Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WAF wLJ (Naide Gomes 6.71)

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • WAF wLJ (Naide Gomes 6.71)

    1 98 Naide Gomes POR 6.71 (0.1) .
    2 155 Ksenija Balta EST 6.65 (0.1) (SB)
    3 111 Tatyana Lebedeva RUS 6.64 (0.1) .
    4 148 Grace Upshaw USA 6.48 (0.4) .
    5 116 Oksana Udmurtova RUS 6.46 (0.0) .
    6 125 Karin Mey Melis TUR 6.37 (0.2) .
    7 110 Tatyana Kotova RUS 6.25 (0.1) .
    8 140 Funmi Jimoh USA 6.00 (-1.0)

    Balta certainly proved wrong those who felt she was out of place here... so easy to underestimate the chances of a consistent performer in good form vs. somebody whose best marks came with a +2.0 wind on a super-fast track three months ago.

  • #2
    Gomes had a foul which was close to 7m in the 2nd or 3rd round.
    http://twitter.com/Trackside2011

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: WAF wLJ (Naide Gomes 6.71)

      Originally posted by LopenUupunut
      Balta certainly proved wrong those who felt she was out of place here... so easy to underestimate the chances of a consistent performer in good form vs. somebody whose best marks came with a +2.0 wind on a super-fast track three months ago.
      she was up against a lot of tired athletes who have been jumping a lot this year & she gets further leveller of poor conditions

      she got lucky & got a placing - doesn't alter observation that most wouda had her excluded if someone like a maggi, reese or kluft had expressed a desire to compete ( personally, i woud like to have seen blessing here )

      Comment


      • #4
        Gomes!
        You there, on the motorbike! Sell me one of your melons!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by nevetsllim
          Gomes had a foul which was close to 7m in the 2nd or 3rd round.
          nevets, i don't want to hear about gomes' 7.00, 7.20, 7.50 fouls. the woman broke my heart in beijing. i never want to hear about her almost huge gigantic jumps, you hear me????

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: WAF wLJ (Naide Gomes 6.71)

            Originally posted by eldrick
            Originally posted by LopenUupunut
            Balta certainly proved wrong those who felt she was out of place here... so easy to underestimate the chances of a consistent performer in good form vs. somebody whose best marks came with a +2.0 wind on a super-fast track three months ago.
            she was up against a lot of tired athletes who have been jumping a lot this year & she gets further leveller of poor conditions

            she got lucky & got a placing - doesn't alter observation that most wouda had her excluded if someone like a maggi, reese or kluft had expressed a desire to compete ( personally, i woud like to have seen blessing here )
            Why would Balta not be affected by poor conditions like the other jumpers were? :roll:

            How is 2 good jumps around ~6.65 out of 4 jumps total lucky? She's clearly in good form right now. I'm glad there was at least someone untired and motivated by the WAF in the women's LJ, otherwise it would have been a dull competition.

            Comment


            • #7
              better jumpers have much more "fragile" technique - there's is a fine edge between success & failure ( it woud have to be, to jump ~ 7.00m - near max speed/little distance between toe & board/hitting correct angle/etc )

              their technique has more chance of going astray in poor conditions than a 6.65 gal

              an analogy is golf - play british open in good conditions, likes of tiger, phil, vijay are likely to dominate with their superior skill - play it in shitty weather, you get unknowns contending & often winning - poor weather has levelled the field

              i've never heard of this gal, apart from a 6.80 in a low key meet a coupla years ago & failure to get thru qualifying in bejiing

              as far as top gals go, she's not much of a talent & got lucky also with weather & as you say was untired & more motivated than the elite jumpers

              doesn't alter the fact she jumped only 6.65, so i'm afraid i can't get excited about her

              Comment


              • #8
                Eldrick,

                You definitely are taking your speculations and approximate calculations to the level where they can be considered art. They are entertaining, and at the same time, it is very challenging for the reader to interpret their true meaning.

                Comment


                • #9
                  flumpy explained the situation a helluva lot better than i ever coud

                  http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 634#498634

                  personally, i'm bit disappointed kluft didn't turn up & at least try to salvage something for her season

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well, the qualification procedure for the WAF is a bit odd. Did Lagat get some extra "points" for the 3000 meter qualification from running 1500 and 5000 meters, for example?

                    But Balta's 6.80 was as a 20 year old and she's just 22 now, so I wouldn't write her off as lacking talent just yet - especially as she is also a decent heptathlete with a 6180 point PB:

                    http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographie ... index.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: WAF wLJ (Naide Gomes 6.71)

                      Originally posted by eldrick
                      Originally posted by LopenUupunut
                      Balta certainly proved wrong those who felt she was out of place here... so easy to underestimate the chances of a consistent performer in good form vs. somebody whose best marks came with a +2.0 wind on a super-fast track three months ago.
                      she was up against a lot of tired athletes who have been jumping a lot this year & she gets further leveller of poor conditions

                      she got lucky & got a placing - doesn't alter observation that most wouda had her excluded if someone like a maggi, reese or kluft had expressed a desire to compete ( personally, i woud like to have seen blessing here )
                      http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... hp?t=34554

                      Will you now believe she's the real deal?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        another year, a different performance - doesn't alter the fact that at that point in history last year, she had done nothing on mainstream circuit to have merited inclusion ahead of maggi, reese or kluft

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X