No announcement yet.

Quality of the World Championships


Unconfigured Ad Widget

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quality of the World Championships

    Now, I'm a youngster with only a few years of track competition / spectating under my belt - I've been watching since a fairly exciting 2006 and competing for a few years prior.

    Am I mistaken in saying that this is an extremely quality World Champs? One of the most insane matchups of all time (100m) combined with a lot of dramatic wins / contests (mShot, wShot, wHep, wPV) and big upsets...I might be a bit biased, of course, being a US observer and watching with glee as 3 guys go through to the 1500m final.

    What is the learn-ed opinion of our more worldly and experiences track'n'fieldies? Is this, as I have spouted on occasion, a 'totally sweet and rad' meet? Which have been better?

  • #2
    Was just looking for the right place to post something about what a great day we've seen so far today, and the W100 is yet to come.


    • #3
      It's very mixed. Both 100s were amazing, of course. Men's 10000 and women's SC were definitely great in terms of quality, too. Both SPs were very good. Women's 400 is also shaping up as one of the best ever.

      But other than that... The weakest men's HT in some 30 years, the lowest standard of women's TJ ever (I think). A very poor women's PV - yes, definitely high on excitement, but the performances of the medalists were seriously weak. Heptathlon with only one woman over 6500.

      A few performances from these WCh will probably be remembered forever by those who saw them. But it seems there is also a higher than usual number of seriously sub-par events.
      Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...


      • #4
        In general, I'm not a master of statistics of the field events, especially the ones you mentioned, so I've basically no idea of the relative quality of those fields. (Can we agree that HT and wTJ are pretty much the fringe events anyhow? You could of course say that they are fringe on the relative merit (or lack thereof) of the people in the field, though...)

        To me, the quality of the field is less interesting than the quality of the competition within the field. Men's 100m at Beijing last year was not nearly as exciting as it was here, because not only did we have insanely fast times, there was actually a good competition. (Don't take that as an invitation to debate whether there was competition or not, please - enough has been said already there...)

        I guess if you're going to have a WCh meet, I'd take good matchups as well as insane times first, good matchups alone second, and one dominant performer third.