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
    tandfman
    Senior Member

  • tandfman
    replied
    I'm with Marlow on this one.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Brettboy
    Senior Member

  • Brettboy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • croflash
    Senior Member

  • croflash
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Omega4ul
    Member

  • Omega4ul
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Requires you to be imaginative.

    Leave a comment:

  • imaginative
    Senior Member

  • imaginative
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

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

    Leave a comment:

  • tandfman
    Senior Member

  • tandfman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • donley2
    Senior Member

  • donley2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Marlow
    Senior Member

  • Marlow
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • nmzoo
    Senior Member

  • nmzoo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • NormZylstra
    Senior Member

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

    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • nmzoo
    Senior Member

  • nmzoo
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

  • gh
    Administrator

  • gh
    replied
    Average height of the 10 World Rankers for the '88 season was 1.81... average height for last year's was.. 1.81! (1.813 vs 1.806 to be precise, but for all intents and purposes, the same) That's 5-11ΒΌ in English by the way.

    What you did have in the '88 sampling was far greater uniformity. Tallest then was 1.88, shortest was 1.76. Last year we had a 1.93 and a 1.90 on the top end, but also a 1.73 on the bottom.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X