Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

[gm]

I know it's a lot to ask, but you think the Associated Press might hire a writer once in a while who recognizes the important parts of a track meet?

Felix smashes the WJR in the 200 with the fastest time in the world this year, and not a word.

[Guest]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

no it is not a lot to ask !
the iaaf report was much better than the ap wire report
thanos

[Guest]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

Maybe the AP writer understands how silly it is to ascrbe too much important to altitude-aided sprints.

[gm]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

>Maybe the AP writer understands how silly it is
>to ascrbe too much important to altitude-aided
>sprints.

rubbish, absolute garbage

22.11 is 22.11 to everyone but a few pinheads inside the sport

Joe & Jane Fan don't know and don't care about all the little "but's"

[MJD]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

>22.11 is 22.11 to everyone but a few
>pinheads inside the sport
>Joe & Jane Fan don't
>know and don't care about all the little
>"but's"

Joe and Jane Fan would understand the concept of a WR but they wouldn't understand or appreciate
22.11. I realize that isn't really your point but only the pinheads(which would include most on this board) know what 22.11 means.

[Guest]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

Well if you think the AP is bad, it's probably worse in Canada. Paula Radcliffe's stunning marathon WR was relegated to something the size of a gerbil litter box in the deepest pages of the "National Newspaper" (Globe and Mail). Which is published in Toronto, the city of 4.6 million, so desperate to hold an Olympics (second in the bidding for '96 and for '08) and without a single decent outdoor track within 10 miles of the downtown core. And in the same meet as Felix' WJR, Canadian Nick Alphabet (as Donovan Bailey liked to call Macrozonaris)beats Tim Montgomery and still I needed a shovel to find any reporting on it. Two predictions here:
Macro, who ran 9.91w last year, will be the first white guy under 10 seconds, and Felix will be the first junior under 22, and then at least the altitude question will be moot.

[gh]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

not to beat a dead horse, but my VERY EMPIRICAL playing w/ Mexico City 400 numbers indicated that the altitude was worth about 0.9 seconds. Halve that for a 200 and you get 0.45. Add that to 22.11 and you get 22.56. Rather close to her sea-level mark of 22.58 wouldn't you say?

[MJD]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

>And in the same meet as
>Felix' WJR, Canadian Nick Alphabet (as Donovan
>Bailey liked to call Macrozonaris)beats Tim
>Montgomery and still I needed a shovel to find
>any reporting on it.

There was an article in the NP which was a variation of this one and it is not only not bad but better than most fare in most cities.

"I knew I could run that kind of time. But I never thought I could beat all those guys."

More here:

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmonton ... 74188F9FB6

[MJD]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

I know you will see this eventually becuase you are still lurking gh, but here is what JRM says.


"Adjusted new and former WJR record for W 200m:

Felix: 22.11 (2250m, -0.5) == 22.311s
Bochina: 22.19 (150m, +1.5) == 22.314s"

[1.97hjsteve]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

also, from a NEWS standpoint, "world junior records" in track and field are of no interest to 99.99 % of U.S. sports page readers.

WE are all Track Nuts here, but we are NOT representative of the people for whom they print and sell newspapers !

[Guest]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

is the 22.58 what you get after a wind adjustment of the 22.51 she ran at Mt. SAC? Or is it a typo?

>not to beat a dead horse, but my VERY EMPIRICAL
>playing w/ Mexico City 400 numbers indicated that
>the altitude was worth about 0.9 seconds. Halve
>that for a 200 and you get 0.45. Add that to
>22.11 and you get 22.56. Rather close to her
>sea-level mark of 22.58 wouldn't you say?

[Guest]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

"Halve that for a 200 and you get 0.45."

In that case one should see an average 100m improvement of 0.27 (I'm being gracious by rounding down) and sorry, but this just doesn't square with what we've seen happen in Mexico City. A few examples : 1968 Hines 10.03 OT , 9.93 OG in Mexico. 1979 Gohr 11.00 WUG (in Mexico City), vs 11.17 in Montreal (-0.5 wind). 1964 Tyus 11.23 on cinders at sea-level (Tokyo OG), 1968 Tyus 11.08 in Mexico City OG (she would have won the gold in 11.35 at sea-level on a tartan track?) 2003: Ferguson went into last Saturday's meet in Mexico seasonal best 10.97 and ran only 11.13? I still say in still wind add 0.1 for 100 and 0.2 for 200 when you go to Mexico. (thank God Montgomery didn't ride a 2.0 wind to a WR last weekend!)

[JRM]

Re: Felix runs 22.11... AP doesn't notice!

Unfortunately, you can't just cut the advantage in half to find the 200m equivalent (that would be like dividing a 200m time by 2 to figure out the equivalent 100m time!...Bob Costas who?). Here are the correction figures I've found in my research for altitude only in Mexico City (2250m):

100m: 0.07s (men); 0.08s (women)
200m: 0.22s (men); 0.24s (women)
400m: 0.50s (men); ????? (women)

In fact, I'll let you in on some un-released research which a student of mine has done for his thesis:

100mH/110mH: about 0.11s

We're working on a publication which should be available sometime this summer.