Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women's Shot - How Far The Mghty Have Fallen!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by nmzoo
    GH wrote-
    "Took a huge bite out as soon as random testing began almost 20 years ago... hence the calls for new WRs at the millennium (whichever version you subscribe to) when it was already so obvious what had happened."

    I have advocated this several times in the past. Do we really want a sport in which some records are 100-150 years old? And not only that, if and when some of these records are broken (especially on the women's side) what will be the first suspicion? You got it!
    If and when you can prove that our sport is 100% clean, then you may restart the record book. The Grim Reaper will have all our great-grand-children before that happens.
    Could not disagree more. We need records and we will never have a 100% clearn sport. So restarting the records at some logical point (1990 or 2000 either one works for me) is the way to go.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nmzoo
      Unfortunately ,if all you do is decrease the weight, then all of the throws with the heavier shot would still be legal unless other specs were also changed, such as max/min diameter in order to exclude the older, heavier shots.
      But if you decrease the weight by any significant amount, the best throwers will better the marks set with the heavier shot.

      Comment


      • #18
        Yeah, but don't you think the women would look silly throwing golfballs, pie plates and toothpicks, which is about what it would take?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gh
          Yeah, but don't you think the women would look silly throwing golfballs, pie plates and toothpicks, which is about what it would take?
          Now, when I a see a tooth-pick thrown 80 meter then I will be really
          and truly impressed...

          Comment


          • #20
            Requires you to be imaginative.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Women's Shot - How Far The Mghty Have Fallen!

              Originally posted by bushop
              Originally posted by nmzoo
              My solution - Increase the weight of the shot 10g and start over!
              When the implement weights are changed I'd rather see a drop in weight ... down to 3kg (or 2.5kg) for the juniors and 3.5kg for the seniors.

              How heavy would a boy's shot have to be for the top HS throw in the US to be 52 feet (usually the top girl's throw)? Around 9-11kg? The women's shot puts are too heavy.
              I think it is time to change the weight!
              4K for High School and Juniors
              4.5 or 5 K for the Pros
              We all know that the old records were acheived during a dishonest period. Lets start fresh and add a little excitement to the event!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by nmzoo
                GH wrote-
                "Took a huge bite out as soon as random testing began almost 20 years ago... hence the calls for new WRs at the millennium (whichever version you subscribe to) when it was already so obvious what had happened."

                I have advocated this several times in the past. Do we really want a sport in which some records are 100-150 years old? And not only that, if and when some of these records are broken (especially on the women's side) what will be the first suspicion? You got it!
                No, but eventually some events are going to be regarded as archaic and die anyway.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by gh
                  What you did have in the '88 sampling was far greater uniformity.
                  Uniformity was definately key. The top GDR throwers were all between 1.80cm and 1.88cm. Their top heptathletes were all within a smaller range, normally between 1.74cm and 1.78, and all were virtually either 64-65kg in weight!

                  Events do call for a certain physical type, but it seems in the GDR they definately had an ideal range in mind.

                  As for the records in the SP, it will be inteteresting to see if any of the elite women move to the rotation technique rather than the glide, as this may potentially gain distance as it's less reliant on 'pure' strength.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by donley2
                    Could not disagree more. We need records and we will never have a 100% clearn sport. So restarting the records at some logical point (1990 or 2000 either one works for me) is the way to go.
                    We've done this to death, but here's why this can NOT happen - pick a year, any year and restart the record book - here's what you end up with:

                    * you've just thrown out some totally clean records
                    * some new records will be totally dirty
                    * you're now playing a game of self-delusion
                    * the media will have a field day with the 'hopelessness' that we ourselves are admitting
                    * every new record will be compared to the old, aka, REAL WR
                    * when an old 'dirty' record falls, then and only then will will we have what boxing calls a 'unified' record, as when the WBA, WBC, IBF, etc. etc. belts are alll owned by the same guy.
                    * eventually, and here's the precedent, we will tire of these 'new' records and use some rationalization to start AGAIN, ad infinitum.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I'm with Marlow on this one.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        To expand on one of Marlow's items:

                        Considering that Lysenko got hit with a doping charge very recently it
                        would be presumptious to start over in the recent future---hammer
                        throw is after all the one throwing event where the women do not have
                        to stand in the shadow of the eighties. In addition, both her
                        predecessor as WR holder (Melinte) and the post-2000 men's WR holder
                        (Tikhon) have been caught out.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yup. We're not yet where we want to be. But I'm a little more optimistic than Marlow, who does not think we'll have a totally clean sport in the lifetime of our great-grandchildren. But even if we did, some of his arguments would still have to be considered.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by imaginative
                            To expand on one of Marlow's items:

                            Considering that Lysenko got hit with a doping charge very recently it
                            would be presumptious to start over in the recent future---hammer
                            throw is after all the one throwing event where the women do not have
                            to stand in the shadow of the eighties. In addition, both her
                            predecessor as WR holder (Melinte) and the post-2000 men's WR holder
                            (Tikhon) have been caught out.
                            The doping is not quite a 0/1 affair, even if that is how the tests come out. The current regime allows competitors to do some doping with modest chance of being caught but doping on the scale of the 1980's would not get through. Thus, even though there is some doping, the impact on the events is much less -- as evidenced by the data.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by tandfman
                              I'm a little more optimistic than Marlow, who does not think we'll have a totally clean sport in the lifetime of our great-grandchildren.
                              I love the characterizations I'm given here. On one hand I'm consistently labeled as the most naive, Pollyannish, rah-rah ingenue of the board; and on the other side, George P. was disgusted with my cynicism, and tandfman clearly portrays me as a pessimist. I must be doing sumpin right!!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Marlow
                                Originally posted by donley2
                                Could not disagree more. We need records and we will never have a 100% clearn sport. So restarting the records at some logical point (1990 or 2000 either one works for me) is the way to go.
                                We've done this to death, but here's why this can NOT happen - pick a year, any year and restart the record book - here's what you end up with:

                                * you've just thrown out some totally clean records
                                ....
                                You willing to bet on that?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X