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
    Pego
    Senior Member

  • Pego
    replied
    Re: Women's Shot - How Far The Mghty Have Fallen!

    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Pego
    The women's shot is way too light. It is even more disproportionate than the hurdles. It should go to 5 kg.
    How do you figger that when they are NOT throwing it as far as the men??!! The best men are routinely out to 70'. With a 5kg wSP (same as boys HS) , they'd struggle to get 50'
    Just look how they are throwing it. Like a rock, not putting it. I'll bet you another hot dog in Eugene that big gals like VV, MC would have nearly the same (if not the same) distance with 5 as with 4.

    Leave a comment:

  • imaginative
    Senior Member

  • imaginative
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Pego
    The women's shot is way too light. It is
    even more disproportionate than the hurdles. It should go to 5
    kg.
    How do you figger that when they are NOT throwing it as far as the
    men??!! The best men are routinely out to 70'. With a 5kg wSP (same as
    boys HS) , they'd struggle to get 50'
    The actual distance thrown is not really relevant. If it were, we
    would also have to conclude that female runners run too far, and so
    on. Other factors are more important, say the risk of injury at a
    certain weight of implement or the character of the event. (Obviously,
    the characteristics making a good athlete, training and technique
    needed, etc., can vary considerably with the weight of the implement.
    Cf. also the hurdles discussion.)

    Originally posted by mikli
    Originally posted by gh
    There is no good solution; record
    alteration is the better of the two options.
    At least one better solution comes to my mind: Let's wait until
    someone breaks the current WR and then we have a new WR. Meanwhile
    anyone is free to talk about the best performance of the
    millenium/century/decade/year/month/week/day.

    There is only one WR: the best performance ever without getting
    caught. If it is tough to break that is not a problem of the WR holder
    but a problem of the current athletes.
    As I see it, _if_ we do wish to have a new set of records here and now,
    then an implement change (a la javelin) is necessary. People forget
    fast, but if the implements are not changed, there will be too many
    commentators and reporters regularly reminding the public (not to
    mention the lack of acceptance the new records would have among
    experts).

    (Note: Not intendend as an answer to Mikli, just in the same context.)

    Leave a comment:

  • mikli
    Senior Member

  • mikli
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    There is no good solution; record alteration is the better of the two options.
    At least one better solution comes to my mind: Let's wait until someone breaks the current WR and then we have a new WR. Meanwhile anyone is free to talk about the best performance of the millenium/century/decade/year/month/week/day.

    There is only one WR: the best performance ever without getting caught. If it is tough to break that is not a problem of the WR holder but a problem of the current athletes.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Women's Shot - How Far The Mghty Have Fallen!

    Originally posted by Pego
    The women's shot is way too light. It is even more disproportionate than the hurdles. It should go to 5 kg.
    How do you figger that when they are NOT throwing it as far as the men??!! The best men are routinely out to 70'. With a 5kg wSP (same as boys HS) , they'd struggle to get 50'

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Let me just take the kind way out of this
    Thanks!

    Originally posted by gh
    a significant number of people with reams of international experience regards how the sport works and is perceived think this is an option that requires seriosu consideration.
    I believe you, and I am so crazy I actually think they have no perspective on the issue, because they are TOO close to it. I am often cast here as the know-nothing outsider who has the unmitigated gall to question the status quo (guilty on all charges), but that is precisely how I know (feel) that this is a horrendously inadvisable idea. I take tandfman's agreement as acknowledgment that even some people who 'should know better' feel the same way.

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    Perhaps you should take it more seriously also.
    That our sport has much credibility at all right now? My only alternatives are to laugh ruefully or weep inconsolably. I am sick at heart at the laughing stock we have become. Really. Fortunately my reality is closer to the bottom end of the scale where the likelihood of cheating approacheth zero.

