Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5000 m college record [Barringer]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • 5000 m college record [Barringer]

    Outdoors, Barringer, 15:07.

  • #2
    Also gets her the IAAF 'A' standard for Berlin.

    Comment


    • #3
      She was on good pace, fell off a bit and ran the last couple of laps, especially the last, fast to get back under. FloTrack has the video, I think.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tandfman
        Also gets her the IAAF 'A' standard for Berlin.
        She already had it with her indoor 15:01.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gh
          Originally posted by tandfman
          Also gets her the IAAF 'A' standard for Berlin.
          She already had it with her indoor 15:01.
          But wait!

          Not so... according to the IAAF site/standards for WC:

          "Indoor performances for all field events and for races of 400m and longer, shall be accepted.For the running events of 400m and over, performances achieved on oversized tracks shall not be accepted."

          Comment


          • #6
            well that's really stupid! She ran on a flat track SHORTER than an outdoor one (so tighter curves and more of them), but they're construing that as some kind of advantage?! Duh.

            Comment


            • #7
              I suppose the theory is that an indoor track can be banked, and if you had an indoor banked track of 400m or close to it, it could actually produce faster times than an outdoor track. Of course, they could cure that problem by specifying that oversized flat tracks of 400m or less are ok.

              Comment


              • #8
                In any event, I would be surprised if she doesn't do about a 14:45 quite soon, unless she leaves the 5k to concentrate on the steeple again.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gh
                  well that's really stupid! She ran on a flat track SHORTER than an outdoor one (so tighter curves and more of them), but they're construing that as some kind of advantage?! Duh.
                  That was my thought, too...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Except I cannot think of a banked track longer than 200m. Having a rule for a track that does not exist is a little bit silly, since as gh indicates the flat tracks are more difficult than a outdoor 400 oval and it is likely even a banked 300m indoor track would not be an advantage over a standard 400m. Also, the banking would not be that advantageous in a distance race on a largish indoor oval.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 26mi235
                      Except I cannot think of a banked track longer than 200m. Having a rule for a track that does not exist is a little bit silly,
                      Maybe it doesn't exist now, but such a track can come into existence very quickly; it doesn't take a lot of time to build or unbuild an indoor track. Better to have an applicable rule already in place before somebody builds it, than be arguing over it after the fact.

                      But I absolutely agree that ignoring marks made on oversized unbanked tracks which are under 400m is silly.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by sprintblox
                        Originally posted by 26mi235
                        Except I cannot think of a banked track longer than 200m. Having a rule for a track that does not exist is a little bit silly,
                        Maybe it doesn't exist now, but such a track can come into existence very quickly; it doesn't take a lot of time to build or unbuild an indoor track. Better to have an applicable rule already in place before somebody builds it, than be arguing over it after the fact.

                        But I absolutely agree that ignoring marks made on oversized unbanked tracks which are under 400m is silly.
                        If I'm not mistaken, the Houston Astrodome indoor track on which Mary Decker-Slaney ran her 4:17.55 mile in 1980 was a mildly-banked 352y track.

                        GH is right, though; a track like this one isn't much of an advantage, considering the turns are still tight despite the shallow incline. If I remember, the banking wasn't much more than 15 degrees, maybe even as low as 10.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          By the way, this is not a CR by T&FN's standards. Applying the same "composite" thinking as the IAAF when it comes to roof-over-head, her 15:01.70 indoors (on a flat track) is the CR.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by gh
                            By the way, this is not a CR by T&FN's standards. Applying the same "composite" thinking as the IAAF when it comes to roof-over-head, her 15:01.70 indoors (on a flat track) is the CR.
                            Whoa! Even on that oversize track??? :lol:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gm
                              Originally posted by gh
                              By the way, this is not a CR by T&FN's standards. Applying the same "composite" thinking as the IAAF when it comes to roof-over-head, her 15:01.70 indoors (on a flat track) is the CR.
                              Whoa! Even on that oversize track??? :lol:
                              Therein lies a problem. I thought the rules specifically stated that all outdoor records, even records set on a track made for outdoors but inside a dome, had to be 400m or 440y....

                              ...Or did I miss something, and any performance done on any flat track less than 440y could be ratified for outdoor purposes (especially if the record was set inside a dome), even if the track was 320m/352y (5 laps per mile), 266.7m/293.3y (6 laps) or even 200m/220y, so long as it wasn't banked by even a single degree on the turns?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X