Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

    :mrgreen:

    If you subscribe to the "new millennium" theory that is. The one that says the IAAF should have grabbed the bull by the horns and created a second set of records to invigorate the sport when 2000 rolled around.

    By that standard, Bohdan Bondarenko and Brianna Rollins are now the best ever.

    (i realize most people hate this concept: i love it)

  • #2
    Re: we had 2 WRs this year that got overlooked!

    You forgot Teddy Tamgho!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

      well so I did! (didn't mention the marathon cuz that was an absolute)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

        Originally posted by gh
        (i realize most people hate this concept
        You are correct, sir!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

          important that one note, however, while others may have proposed a "new" set of WRs, I'm saying there should simply be two sets (confusing as that may be). New millennium and old.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: we had 2 WRs this year that got overlooked!

            I'd never heard of that concept. I like it. I ignored marathon and other road events because I'm not a fan of world records in events where the course varies. I removed two (Belarusians) people who had results nullified due to positive drug tests in the same year.

            So we have

            Men:

            100- Bolt 9.58*
            200- Bolt 19.19*
            400- Wariner 43.45
            800- Rudisha 1:40.91*
            1500- El Guerrouj 3:26.12
            Mile- El Guerrouj 3:44.95
            3000- Saïdi-Sief 7:25.02
            5000- Bekele 12:37.35 *
            10000- Bekele 26:17.53*
            3000St- Shaheen 7:53.63*
            110H- Merritt 12.80*
            400H- Clement 47.24
            HJ- Bondarenko 2.41
            PV- Markov 6.05
            LJ- Phillips 8.74
            TJ- Tamgho 18.04
            SP- Cantwell 22.54
            DT- Alekna 73.88
            HT- Tsikhan 86.73
            JT- Zelezný 92.80
            Dec- Eaton 9039*

            Women:

            100- Jeter 10.64
            200- Felix 21.69
            400- Richards 48.70
            800- Jelimo 1:54.01
            1500- Ayhan 3:55.33
            Mile- Jamal 4:17.75
            3000- Szabo 8:21.42
            5000- Dibaba 14:11.15*
            10000- Melkamu 29:53.80
            3000St- Galkina 8:58.81*
            100H- Rollins 12.26
            400H- Pechenkina 52.34*
            HJ- Vlašic 2.08
            PV- Isinbayeva 5.06*
            LJ- Kotova 7.42
            TJ- Mbango Etone 15.39
            SP- Peleshenko 21.46
            DT- Perkovic 69.11
            HT- Heidler 79.42*
            JT- Špotáková 72.28*
            Hept- Klüft 7032

            *official world record

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: we had 2 WRs this year that got overlooked!

              Originally posted by JumboElliott
              HJ- Vlašic 2.08*

              *official world record
              No asterisk for her.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                Oops. That was meant for 400H.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                  One quick look and immediately three banned drug users are on the list. What is the point of segregation? The underlying idea was that pre-millenium records are "tainted." These are not?
                  "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                  by Thomas Henry Huxley

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                    If a medal was revoked in that season, they were removed from the list. Example: Ostapchuk last year.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: we had 2 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                      Originally posted by JumboElliott
                      3000St- Shaheen 7:53.63
                      Needs an asterisk (from 2004).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                        That list.... I would approve of

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: we had 2 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                          Originally posted by br
                          Originally posted by JumboElliott
                          3000St- Shaheen 7:53.63
                          Needs an asterisk (from 2004).
                          Yeah, when I first posted it, the two steeple record holders weren't even there. So I had to fix it twice.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                            Originally posted by Pego
                            One quick look and immediately three banned drug users are on the list. What is the point of segregation? The underlying idea was that pre-millenium records are "tainted." These are not?
                            Of course. There are at least a few absolute stinkers on here....and, very possibly, more to be discovered.

                            This whole exercise is just comical.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: we had 3 WRs this year that got overlooked!

                              Originally posted by gh
                              important that one note, however, while others may have proposed a "new" set of WRs, I'm saying there should simply be two sets (confusing as that may be). New millennium and old.
                              That doesn't stop you, or anyone, from promoting MWRs, exactly as you've done here. I hate the idea of MWRs, but paradoxically, I like it when someone points one out.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X