should be able to run that raw and unevenly yet drop all the way down to 53.08. Likewise the men's race with the two runner ups at mid 47s. Dos Santos has to run an excellent race to get below that by 2 or 3 tenths.

                      The track lends to exciting 400 hurdles prospects but I hope the foreign athletes and coaching staffs are aware, especially if they have never run in Eugene. Otherwise there are going to be examples of the heats and semifinals appearing to be no problem, then during a much faster paced final you're coming up on the next hurdle from a shorter distance than you've ever experienced or are prepared for.
                      I think when Bol gets on that track instead of the tar pits they have in Europe she's going to run 51.5.
                      I'm the best poster. Just ask me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JMysterio View Post
                        I wonder if it's just because one track is newer than another.
                        That, combined with the expense and engineering that went into each track to make it as close as possible to the regulated limit for elasticity. A 1-year-old high-budget track that was engineered to be at 97-99% of the limit is going to be faster than a lower-budget 10-year-old track that measured at 85% of the limit when it was new and has since accumulated years of use and exposure to the elements. The Tokyo and Eugene tracks aren't going to be just as fast in 2030 if they're not replaced.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

                          That, combined with the expense and engineering that went into each track to make it as close as possible to the regulated limit for elasticity. A 1-year-old high-budget track that was engineered to be at 97-99% of the limit is going to be faster than a lower-budget 10-year-old track that measured at 85% of the limit when it was new and has since accumulated years of use and exposure to the elements. The Tokyo and Eugene tracks aren't going to be just as fast in 2030 if they're not replaced.
                          Yeah, I saw that on our local track. It was like cement after a while.
                          I'm the best poster. Just ask me.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm an Architect and have known about MONDO's advancements in Track surfaces (They call it "SportsFlex"). I haven't reviewed the current WA regulations on Track surfaces but I know MONDO has been advertising their energy return system, which is similar to the shoes. Wonder if the athletes that say Tokyo's Track was like a trampoline is because the double affect of the shoes and the track. I can't find on MONDO's site the old Track systems MONDO had 10 years ago. So, if a 10 year old track seems hard compared to the newer ones, it may not be the hardening or aging affect, as much as it is an old system.

                            If you want to read about their new track system, see link below. I believe there is a fast track in Boston as it also has a similar Track system as Tokyo used.

                            https://www.mondoworldwide.com/na/en...ack-and-field/

                            I know in Atlanta 96, the track was sprinter fast because the Hardness of the Track was at the IAAF limit. Old thoughts were if the track had no elasticity the sprinters won't lose any energy to the track, (asphalts tracks I believe were outlawed by IAAF as wanted to give minor protection to athletes from injury. Also the reason why Geb and Tergat didn't double in the 5k's complaining how hard and unforgiving the track was for distance racers.) Not sure if the new technology of energy return tracks has made it into the standards.

                            Just what I've heard about the history of fast tracks.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Wiederganger View Post
                              Can we stop with the Bob Hayes nonsense.
                              No.
                              I'm not saying Hayes beats Bolt straight-up, but I do believe that if he had been born the same year as Bolt and had access to today's training methods and equipment and tracks, he would be the 2nd fastest ever. If you watch Hayes run, even the Oly finals (esp. the awesome relay leg), he was still a rough work-in-progress.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jnathletics View Post
                                I'm an Architect
                                It's George Costanza!
                                I'm the best poster. Just ask me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X