Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Events that should be eliminated

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #46
    Re: Events that should be eliminated

    Why, indeed. Why 4 laps and 8, why not 5 laps and 10? Or how about 3 laps and 6? You're right, it's the whole rest of the world that has it wrong. Dig those heels in deeper, that'll show 'em all just how right we are.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Events that should be eliminated

      >Why, indeed. Why 4 laps and 8, why not 5 laps
      >and 10? Or how about 3 laps and 6? You're
      >right, it's the whole rest of the world that has
      >it wrong. Dig those heels in deeper, that'll
      >show 'em all just how right we are.

      Not sure that it a matter of we're right and they're wrong. Back in the day when the 440 yard tracks were the standard at high schools and most colleges, 4 laps made a mile. As we converted to 400 meter tracks , we had to make a choice... do we keep make the race equivalent in terms of laps or distance? Considering the fact that the 220y became the 200m, 440y and 400m, etc... it would appear we chose the lap equivelents -- hence the 1600 (4 laps times 400m) and the 3200 (8 laps times 400m).

      Imagine if we chose equivalent distances instead of laps? The 91.44m , 201.16m, etc...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Events that should be eliminated

        For the sanity of 5000m runners everywhere, drop the 47 heats of the 200m at many a track meet!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Events that should be eliminated

          The
          >IAAF recognizes records in the 1000, 2000, etc.
          >but that doesn't make either of those distances
          >as or more 'important' than the 1500. The mile
          >is sometimes run, but never in the major
          >championships nor even raced as frequently as the
          >1500 and not much more than the 3000 is.

          Reality check:
          If you look at non-US Grand Prix meets in 2002, on the men's side, the 1500 was run 16 times, the mile 3 times, the 3000 10 times.
          On the women's side: 13 races in 1500, NONE in 1 mile, 10 in 3000.

          Face it: hardly anyone outside the US gives a damn about mile races. The three meets which did hold 1 mile races had specific reasons to do so: Oslo has a long-established tradition with its Golden Mile, London is used to the English system (although they do use the metric system these days) and Rome wanted to give El Guerrouj a shot at a WR (the 1500 record is harder to beat). No other meet outside the US had a mile race.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Events that should be eliminated

            I never said going back to the mile instead of the 1600 is a magic bullet but it does make a difference as evidenced by the favorable publicity that Alan Webb got. He would not have gotten nearly the same publicity for breaking 4 minutes in the 1600.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Events that should be eliminated

              >For the sanity of 5000m runners everywhere, drop
              >the 47 heats of the 200m at many a track meet!

              Amen to that! Wow, how many meets have I run the 5,000 where I had to play the "warm up-wait-warm up-wait-warm up-wait" game due to the endless 200 meter heats.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Events that should be eliminated

                Actually John Zishka ran his 4:03 at the Golden West meet so BK's state MEET record is legit, but it shouldn't stand as the STATE record (although I think that's what you were getting at and I thoroughly agree!!!).

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Events that should be eliminated

                  in some sense having a 1500 when there is a mile is silly. but can't you look the other way around that because we have the 1500 for a world champs the mile is silly. let's just be glad as distance runners (support even if ur not a distance runner) that we have these two great events to pick from.

                  i read from an earlier post that having an event 100m+ shorter doesn't make sense. look at sprinters (im not knocking you,im just trying to make a point), you have the 100m and 200m. now if my math serves me correctly, they are only 100m apart, but yet each one it important and requires a slighlty different tactic to race.

                  if you're gonna argue about distances, you should argue why some events have hurdles with them, or even take it out to the field, why should there be 4 throwing event (a ball, a ball with a cord, a disc, and a long stick), why not just make it into one. because each event is different, requires different skill,tactics, and lets be glad that we have these different events.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Events that should be eliminated

                    >in some sense having a 1500 when there is a mile
                    >is silly. but can't you look the other way around
                    >that because we have the 1500 for a world champs
                    >the mile is silly. let's just be glad as distance
                    >runners (support even if ur not a distance
                    >runner) that we have these two great events to
                    >pick from.

                    i read from an earlier post that
                    >having an event 100m+ shorter doesn't make sense.
                    >look at sprinters (im not knocking you,im just
                    >trying to make a point), you have the 100m and
                    >200m. now if my math serves me correctly, they
                    >are only 100m apart, but yet each one it
                    >important and requires a slighlty different
                    >tactic to race.

                    if you're gonna argue about
                    >distances, you should argue why some events have
                    >hurdles with them, or even take it out to the
                    >field, why should there be 4 throwing event (a
                    >ball, a ball with a cord, a disc, and a long
                    >stick), why not just make it into one. because
                    >each event is different, requires different
                    >skill,tactics, and lets be glad that we have
                    >these different events.

