Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liquori vs. Ryun in Cross Country?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • eldrick
    replied
    well, you maybe the only one here who wants to call a 9.69 guy a "9.7 guy"

    i've never heard anyone else nomenclaturally downgrade what someone actually clocked...

    Leave a comment:


  • lovetorun
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    eh ?

    he's run 9.69

    that makes him a 9.6 guy in common usuage, not a 10s guy as who on earth rounds 100m times to whole seconds ?!

    & 0.01s makes a helluva lotta difference in 800m as well - ask kipketer on 7th july '97

    & 0.01s makes a helluva lotta difference in 5000m as well - ask aouita in '85
    The "9.6 guy in common usage" thing should not be common usage is my point...either say he is a 9.7 guy (round up) or just give the whole time since hundrenth make a difference in the 100m

    Leave a comment:


  • dj
    replied
    Originally posted by Halfmiler2
    I was under the impression that freshman became eligible to run varsity for the first time during the 1971-72 academic year which just happened to be my freshman year. I do know that Liquori ran the Freshman 4x400 at Penn Relays in 1968 because he could not run varsity and won his first of many Penn Relays watches at the collegiate level. So I would guess he also could not run varsity cross country in 1967. By the way, the Freshman 4x400 at Penn was run for the last time in 1972 - I know because I ran in it..
    http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... ligibility

    Leave a comment:


  • Recdude
    replied
    Frosh could run varsity in 1969

    In cross country (I'm not sure about track), freshman could run varsity as early as 1969. Prefontaine had some great performances that Autumn of 1969 including a "dead heat" with Lindgren at the PAC 8 I think, and a third at the NCAA at Van Cortland.

    Leave a comment:


  • Halfmiler2
    replied
    Originally posted by dj
    I doubt they ever met in cross country. The only time they might have would have been at the NCAA champs. Ryun's cross country eligibility period would have been 1965-1969, Liquori's would have been 1967-1971.

    Liquori won the IC4A freshmen race in '67, but I don't think frosh were eligible in cross country that year, and only became eligible for track in the spring of '68.

    Both were on the '68 Olympic team, so I'm fairly certain they redshirted. That leaves only '69, and I see no mention of Liquori running cross country that year (as per the New York Times, which would have been a good source as both the IC4A and NCAA meets were held at Van Cortlandt Park that year).

    As far as I know for certain, Liquori competed in CC only in '67 as a frosh and '71 as a senior (as prep for his 1972 Olympic campaign).
    I was under the impression that freshman became eligible to run varsity for the first time during the 1971-72 academic year which just happened to be my freshman year. I do know that Liquori ran the Freshman 4x400 at Penn Relays in 1968 because he could not run varsity and won his first of many Penn Relays watches at the collegiate level. So I would guess he also could not run varsity cross country in 1967. By the way, the Freshman 4x400 at Penn was run for the last time in 1972 - I know because I ran in it.

    As to Cross Country, I know Liquori did run it in 1971 and Villanova finished in the top three or four. But Ryun had graduated by then, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    eh ?

    he's run 9.69

    that makes him a 9.6 guy in common usuage, not a 10s guy as who on earth rounds 100m times to whole seconds ?!

    & 0.01s makes a helluva lotta difference in 800m as well - ask kipketer on 7th july '97

    & 0.01s makes a helluva lotta difference in 5000m as well - ask aouita in '85

    Leave a comment:


  • lovetorun
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    Originally posted by lovetorun
    Originally posted by ed gee
    Lomong placed 5th in the 800 at USATF the June following a fourth at NCAA XC.

    Webb was 11th in '01 NCAA XC and has run 1:43 for 800.
    It would be more accurate to say Webb ran a 1:44 800m than to say 1:43 since 1:43.84 is closer to 1:44. I know...picky, picky, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
    & 9.69 is closer to 10 than 9, so that makes bolt a 10sec guy ?

    Eldrick.....no, you would call him a 9.69 guy...partly because even hundrenth makes a difference in a 100m sprint...

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by ed gee
    Lomong placed 5th in the 800 at USATF the June following a fourth at NCAA XC.

    Webb was 11th in '01 NCAA XC and has run 1:43 for 800.

    Steve Lacey 5th in 1978.

    (sic?)

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    term -wise, we tend to use "low", "mid" & "high" as a a qualifier for a second time

    logically, those have to be 0.33s ranges, so i'd go with

    low-1'43 = 1'43.01 - 1'43.33
    mid-1'43 = 1'43.33 - 1'43.66
    high-1'43 = 1'43.66 - 1'43.99

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by lovetorun
    Originally posted by ed gee
    Lomong placed 5th in the 800 at USATF the June following a fourth at NCAA XC.

    Webb was 11th in '01 NCAA XC and has run 1:43 for 800.
    It would be more accurate to say Webb ran a 1:44 800m than to say 1:43 since 1:43.84 is closer to 1:44. I know...picky, picky, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
    & 9.69 is closer to 10 than 9, so that makes bolt a 10sec guy ?!

    webb's run is 1'43, as the sec digits showed 1'43 & not 1'44

    besides, it's academic, as that was far from an ideal 800 for him, something like 50/53.8, which was way too fast an opening lap for him considering his basic 400 speed ( i'd imagine he was about mid-47 at the time )

    if he'd been dragged out in a more sensible 51s, he wouda almost certainly come back much quicker & my gut tells me ~ 1'43.25 - 1'43.5

    webb most certainly was a 1'43 guy & low end of that morally

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    If normal baseball fans don't talk in decimals, how do they express ERA's (or don't they)?
    Baseball fans, as opposed to FANS, that I have met seem to be fine with the numbers.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    If normal baseball fans don't talk in decimals, how do they express ERA's (or don't they)?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    you're talking FANS, I'm talking fans. I stand by my stance that the "normal" baseball fan does not talk in decimals as a normal matter of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    All baseball fans understand batting averages, which are normally discussed to the thousandth. Also ERA, which is in the hundredth. More stat-conscious fans have a plethora of more obscure and detailed stats to work with. The point is that even general US sports fans are able to do math to the hundredth or thousandth.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re baseball: only the geekiest of geeks know batting average to 1000ths (the equivalent of our decimals). Maybe even 100ths are obscure.

    Saying "300 hitter" suffices for the average fan for everything from 300 through what, 330?

    And pitchers, methinks, are 20-game winners for a long time, then they become 25-game winners.

    That's the lingua franca.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X