Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multiple Finish Lines

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Multiple Finish Lines

    If you go to the link below, and perhaps monkey with the controls some, you'll see the homestretch at Stanford's Angell Field. The photo is probably from the 1930s or 1940s, and looks toward the 220y straight start and the football stadium.
    https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/wd966cz1041

    Both the track and the football stadium were then in the same locations as today's corresponding facilities, and the alignment of the track oval is identical to today's or very nearly so.


    I'm wondering why there are two (2) separate finish lines, each with posts for the finish tape and stands for the timers. It cannot be to accommodate the 110m or 120y hurdles, because they've got plenty of straightaway, indeed, enough for the 220y straight race, thus not requiring a non-standard placement of the finish line like some old European stadiums do because of the 110H. Even the finish line farthest away from the sprint start area isn't quite all the way to the end of the straight.

    I have some guesses, but I'm not at all sure any are correct. I have also heard that Edwards Stadium at Cal used to have multiple finish lines.

    So, can anyone figure out why Stanford had the 2 finish lines as shown in the old photo?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Charley Shaffer View Post

    So, can anyone figure out why Stanford had the 2 finish lines as shown in the old photo?
    Obviously, the four guys at the finish line are arguing about who's going to take the blame for failing to delete the incorrect finish line from the plans!

    If that's not persuasive, I would say that a 1930's track maintenance team would recommend that the 100yds start be pushed back before the circular lanes so that sprinters could dig holes to their heart's content and also allow necessary repairs to be undertaken without holding up circular races.

    Note also that they have a third finish line at the 220s start as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by El Toro View Post
      Obviously, the four guys at the finish line are arguing about who's going to take the blame for failing to delete the incorrect finish line from the plans!

      If that's not persuasive, I would say that a 1930's track maintenance team would recommend that the 100yds start be pushed back before the circular lanes so that sprinters could dig holes to their heart's content and also allow necessary repairs to be undertaken without holding up circular races.

      Note also that they have a third finish line at the 220s start as well.
      You were persuasive; that's a good theory that I hadn't thought of. However, a subsequent inspection of an aerial photo from 1948 reveals that even the finish line farther from the camera isn't far enough back toward the 100y start area to get those holes off of the oval (all 3 finish lines and timing stands can be seen). BTW, the pre-synthetic configuration of Angell Field had considerably longer straights than today's 84.39m--it looks like they were 110y to 120y, and 100y back from the start area that is more distant in the photo would put the start in the last portion of the curve, and not quite out of the way. One would need yet another finish line 10y to 13y further back to get the starting holes off the oval.

      I assume that the finish line at the 220y curve start is in case they needed to run races "backwards" to avoid headwinds.

      Comment


      • #4
        Back in those days, weren't a lot of lap races run with the start/finish in the middle of the straight, rather than aligned with the common finish line at the end of the straight?

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, they were.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Charley Shaffer View Post
            I'm wondering why there are two (2) separate finish lines, each with posts for the finish tape and stands for the timers. ...
            So, can anyone figure out why Stanford had the 2 finish lines as shown in the old photo?
            I believe those are starting lines, not finish lines, since they are curved. There are timer stands for the timers to observe the start, after which they would walk to the other side of the track (probably grumbling all the way about the enforced exercise) to get the finish.

            If I assume that this is a 440y track with a mid-straight finish, these lines are in about the right place for 5000m and 3000m starts, but it's hard to tell without other markings.
            Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wamego relays champ View Post
              Back in those days, weren't a lot of lap races run with the start/finish in the middle of the straight, rather than aligned with the common finish line at the end of the straight?
              From what my parents(!) say that was the norm in the UK as well. I can see some advantage in having the 880/mile/2miles etc starting on a straight rather than at the start of the bend/curve.

              Comment


              • #8
                From the 1948 aerial photo on Google Earth Historical Imagery, which is scalable, it appears that the finish line nearest to the camera in the old still photo was necessary to fit in the 220y straight race. However, that 220y straight finish line was past the end of the stands, so all the other races probably finished at the other finish line, which, while not centered, was in front of the seating area.

                Note that neither finish line is at the end of the home straight, as is the standard arrangement these days. As several have noted, in the 1960s and earlier it was not at all uncommon to have most races finish along the straight, even in the middle of it.
                Last edited by Charley Shaffer; 08-25-2019, 08:34 PM. Reason: Clarity

                Comment


                • #9
                  I vote with Warmego relays Champ and DoubleRBar that the timer stands are for finish lines not starting lines and the one at end of straightaway was for the 100 yd and 120 yd HH finish lines. The timer stands in the more middle of track was for all of the distance races (440,880,mile, etc). I ran not quite in the 30's but more like the 50's and 60's and we always finished in the middle of the track for 880 yds and mile races. Sometimes we would begin the 880yd at the far end of the 220 yard start and have to run only three turns and finish at end of straightway on opposite side of track.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There are several problems going on here, the first of which has little to do with track and everything to do with cameras and lenses. Kuha, where are you these days?! Your expertise is required!!

                    From my understanding and limited experience, this photo of Angell Field appears to have been taken with a wide-angle lens, which creates an interesting set of problems. People using old cameras with a wide-angle lens may notice one of two forms of distortion at the left and right edges. If there are straight lines, they often will appear to be curved.