                    When you look at the big picture, the best option is probably to leave the events as they are. So much of the world runs 1500m, some occassionally run a mile, and high school runners are "forced" to run 1600m. I don't see the big deal. As it stands, several other events are contested under different rules at the various levels of competition: the shot and discus vary in weight, the height of the high hurdles is higher for some than others, there's the 300m hurdles vs 400m hurdles debate, and distances in XC races vary greatly. Then, there's the whole gender issue dealing with weights and hurdle height.

                    If the concern is that it's difficult to judge a runners ability to make it at the next level of competition (ie, can't truly judge someone's 1500m potential when they're running a mile or 1600), then wouldn't that also apply to the weight throws and hurdles? How many outstanding HS shot putters have vanished from the scene because they could barely throw college/international shot 50 ft? Or, the sub-13 sec HS hurdler to suddenly found that the extra 3in on the hurdle made him into nothing more than a sub-15 sec hurdler.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Events that should be eliminated

                      Dear Professor:

                      Class needs to be called back into session. The walks fully deserve to be dropped in the dust-bin of history.

                      I was a "walk"-believer way back when--and even, I hate to admit it--competed in a few track mile walks. What opened my eyes big-time was watching the 20k walk at the '88 US Olympic trials. I watched the athletes very carefully and was amazed to see that what seemed like half the field was clearly floating (i.e. CHEATING) every time the group came past me. The group strategy seemed pretty clear: the "walkers" on the outside of the scrum had pretty good form, while the ones hidden in the middle were just as clearly NOT legit. I presume that the group rotated around every now and then so that nearly everyone got their chance to relax and jog. Now, I'll admit, I did not have a high-speed movie camera, and can't produce the film to prove this...but that's what I saw, and I looked really carefully. It seemed comically absurd to me. (The judges, by the way, seemed pretty few and far beteween--there were significant gaps of road without a single judge.)

                      I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush. For example, I've seen film of Larry Young and from what I could tell, he was completely legit. I'll wager that in the entire history of "walking," there are at least another dozen or so other "walkers" who were completely legit. Maybe I'm being too generous, but that's the kind of guy I am.

                      The walks deserve to go because they ENCOURAGE CHEATING. By their very nature, they are about CHEATing as much as one can get away with, and not a single un-straightened knee less. In no other event is CHEATING so integral to the very nature of the activity.

                      I'm all for race walking, power walking, chicken walking, you name it, when done in the privacy of one's own suburban streets or high school track. But it is hopeless to pretend that such activities deserve our respect as "sports." They don't. Further, arguments that "walkers" deserve our respect because they are dedicated, train hard, good family folk, etc., are irrelevant. Good people may devote lots of effort to all manner of activites--juggling, yodeling, flying kites, whatever--and we are not obligated to call any of these actrivities a "sport."

                      Track and field fans have a simple solution to this embarrasing problem: Don't pay any attention to the walks. Pretend they don't exist, and sooner or later they won't.

                      LASTLY: If you want a couple events to add to the program, I'd nominate the 1000 and 600 meter runs. Both would freshen up the typical circuit programs, while allowing athletes from different events to meet on reasonably common ground. They shouldn't replace the 800 and 400 of course, but could be run at, say, 10-15% of the meets on the circuit.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Events that should be eliminated

                        Very well said, kuha. You hit the nail on the head about the problem with the walks- the method of forward movement is strictly governed by rules that are loosely enforced. Toss the walks!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Events that should be eliminated

                          The final day of the Olympics as an "all relay day" gets my vote 100%. In fact, let's make it standard at all meets.

                          RAP out.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Events that should be eliminated

                            If the walks are too loosely enforced, the answer is to enforce them better. Long live the walks!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Events that should be eliminated

                              That still doesn't address the other problem, that being that walks bore me.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Events that should be eliminated

                                Then just don't watch them. There are many people who like the walks.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X