Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Berkeley 09 June 1979...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post

    We had a whole thread on miles on small tracks...

    https://forum.trackandfieldnews.com/...ack-sub-4-mile
    Great thread. Thank you. Read it all.

    Where was Steve's 125m track? 4:00.6? That's insane.
    Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Master403 View Post

      Great thread. Thank you. Read it all.

      Where was Steve's 125m track? 4:00.6? That's insane.
      Ottawa.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by bad hammy View Post

        Thank you for that info. Sent me down a not-very-productive search for more info on that meet (actually a pair of meets, with one in Philly on June 30th). Online was mostly useless and my collection of T&FN is not easily accessible at this time. It would be great to have full results if anyone has them.

        I did find a March 1979 T&FN highlighted by an indoor mile WR of 3.52.6 by Eamonn Coghlan. There was also news that at another meet Steve Scott ran a 4.00.6 mile on a 125m (136.6 yd) track. I thought the 160yd tracks I watched indoor meets on were small - 125m is tiny. What's the WR for the 1500/mile on a 125m track?
        image_475.png

        From the Berkeley Gazette on June 2, 1979
        Last edited by gm; 03-03-2020, 04:01 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by bad hammy View Post

          Thank you for that info. Sent me down a not-very-productive search for more info on that meet (actually a pair of meets, with one in Philly on June 30th). Online was mostly useless and my collection of T&FN is not easily accessible at this time. It would be great to have full results if anyone has them.

          I did find a March 1979 T&FN highlighted by an indoor mile WR of 3.52.6 by Eamonn Coghlan. There was also news that at another meet Steve Scott ran a 4.00.6 mile on a 125m (136.6 yd) track. I thought the 160yd tracks I watched indoor meets on were small - 125m is tiny. What's the WR for the 1500/mile on a 125m track?
          Screen Shot 2020-03-02 at 10.59.31 PM.png

          Agate from LA Times on June 10, 1979

          Comment


          • #20
            Many thanks for the LA Times agate, gm. That was an outstanding group of athletes.

            One of two things happened. Either I missed the meet because of school and/or work (it was my first year of both working full time and going to college full time, which is a bit time consuming) or it was an event I attended but have no recollection of, in the vein of "if you can remember the 60s or 70s, you weren't there".

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Master403 View Post
              I worked automatic timing for a lot of races beginning shortly after that. (That meant reading a lot of Polaroids in bright sunlight.) Most or all of the automatic systems then had one chance at getting a flash or IR signal from the starting device. (That signal was generated by an acoustic pick-up near the starter's gun hand. When the starter moved to a new start line, we missed the start if they forgot to put the device back on their arm or forgot to turn the damn thing on.) If the start was missed, you reverted to hand times.

              In modern systems, as I understand it, the starting device has a lot of electronics, and it and the finish line computer are linked. Time of day is synchronized. When a race starts, the start time is sent to the computer. If somehow the two disconnect, the starting device has maintained a cache of all the start times, allowing the appropriate one to be retrieved.
              This set-up got me out of a hole about 15 to 20 years ago at a fairly high-profile British inter-club meet when I re-set the clock just after what I thought was a test firing of the gun (we had a very limited view of the track and all I could see on the track was some hurdles but no athletes ready at the sprint hurdles start). In fact it was a 3000m race. A quick delve into the file of start times and selecting the one with the latest time of day sorted it all out about a minute after the start.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post
                Reminds me of when swimming times got so precise they had to consider the thickness of the paint on pools.
                That was 1972-74. In the Munich 400 IM, Gunnar Larsson and Tim McKee "tied" at 4:31.98, but the timer was able to break the tie and Larsson won gold over McKee - 4:31.981 to 4:31.983. Times to the 1/1000th were also used, for all events, at the 1973 World Championships (first swimming WC), but after that meet they determined that Larsson and McKee's result could have been affected if the paint on one lane was just slightly thicker than the paint on another lane, especially for 8 laps (400m), so FINA changed the rule so that ties to the 1/100th would always be consideed ties. In 1984 at Los Angeles, Nancy Hogshead and Carrie Steinseifer finished the 100 metre freestyle in 55.92, but the scoreboard listed Steinseifer as 1st and Hogshead 2nd, so most people feel that the 1/1000ths was faster for Steinseifer. It was quickly corrected so they were both listed 1st.

                Cross-country skiing, at distances of 10 to 50 km at the Olympics, used to time to the 1/100th but they changed the rules after the 1980 men's 15 km. Thomas Wassberg (SWE) defeated Juha Mieto (FIN) - 41:57.63 to 41:57.64. Cannot be a fair differential over that distance. This was brought up again at the London 2012 women's Olympic triathlon, in which Nicola Spirig (SUI) and Lisa Norden (SWE) were listed with the same time (1-59-48) but Spirig won the gold medal. It was later announced that the margin between the two was 0.009 seconds, this after 1.5 km swim, 40 km bike race, and 10 km running. Absurd to not give them both gold medals.

                Sorry - got going a bit - a little history on the too precise timing in Olympic sports.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bad hammy View Post
                  Many thanks for the LA Times agate, gm. That was an outstanding group of athletes.
                  Plus the life stories of Maree, Rono and Salazar in particular are very interesting. I think the other two won 4 straight world c-c titles between them?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X