Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Visa Money [Lolo's $25K]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by twinpeeks
    I think others can. Smoke is correct in his (response)- athletes with 100m H best of -12.60 should be able to run 7.84. The tendency is that many just don't drop down to train for indoor events.

    Originally posted by Powell
    You're making it sound like half a dozen American women run 7.84 every week. In fact, Lolo is the only USAnian who's done it in the last 5 years.
    nice call

    i'd reckon a decent thumb-rule is

    100m time = (2*60m time) - 3.10

    http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 861#255861

    ( albeit kallur much, much better at 60 ( or she was going to run 12.26 in peking ) & gail much better at 100 or just didn't run enough 60s )

    lolo's 7.77/12.43 is close

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    I think gh is right. For most of the top athletes, there's no reason to compete on the weekend between their conference meet and the NCAA nationals. Why compete (and in most cases travel) three weekends in a row?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    given how so many modern college coaches seem to want to eschew actual competition as much as possible, I'm ssuspecting that about all they'd get would be the same people who are chasing last-minute qualifiers this weekend. Suspect most of the superstars would be sitting at home.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce Kritzler
    replied
    Since there is no indoor World Champs this year, would USATF been smart to move the meet one week later, and attract some college athletes? That might have helped boost attendance (athletes and spectators).

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    The all-time U.S. list:

    7.74 Gail Devers (Nike) 03/01/03
    7.77 Lolo Jones (Asics) 02/10/08
    7.81 Jackie Joyner-Kersee (WC) 02/05/89
    7.83 Melissa Morrison (Reeb) 02/22/98
    Joanna Hayes (Nike) 03/07/04
    7.84 Cheryl Dickey (Nike) 03/09/97
    Kim Carson (Nike) 02/02/02
    Ginnie Powell (USC) 03/10/06
    7.85 Anjanette Kirkland (Nike) 03/09/01
    7.86 Michelle Perry (Nike) 02/12/06

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    Hahahahaha the last five years! Try ever! American record only bested by the best of the best.
    7.84 is not mind blowing. Very good for sure. But she ran similar last year as Candice Davis ran 7.90

    Leave a comment:


  • twinpeeks
    replied
    I think others can. Smoke is correct in his (response)- athletes with 100m H best of -12.60 should be able to run 7.84. The tendency is that many just don't drop down to train for indoor events.

    What would Marlow say about a five hurdle event?

    Originally posted by Powell
    e best in ANY given competition.
    You're making it sound like half a dozen American women run 7.84 every week. In fact, Lolo is the only USAnian who's done it in the last 5 years.[/quote]

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by Smoke
    jeremyp gets it. 7,84 is a time one should expect from the best of the best in ANY given competition.
    You're making it sound like half a dozen American women run 7.84 every week. In fact, Lolo is the only USAnian who's done it in the last 5 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    jeremyp gets it. 7,84 is a time one should expect from the best of the best in ANY given competition. Jennski jumped a height only she can clear as a yank. 7.84 can be run by a number of hurdlers out there. The equity is not there. Soft wr or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeremyp
    replied
    I have to agree with the poster. Jen's mark has been bettered by only 2 athletes, while Lolo's has been bettered by 22 (and tied by a few more). The PV is not a "weak" event anymore. If it was we'd have an ever expanding group of ladies jumping 5m. I'll lay odds that 5m will still be a great height in 2015. And if I'm right then the event has become "solid."

    Leave a comment:


  • AthleticsInBritain
    replied
    Originally posted by AS
    Originally posted by AthleticsInBritain
    Do people really go to a meet to see someone win a lot of money? Can't say the idea of anyone winning a million in gold bullion at the Golden League ever made any difference to me when it came to wanting to watch Oslo or Zurich. I couldn't care less about the money - as a reason to go to a meet anyway.
    not sure if you were responding to my post, but by "poor turnout" i meant the athletes not the fans...
    I was and sorry AS (and Smoke), I thought you meant the fans rather than the athletes. My bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • sprintblox
    replied
    Originally posted by Smoke
    A soft wr? One woman has jumped anywhere near that.
    That "one woman" will break the record before the next Olympics, and Jennski and maybe others will match the existing record.

    The women's pole vault as an event isn't old enough to have hardened yet. The women's pole vault record will see much more improvement and quicker improvement than the women's hurdles record.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    I am just now watching the broadcast. When they spend the first five minutes hyping the $25k best-mark reward, any general sports fan must be thinking 'what a Mickey Mouse event'. A pathetic amount of money to be making a big deal about in sports today.
    Well, it is as much as the first prize in the National Scrabble Championships

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by Barto
    But it is not "prizemoney". It is "bonus money". And the bonuses should benefit American track and field - as in assist in producing more medalists.
    I don't completely disagree, although I think Visa is more interested in company name exposure than in developing US T&F. But the 19.60 shot putter would probably be a better medal chance, anyway, and would need the money just as much, or more, than the 14.30 triple jumper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barto
    replied
    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by Barto
    Originally posted by Powell
    I wonder if you'd be happy with the rule you're proposing if Stuczynski was then beaten to the prize by a 14.30 TJ...
    Yes, I would because we need to encourage that 14.30 girl to continue and develop in the sport. Jenn will continue without the extra help. The big names in track from the US do not need help. The emerging elite do.
    But you could just as well have emerging athletes in events where the AR is hard to beat. It's just totally unfair to base the prize money on historical performances of other US athletes. Would the 14.30 TJer really deserve the money more than an up-and-coming 7-meter LJer? Or, say, a 19.60 SPer?
    But it is not "prizemoney". It is "bonus money". And the bonuses should benefit American track and field - as in assist in producing more medalists.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X