    The sport I love is in ruins. Reinventing fake World Records is not exactly the fix I was hoping for.
    Let me just take the kind way out of this and say that a significant number of people with reams of international experience regards how the sport works and is perceived think this is an option that requires seriosu consideration.

    The one-time hiccup when the records were "recast" might be notable, but man has a short memory, and the longterm fallout, IMHO, would be minimal. Far less than every 4 years, like clockwork, having a set of patently illegal WRs trumpeted to billions of Olympic TV viewers.

    There is no good solution; record alteration is the better of the two options.

    Leave a comment:

  • Pego
    Senior Member

  • Pego
    replied
    Re: Women's Shot - How Far The Mghty Have Fallen!

    Originally posted by bushop
    Originally posted by Omega4ul
    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!
    Let's not let records and all-time list dictate the parameters of the event (the NBA certainly doesn't, 3-pointers). The lighter implements will allow more participation. I don't care what any records are ... the female shot is too heavy ... it pushes too many youngsters out of the event.
    Are you serious? The women's shot is way too light. It is even more disproportionate than the hurdles. It should go to 5 kg.

    Leave a comment:

  • imaginative
    Senior Member

  • imaginative
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    We'll not be getting into names here.
    Possibly, I am overlooking something here, but is not ``athlete xxx
    was a cheater'' a lesser crime than e.g. ``all pre-2000 WR holders are
    cheaters''? The contrary would be a bit like ``It is forbidden to kill
    individual bald eagles, but feel free to polute the entire species out
    of existence.''.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Perhaps you should take it more seriously also.
    That our sport has much credibility at all right now? My only alternatives are to laugh ruefully or weep inconsolably. I am sick at heart at the laughing stock we have become. Really. Fortunately my reality is closer to the bottom end of the scale where the likelihood of cheating approacheth zero.

    The sport I love is in ruins. Reinventing fake World Records is not exactly the fix I was hoping for.

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    I see nothing remotely humorous about this. Perhaps you should take it more seriously also.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    But do I think they're a quantum leap cleaner? One need only look at the marks.
    The credibility of the sport is at stake.
    As to the former statement, it's all a matter of arbitrary perspective. I see where your perspective is, do you see mine? I find them equal in all regards.

    As to the latter statement . . . I have always been a big fan of your sense of humor! :twisted:

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by donley2
    GH never mentioned a specific year. Only you did. I mentioned 1990.
    Yes, actually gh HAS specified a year - 2000. He has talked about millennial records in previous threads.
    Apples calling oranges. The current discussion was about whether or not there were years where all the records were dirty.

    Any talk about 2000 was related to its utter logic as a starting point for new records; not only the round-number appeal of the millennium but also the foundation of WADA.

    And, to clarify, I've never advocated throwing out the old records, merely the classification of the earlier ones as "old millennium" (era, whatever noun you want) and the others as "new X."

    Do I think that all marks made since then are clean? To paraphrase Marlow paraphrasing Texas HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    But do I think they're a quantum leap cleaner? One need only look at the marks.

    As donley2 said <<you are unwilling to throw out even 1 valid record in order trash 25 or 30 PED aided ones and I am.>>

    Me too. The credibility of the sport is at stake.

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    We'll not be getting into names here.

    Leave a comment:

  • imaginative
    Senior Member

  • imaginative
    replied
    Originally posted by marknhj
    Originally posted by Marlow
    So are you willing to bet that EVERY record before 2000 is dirty?
    For the women?

    Yes, I'm willing to bet every single one set before 2000 is dirty.
    Do you, as a high jumper, include Kostadinova? With Bergqvist at 2.08i
    and Vlasic at 2.07, 2.09 looks more human than the other records.
    (And, more generally, after a possibly ten year dip the overall level
    of the event is about as strong as ever.)

    Leave a comment:

  • marknhj
    Senior Member

  • marknhj
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    So are you willing to bet that EVERY record before 2000 is dirty?
    For the women?

    Yes, I'm willing to bet every single one set before 2000 is dirty.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X