Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fast Tracks? Slow Tracks?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Fast Tracks? Slow Tracks?

    Just curious which tracks are known for being really fast and or really slow? I think numbers coming from particular tracks may be skewed by the location. Sometimes its the altitude being high or low ,sometimes its the surface of the track, and some tracks always have pretty good wind assistance.

    Some that I can think of off the top of my head are Eugene and Brussels(Bruxxels?) but I am not sure why they are fast. Fayetville(indoors) seems to be pretty decent too

    Anyone know of other examples and why?

  • #2
    Re: Fast Tracks? Slow Tracks?

    Originally posted by fasttrack85
    Just curious which tracks are known for being really fast and or really slow? I think numbers coming from particular tracks may be skewed by the location. Sometimes its the altitude being high or low ,sometimes its the surface of the track, and some tracks always have pretty good wind assistance.

    Some that I can think of off the top of my head are Eugene and Brussels(Bruxxels?) but I am not sure why they are fast. Fayetville(indoors) seems to be pretty decent too

    Anyone know of other examples and why?

    Distance or sprints?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Fast Tracks? Slow Tracks?

      There are some sprint performances at Loughborough that seem almost absurdly fast, considering the athlete in question. Montell Douglas's 11.05 NR would be a prime example.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Fast Tracks? Slow Tracks?

        Originally posted by mal
        Originally posted by fasttrack85
        Just curious which tracks are known for being really fast and or really slow? I think numbers coming from particular tracks may be skewed by the location. Sometimes its the altitude being high or low ,sometimes its the surface of the track, and some tracks always have pretty good wind assistance.

        Some that I can think of off the top of my head are Eugene and Brussels(Bruxxels?) but I am not sure why they are fast. Fayetville(indoors) seems to be pretty decent too

        Anyone know of other examples and why?

        Distance or sprints?

        Im mostly concerned about Sprints.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Fast Tracks? Slow Tracks?

          Originally posted by fasttrack85
          Originally posted by mal
          Originally posted by fasttrack85
          Just curious which tracks are known for being really fast and or really slow? I think numbers coming from particular tracks may be skewed by the location. Sometimes its the altitude being high or low ,sometimes its the surface of the track, and some tracks always have pretty good wind assistance.
          Some that I can think of off the top of my head are Eugene and Brussels(Bruxxels?) but I am not sure why they are fast. Fayetville(indoors) seems to be pretty decent too
          Anyone know of other examples and why?
          Distance or sprints?
          Im mostly concerned about Sprints.
          The IAAF measures the 'rebound' of a track. Atlanta 96 and Tokyo 91 were very hard and very fast for sprinting. It tore up the distance runners with its rigidity.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Fast Tracks? Slow Tracks?

            Some people carp about the sprint times in Eugene and in Cleremont FL, while Rieti has had its share of exceptional times in a slightly odd mix of distances.

            Mexico Cities marks are well-known to be very altitude aided (so much so that Beamon's LJ is not quite Beamonesque) and it is likely that the wind readings for the LJ (plus? few events) were flawed due to inadequate understanding of the wind readings by one official. The wind readings were not done (not done right) for the first couple rounds of the w100m at the Trials in 1988 (the 10.49 "WR" likely had about a 5mps wind).

            Comment

            Working...
            X