Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chi Cheng

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • nianchengyu1
    replied
    Chi cheng 400m 52.74s Stockholm 29/07/1970

    Leave a comment:


  • Ref
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by The King
    4-kilo Shot 36 fet 6-1/2 inches
    High Jump 4 feet 10-1/4 inches
    Long Jump 20 feet 5-3/4 inches

    The approximate metric meausremnets for Chi's Shot Putt, High Jump & Long Jump would be:

    4kg SP: 11.54m
    HJ: 1.54m
    LJ: 6.41m
    Just doing these in my head, but I don't get the same numbers.
    I would expect to be within a centimetre when converting imperial-to-metric, and I'm coming out with:

    11.14m (12 feet is about 3.66m; so 36 feet is about 10.98m)
    1.48m (5 feet is exactly 1.524m)
    6.24m (20 feet is exactly 6.096m)

    The surprising one is the HJ - very poor, relatively. Of course, there are many plausible reasons that could contribute to that, given the athlete and the era.

    Leave a comment:


  • Halfmiler2
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by gh
    Originally posted by Anonymous
    What a life! Coaching a superstar female sprinter; then marrying her.
    Some guys have all the luck.
    Like everyone else in American, they ended up divorced, although as I recall remained good friends.
    Not everyone, Garry. :wink:

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Jon
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Yes, I addressed this in my post (you may have missed an addition I made)
    No, I just lost the will to live after the reading the first few back-and-forth posts between you and Powell :-P
    so you've lost the will to read and even live . . . and yet you can still manage to post sarcastic remarks! hmm . . . 8-)
    Yes. 'Twas my dying wish... :wink:

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Jon
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Yes, I addressed this in my post (you may have missed an addition I made)
    No, I just lost the will to live after the reading the first few back-and-forth posts between you and Powell :-P
    so you've lost the will to read and even live . . . and yet you can still manage to post sarcastic remarks! hmm . . . 8-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Marlow
    Yes, I addressed this in my post (you may have missed an addition I made)
    No, I just lost the will to live after the reading the first few back-and-forth posts between you and Powell :-P

    Originally posted by Marlow
    But, as I pointed out, why does T&FN announce it as a World Record if the IAAF hasn't ratified it yet?
    To make it simpler for people like you :P

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Jon
    I think the records Marlow is talking of are (in the terms of this sport) known as "world bests". The IAAF decides which events have an 'official' WR and ratify them as such. All other performances that are the fastest ever (for example, the 100y) are known as "world bests". Yes, strictly speaking they could be called 'world records' in the 'Guinness world record' sense (ie that it's the best ever performance), but within this sport, the IAAF has the final say on what is a "world best" and what is a "world record".
    Yes, I addressed this in my post (you may have missed an addition I made). But, as I pointed out, why does T&FN announce it as a World Record if the IAAF hasn't ratified it yet?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    I think the records Marlow is talking of are (in the terms of this sport) known as "world bests". The IAAF decides which events have an 'official' WR and ratify them as such. All other performances that are the fastest ever (for example, the 100y) are known as "world bests". Yes, strictly speaking they could be called 'world records' in the 'Guinness world record' sense (ie that it's the best ever performance), but within this sport, the IAAF has the final say on what is a "world best" and what is a "world record".

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Powell
    I still have no idea what you mean by T&FN 'certifying' world records. Or where you got the idea that:
    Originally posted by Marlow
    T&FN recognizes many WRs that the IAAF has no listing of.
    As I showed in an earlier post, the T&FN records page only lists IAAF-recognized WRs in IAAF-recognized events (with an asterisk next to 10.49).
    Do you read the magazine and get the newsletter? They show WRs in indoor events like the 50-yard or 600-yard.

    Do you see a WR for the outdoor 600m in the iAAF list? No.
    Is there one? Yes.
    Does T&FN recognize it? Yes. (It used to be listed as a WR, but I think they've gone to WB - World Best - so as not to be confused with IAAF designations, but as I said before, that is a distinction without a difference. This is similar to when the WR in a standard event is broken, T&FN lists it as a World Record, even though the IAAF has not ratified it yet - essentially it is a "T&FN WR".)

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    You basically just restated my point: yes, if a result looks suspicious to start with, they may investigate the background.

    I still have no idea what you mean by T&FN 'certifying' world records. Or where you got the idea that:
    Originally posted by Marlow
    T&FN recognizes many WRs that the IAAF has no listing of.
    As I showed in an earlier post, the T&FN records page only lists IAAF-recognized WRs in IAAF-recognized events (with an asterisk next to 10.49).

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by Marlow
    When T&FN 'certifies' a WB, it means it has the same statistical significance as a WR.
    Has T&FN ever actually used the term 'certify' in this context or is it something you just made up?
    The difference isn't just the dope testing. The ratification process (in principle at least - we know it doesn't always work perfectly) actually subjects the record to active scrutiny: was the distance measured properly, did the wind gauge work etc. 'Statistical significance' isn't really a very significant term. Results are basically taken at face value, unless they are very obviously suspicious, in which case they may be thrown out.
    I'll let gh speak to that, but I know T&FN is not easily convinced of a 'record's' significance without due diligence. They are not big on Flo-Jo's 100, even tho the IAAF is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Marlow
    When T&FN 'certifies' a WB, it means it has the same statistical significance as a WR.
    Has T&FN ever actually used the term 'certify' in this context or is it something you just made up?
    The difference isn't just the dope testing. The ratification process (in principle at least - we know it doesn't always work perfectly) actually subjects the record to active scrutiny: was the distance measured properly, did the wind gauge work etc. 'Statistical significance' isn't really a very significant term. Results are basically taken at face value, unless they are very obviously suspicious, in which case they may be thrown out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by Marlow
    It would indeed be a World Record, just not recognized by IAAF. T&FN recognizes many WRs that the IAAF has no listing of.
    Not at all. Look where it says "World Records as ratified by the IAAF"
    Those are the IAAF WRs. There are other, 100% legit WRs . . .300m, 600m, SMR . . . just because the IAAF doesn't 'recognize' them doesn't mean they don't exist. I suppose the 'purist' thing to do is call them WBs (World Bests), but that's a distinction, not a difference. When T&FN 'certifies' a WB, it means it has the same statistical significance as a WR, just no dope-testing, which we have seen, time and time again, means virtually NOTHING.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Marlow
    It would indeed be a World Record, just not recognized by IAAF. T&FN recognizes many WRs that the IAAF has no listing of.
    Not at all. Look here where it says "World Records as ratified by the IAAF"

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Re: Chi Cheng

    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by Marlow
    A big meet should put a camera at the 100y mark and 'get' a WR.
    It's no longer an officially recognized event, so it wouldn't be a WR. They could just as well put a camera at the 77.5 meter point and claim the world record for that distance.
    It would indeed be a World Record, just not recognized by IAAF. T&FN recognizes many WRs that the IAAF has no listing of.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X