Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bolt's 9.91 'WL'

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Bolt's 9.91 'WL'

    Interesting.

    Tilastopaja (and T&FN) recognizes Bolt's en route 100m time on his Manchester 'Road 150' as the World Leader. But IAAF does not.

    I assume there was no elev drop, and there was a wind gauge, so why am I having a prob with this? Rationally, I know I shouldn't, and yet . . .

    OK, there, I'm over it! Congrats to UB for the WL.

    What would the IAAF have to do to see it as a valid mark?

  • #2
    It would have to be in a stadium on a normal track, you know, with turns, for starters. IMHO, if the physical constitution of the track surface & undersurface meets IAAF requirements and the distance & timing were correct, recognize the performance and stop being so damn "stiff" about these things.

    Comment


    • #3
      Could be many things:

      1. They only recognize marks on certified tracks.

      2. They don't count "en route" times in the rankings.

      3. They are purposefully trying to diminish Bolt's greatness.

      Most likely 3.

      Comment


      • #4
        "The Norwegian" intended for this to be here:


        What if he broke the world record for the 100.
        Ran something crazy like 9,59.
        He could've completely died the last 50.
        I think it would be strange not to consider it a world record.
        I would at least always carried it back in my mind.
        What do you guys think?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gh
          "The Norwegian" intended for this to be here:


          What if he broke the world record for the 100.
          Ran something crazy like 9,59.
          He could've completely died the last 50.
          I think it would be strange not to consider it a world record.
          I would at least always carried it back in my mind.
          What do you guys think?


          Assuming all of the necessary conditions, of course, it should be a WR if he ran faster than 9.69. The IAAF wants to pout about it let them.

          I would bet Primo--Goldfinger--would have approved.

          Comment


          • #6
            IAAF statistics department has some weird quirks. Like you can qualify for the WC/OG with indoor marks, you can set "outdoor" WRs indoors, but they don't carry any such marks on their list, retaining the 19th-century view of them being two different sports. Left hand calling right!

            Comment


            • #7
              Good question.
              I think I'd go with him having to be in an actual 100m race.
              The thing is, if it were a real hundred, he may have gon even faster considering he knows he still has 50m to go. The dynamics change a bit in the mind when its longer.
              JMO

              Comment


              • #8
                http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... ht=#542632

                thanks for raising this question again. no official resolution yet?

                Comment


                • #9
                  T&FN's "official resolution" is that it counts!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well, first of all, there is issue that Bolt would take issue to the mark being officially listed in the 100 meter world list, because he could argue that he takes offense and embarrassment to the mark, arguing that he had been pacing himself slightly in order to not die before reaching the finish line, and thus, that he could have run a significantly faster first 100 meters if the race had been only 100 meters long, so it would be sort of a much less exaggerated version of putting a 10k runner's first 100m split of say 13 seconds of something on the list, which would be embarrassing since obviously the guy could go a lot faster than 13 seconds in the 100, but he didn't know they were gonna time and post his split as an official 100m time, so he wasn't trying to run a fast first 100, he was trying to pace himself for a 10,000 meter race, and thus wasn't running at absolute full speed.

                    Second of all, I'm not sure if the track surface he ran on was legal. It probably wasn't harder than what is allowable, but, since they probably didn't measure it with a bearing ball drop test, I don't think they can count the time, just due to this problem alone.

                    Third of all, I'm not sure if the timing system used to capture is 100m split is considered too be accurate enough to be used as a 100m time. Like, maybe the qualified timing device was only placed on the finish line, and the 100m split timer was of lower quality and did not meet IAAF standards to qualify as an official electronic timing by their standards. I'm not sure though, just a guess.

                    So these are three possible reasons for not counting the mark.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I hope he's offended, then he has the opportunity to fix it this weekend! After all, it is the Toronto Festival of Excellence!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Atheist
                        Well, first of all, there is issue that Bolt would take issue to the mark being officially listed in the 100 meter world list, because he could argue that he takes offense and embarrassment to the mark,
                        "...Because he could argue the he takes offense and embarrassment to the mark" --- are you serious? Bolt would be ashamed of a WL time, simply because it was "too slow"? For someone who claims to be an Atheist, you certainly do have an idol to worship.

                        By the way, I was impressed that your entire first paragraph was, in fact, one sentence:

                        ... arguing that he had been pacing himself slightly in order to not die before reaching the finish line, and thus, that he could have run a significantly faster first 100 meters if the race had been only 100 meters long, so it would be sort of a much less exaggerated version of putting a 10k runner's first 100m split of say 13 seconds of something on the list, which would be embarrassing since obviously the guy could go a lot faster than 13 seconds in the 100, but he didn't know they were gonna time and post his split as an official 100m time, so he wasn't trying to run a fast first 100, he was trying to pace himself for a 10,000 meter race, and thus wasn't running at absolute full speed.
                        Second of all, I'm not sure if the track surface he ran on was legal. It probably wasn't harder than what is allowable, but, since they probably didn't measure it with a bearing ball drop test, I don't think they can count the time, just due to this problem alone.
                        If the surface isn't legal, then the 150m time isn't either.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JRM
                          Originally posted by The Atheist
                          Well, first of all, there is issue that Bolt would take issue to the mark being officially listed in the 100 meter world list, because he could argue that he takes offense and embarrassment to the mark,
                          "...Because he could argue the he takes offense and embarrassment to the mark" --- are you serious? Bolt would be ashamed of a WL time, simply because it was "too slow"? For someone who claims to be an Atheist, you certainly do have an idol to worship.

                          By the way, I was impressed that your entire first paragraph was, in fact, one sentence:

                          ... arguing that he had been pacing himself slightly in order to not die before reaching the finish line, and thus, that he could have run a significantly faster first 100 meters if the race had been only 100 meters long, so it would be sort of a much less exaggerated version of putting a 10k runner's first 100m split of say 13 seconds of something on the list, which would be embarrassing since obviously the guy could go a lot faster than 13 seconds in the 100, but he didn't know they were gonna time and post his split as an official 100m time, so he wasn't trying to run a fast first 100, he was trying to pace himself for a 10,000 meter race, and thus wasn't running at absolute full speed.
                          [quote:3iavlxct]
                          Second of all, I'm not sure if the track surface he ran on was legal. It probably wasn't harder than what is allowable, but, since they probably didn't measure it with a bearing ball drop test, I don't think they can count the time, just due to this problem alone.
                          If the surface isn't legal, then the 150m time isn't either.[/quote:3iavlxct]

                          Did the IAAF list the 150m time anywhere? I don't think they have a 150m list, so...

                          And what about the third thing. The timing instrument. Was the split-timer meeting the accuracy standards required by the IAAF for a time to be counted?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JRM
                            If the surface isn't legal, then the 150m time isn't either.
                            No 150m time is truly legal, because IAAF doesn't officially recognize that distance anyway. So officially there can only be talk of a 150m "world best", not a world record.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by sprintblox
                              Originally posted by JRM
                              If the surface isn't legal, then the 150m time isn't either.
                              No 150m time is truly legal, because IAAF doesn't officially recognize that distance anyway. So officially there can only be talk of a 150m "world best", not a world record.
                              Yes, I understand that. But the point remains: if the track wasn't legal, it isn't a WB. In that case, why run it?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X