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
    NormZylstra
    Senior Member

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

    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • donley2
    Senior Member

  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    to the average athlete, breaking a steroid rule was something you laughed at, same as taking money under the table. Was all part of the game.
    So you ARE willing to go on the record that all the pre-2000 records were dirty?

    I think Bolt's 9.69 and 19.30 are as bizarre, anomalous and 'suspicious' as ALL the records pre-2000, but I certainly am not willing to say, on or off the record, that he's dirty. By asking to throw out all the pre-2000 records, without any facts in evidence to their uncleanliness, you are, in effect, UNJUSTLY (in the literal sense of the word) accusing all them of being dirty. Interesting. Seems to somehow transgress board guidelines.
    GH never mentioned a specific year. Only you did. I mentioned 1990.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    to the average athlete, breaking a steroid rule was something you laughed at, same as taking money under the table. Was all part of the game.
    So you ARE willing to go on the record that all the pre-2000 records were dirty?

    I think Bolt's 9.69 and 19.30 are as bizarre, anomalous and 'suspicious' as ALL the records pre-2000, but I certainly am not willing to say, on or off the record, that he's dirty. By asking to throw out all the pre-2000 records, without any facts in evidence to their uncleanliness, you are, in effect, UNJUSTLY (in the literal sense of the word) accusing all them of being dirty. Interesting. Seems to somehow transgress board guidelines.

    Leave a comment:

  • 26mi235
    Senior Member

  • 26mi235
    replied
    Originally posted by donley2
    Nope. But I would be willing to bet greater than 95% of those that are dated before 1990 are. And I guess the difference in opinion is that you are unwilling to throw out even 1 valid record in order trash 25 or 30 PED aided ones and I am.
    The records are not even being 'thrown out', they are just put into a different box. It is not like scrubbing a performance from the historical record (like is done when an athlete is DQ on a drug offense and the performance is covered by that action).

    ........

    In a different connection to the OP, I was thinking about how the current performers from different countries compare with the 1980's era performers. Those countries that have not had the massive reduction are an interesting contrast with those that have seen that reduction, although East Germany is a special, non-comparable case. [I also realize that the end of strong national sponsorship also enhanced marks because of the identification and systematic and well-coached training.]

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    You willing to bet on that?
    Jon is willing to bet that Paula's 'ridiculous' (in a good way) 2:15 is clean. That's good enough for me. You do NOT want a discussion of who else we think is clean, because that means we're accusing everyone else of being dirty. Your words are enough for us to infer that you may think they are ALL dirty! I'm sure you don't mean to accuse every WR-holder of being dirty - that would break all your rules.
    You said pick a year, any year... there are many years pre-Radcliffe. Including many where steroids were legal (and in high use). And that was followed by many years where to the average athlete, breaking a steroid rule was something you laughed at, same as taking money under the table. Was all part of the game.

    Leave a comment:

  • donley2
    Senior Member

  • donley2
    replied
    Nope. But I would be willing to bet greater than 95% of those that are dated before 1990 are. And I guess the difference in opinion is that you are unwilling to throw out even 1 valid record in order trash 25 or 30 PED aided ones and I am.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by donley2
    Paula's record is from 2003. It fits neither the 2000 or 1990 cut off dates.
    So are you willing to bet that EVERY record before 2000 is dirty?

    Leave a comment:

  • donley2
    Senior Member

  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by gh
    You willing to bet on that?
    Jon is willing to bet that Paula's 'ridiculous' (in a good way) 2:15 is clean. That's good enough for me. You do NOT want a discussion of who else we think is clean, because that means we're accusing everyone else of being dirty. Your words are enough for us to infer that you may think they are ALL dirty! I'm sure you don't mean to accuse every WR-holder of being dirty - that would break all your rules.
    Paula's record is from 2003. It fits neither the 2000 or 1990 cut off dates.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    You willing to bet on that?
    Jon is willing to bet that Paula's 'ridiculous' (in a good way) 2:15 is clean. That's good enough for me. You do NOT want a discussion of who else we think is clean, because that means we're accusing everyone else of being dirty. Your words are enough for us to infer that you may think they are ALL dirty! I'm sure you don't mean to accuse every WR-holder of being dirty - that would break all your rules.

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    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!!

    Leave a comment:

  • 26mi235
    Senior Member

  • 26mi235
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • tandfman
    Senior Member

  • tandfman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • imaginative
    Senior Member

  • imaginative
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X