Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tim Mack article

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Tim Mack article

    A nice article on Tim Mack in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer --

    http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plainde ... 201791.xml

  • #2
    Re: Tim Mack article

    from article [alluding to Mack's 'upset']:

    "Who knew? Not Track and Field News, which didn't pick him to medal."

    Hello?! They picked him to win!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tim Mack article

      I liked the title: "Cathcing A Gold"

      Anyone know what 'cathcing' means.....?



      Just kidding of course. It's a very good article.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tim Mack article

        To their credit, the Cleveland paper (my former hometown), did a good job of covering Mack over the past few months. My biggest beef with the article, something that of course only track fans would be bothered by, was this characterization: "Only 12 men in history have cleared six meters, which is the "four-minute mile" of pole vaulting."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tim Mack article

          >from article [alluding to Mack's 'upset']:

          "Who knew? Not Track and Field
          >News, which didn't pick him to medal."

          Hello?! They picked him to win!>>

          Well, we did and we didn't. Print version of the magazine, which came out right after OT (and pre-Z├╝rich and other biggies) did not pick Mack for a medal (said Lobinger-Averbukh-Stevenson), although at end of page it did say "this is not our last word." Our last word, a month later in e-form, correctly nailed Mack-Stevenson for the top 2 spots.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tim Mack article

            >To their credit, the Cleveland paper (my former hometown), did a good job of
            >covering Mack over the past few months. My biggest beef with the article,
            >something that of course only track fans would be bothered by, was this
            >characterization: "Only 12 men in history have cleared six meters, which is
            >the "four-minute mile" of pole vaulting."


            OK, I'll bite. What is wrong with this statement. No such thing as a dumb question, my first grade teacher said.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tim Mack article

              OK, I'll bite.
              >What is wrong with this statement. No such thing as a dumb question, my first
              >grade teacher said.

              It's a terrible comparison. Mack was the 12th over 6 meters. There are probably close to 1000 milers who have broken 4 minutes.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tim Mack article

                I see what you're getting at. But something else to consider: More people run than vault. I've been around track for a long time and I don't believe I've ever even touched a vaulting pole. My old high school in Chattanooga used to be decent in vaulting. We even had a state champ once. Now we don't even have the facilities to vault with. No mat, no poles, nothing.

                Also, vaulting doesn't exist -- period -- in the inner city schools. What about Kenya? How many Kenyan vaulters are there?

                If there were as many people vaulting as there were running, maybe the numbers of people under 4 mins and over 6 M would be closer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tim Mack article

                  If the mile were the standard international distance instead of the 1500, then more like 2-3000 would have broken 4:00. That should make the analogy clearer.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tim Mack article

                    Take the number of people who have run either 1500 or mile and compare it to those who have ever pole vaulted. It's probably the same as 12 vs. 1000 or whatever. I mean come on. Hardly anybody vaults. Zillions have run a mile/1500.

                    My take on this is that 12 meters and 4 minutes are probably comparable milestones.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tim Mack article

                      not even!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tim Mack article

                        Why, tafnut? I may be wrong, but I haven't heard a good reason yet. Not good to me anyhow.

                        BTW, what would be your measure of vaulting's 4 min mile? 19 feet? Keep in mind it should not be a height that would give vaulting even remotely close to the same number of those under 4. Because a ton more people run than vault. I mean a TON! Zillions more.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tim Mack article

                          If I explain it, it will sound like I am disrespecting middle distance runners everywhere, and all the 4 minute milers that have ever been. Look at the many, many outstanding talents and skills required in elite PVing and then look at the skills set that miling requires. I TOTALLY respect elite MD runners, but the PV is something totally different.

                          edit: I wouldn't even want to speculate as to an equivalent mark. The PV is SO equipment dependent, that it is still evolving, whereas the Mile is what it is (unarguably the King of track events)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tim Mack article

                            >the Mile is unarguably the King of track events



                            Yeh, I mean out of all the GLs, GPs, and championships this year, it must have been a whole two times the distance was raced!!?!
                            ;-)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tim Mack article

                              My take on this is that 12 meters and 4 minutes are probably
                              >comparable milestones.


                              12 meters, huh? Now I'm no math dude, but I believe that is in the vicinity of, say, 39'4 1/2"!! :-P

                              I know you meant 6.00 meters, and I would tend to agree, or even go so far as to say 20 feet. Just because it wasn't broken 50 years ago, or hundreds of people haven't acheived it, doesn't mean it can't have validity as a barrier today, since barriers are largely mental milestones for humans, with no real meaning otherwise. After all, what IS the difference between a 4:00.00 mile and a 3:59.99? In reality, .01 seconds, nothing more.
                              https://twitter.com/walnuthillstrak

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X