                    A second distortion is commonly seen today with the use of cell phone cameras for taking group photos in which the figures at the edges appear to be considerably broader than in real life. People have often noticed that If you want to look as slender as you believe yourself to be, stand near the center of the group, at the focal point. If you stand to the sides, you’ll want yourself cropped out of the photo, as you appear much broader than you know yourself to be! The curvature and broadening at the photo edges are merely two aspects of the same distortion.

                    This photo of Angell Field, probably from the 1930s or early ‘40s, if taken with a wide angle lens, has created the perception of curved lines on the track. I believe this is the distortion, and the finish judges stands at the three lines on the track (two in the foreground homestretch of the track, one in the background backstretch) would confirm this. There was no need of a second marker outside the track to indicate a starting line, but there was the need for a finish line so a finish yarn could be stretch above the finish line between the two markers.

                    Another distortion of a wide-angle lens is the foreshortening of the background. The 220y track, I believe stretches back from the oval a good bit farther than one is led to believe. And yes, Angell Field was of similar construction to most American tracks built before the switch to the metric system in the late 1970s, that is, of close to equal segments of 110 yard on the straights and 110 yards on the curves. The length of the straight beyond the oval is most likely considerably longer than it appears.

                    A final example of the same distortion is evidenced by the broad jump runway on homestretch side of the infield. This runway runs parallel to the track, not angling away from the track as the distortion represents.

                    The stands at each of the three lines on the track are judges stands, not for the timers. In fact, if timers were to be working a one-turn 440y or three-turn 880y, the would have been either at the finish (and well away from the start), somewhere between the two points, or where the gun was fired but in position to move immediately to the finish. They would not place themselves on a stand from which they had to climb down.

                    As for the location of the judges stands, the backstretch stand is for the finish of a one-turn 440y and a three-turn 880y. The two homestretch judges stands most likely are for the finishes of the 100y and 120y Hurdles. I believe this to be the case based on the placement of the hurdles to the outside of the track, with the 10th set for the 120y Hurdles placed between the two finish lines, ready to be put on the track the required 15 yards before the 120y Hurdle finish.

                    A common placement of these finishes on old tracks would allow for the starting holes to be dug away from the curve of the track so as not to have holes dug on the turn. However, turn races at this time would seldom (never?) have been run in lanes, so holes dug in lanes 3-8 seldom would not have interfered with a 3-turn 880y or with a longer race.

                    One of these finish lines would also have been used as the common finish for the mile and two-mile runs, more likely the 100y finish as it was closer to the midpoint of the straight as was common at the time.

                    What is not seen in this photo is a finish line for the 220y and 220y Hurdles. Is this finish line obscured by the foreground trees, or is it possible that the foreshortening of a wide-angle lens distorts our view of the length of the straight so much that the 220y finish is actually the bottom finish line, the one I mention earlier as being the likely 120y Hurdle finish?

                    What we really need is further photographic evidence. And Kuha!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Those are finish line timer stands..one on opposite corners of track for wind direction. Timers started watches on smoke from starters gun.. did not have to be near starter.
                      It is not apparent to me why two finish lines on same side since any distance could be accommodated by moving starting line.
                      We are simply looking up/down track towards the 220 yard extension which could have finished at either finish line.
                      Last edited by lonewolf; 08-26-2019, 04:39 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree with dj that those have to be finish lines, and that lines that appear curved may not have been in reality. There is perhaps only one other photo in the university's archives that might shed light on the configuration at Angell, and it is here:
                        https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/yd101qp6148

                        I believe that it is from the 1940s, as Hoover Tower wasn't completed until 1941, and I couldn't spot any 1950s automobile models. One can see 2 start lines, for the 100y and the 120yH races. One can also see the 2 finish lines, and see that the 100y race in progress is going to finish at the finish line more toward the middle of the straightaway. There are no other finish line positions on the home straight.

                        I'm maintaining for now that the finish line closer to the beginning of Turn 1 was for the 220y straight race only, and that the one closer to the center of the straight was used for all other distances.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just some more info.

                          The track was fully refurbished for $25,000 prior to its dedication as Angell Field on March 13, 1935.

                          I strongly suspect that this photo was taken by the university to document its brand new track in early 1935, given the repair or final track building observable on the facility.

                          This view is strengthened due to the only three photos digitised including an alternative angle of the shot put circle on the same day
                          https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/nm897qz6104

                          and a photo and text of the reconstruction
                          https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/zq099ht9553

                          Incidentally, the appearance of "L" shaped hurdles also date the photo to 1935 or later.

                          The track width was designed for "ten sprinters or 6 hurdlers" according to the text attached to the second photo linked.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Charley Shaffer got his post in while I was still typing mine.

                            Interesting that the track shown on his link doesn't have 10 lanes, as proposed, only 6. It also has bleachers while the original photo has none. The bleachers also cover the shot put facility outside of, and parallel to, the back straight that is visible in the first photo.

                            The height of the trees on the back straight in the competition photo indicates quite a few years of growth if taken after the first photo.

                            The above strenghthens my view that the original photo was c.1935 documenting the new track.

                            Also note that in my post above, the collection of 3 photos, came grouped under "Athletic facilities, Angell Field" and were the ony search results returned. Some alternative, track related search terms might produce more results.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X