Clueless writing about our sport

[kuha]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The bouncing ball bearing only makes sense off a solid surface, as ALL current tracks are. Off a non-solid surface, it becomes an apples-and-oranges comparison, since there would probably be no "bounce" whatever.

Um . . . isn't that my point? The human body does indeed 'rebound' off a track's surface, so its 'return' characteristics are extremely relevant. When you run on a cinder/dirt track you do NOT get the same return for your effort that you get off a synthetic track. It's pretty basic physics. When you push off cinder/dirt, there's residue kicked up behind you. That is a 'loss' of traction AND energy. There is no such loss on synthetic.

We all know there is a difference, but the bouncing ball bearing is NOT any reasonable way to determine what that difference might actually be between "natural" and "all-weather" surfaces. The mechanics of running is not parallel to a solid metal ball falling straight down on a surface. By your measure, all pre-synthetic tracks were basically the same as running in loose sand, which is obviously not true. To repeat: the best cinder and cinder/clay tracks were very fine running surfaces. I can't quantify "very fine" but neither can anyone else.

[Jackaloupe]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The mechanics of running is not parallel to a solid metal ball falling straight down on a surface.

First off, here's the flaw in your quasi-scientific logic: Direction of "rebound" is irrelevant, as that characteristic of synthetic tracks is omni-directional, if you will. Granted, the bouncing ball only measures--and only needs to--rebound in a single direction. Any application of shoe and spike will similarly rebound in whatever direction it's applied (any force can be broken down into directional components, by angle).
Adding in Marlow's "traction" simply means that return of energy is more efficient, i.e. little if any slippage, as could happen w/ cinders, esp. at the start, where force is greatest. Hey, I even had my entire starting hole give way in the NJ State Meet, 180 Low Hurdles final; still won;~)

So, which is it? Wanna bring in Science, w/ yer own "twist", or revert to the subjective experience?
I can go either way.

[kuha]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The mechanics of running is not parallel to a solid metal ball falling straight down on a surface.

First off, here's the flaw in your quasi-scientific logic: Direction of "rebound" is irrelevant, as that characteristic of synthetic tracks is omni-directional, if you will. Granted, the bouncing ball only measures--and only needs to--rebound in a single direction. Any application of shoe and spike will similarly rebound in whatever direction it's applied (any force can be broken down into directional components, by angle).
Adding in Marlow's "traction" simply means that return of energy is more efficient, i.e. little if any slippage, as could happen w/ cinders, esp. at the start, where force is greatest. Hey, I even had my entire starting hole give way in the NJ State Meet, 180 Low Hurdles final; still won;~)

So, which is it? Wanna bring in Science, w/ yer own "twist", or revert to the subjective experience?
I can go either way.

:?

So, if you are actually attempting to respond to my posts, you apparently you think you CAN quantify the difference between a very fine cinder or cinder/clay surface and an all-weather surface? Fine: do it.

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The mechanics of running is not parallel to a solid metal ball falling straight down on a surface. By your measure, all pre-synthetic tracks were basically the same as running in loose sand, which is obviously not true. To repeat: the best cinder and cinder/clay tracks were very fine running surfaces. I can't quantify "very fine" but neither can anyone else.

OK, first all, I HATE arguing against you, cuz you're one the select ultra-good-guys here, but . . . :twisted: . . . I'll soldier on anyway.
The human body running is actually VERY similar to "a solid metal ball falling straight down on surface" because of the rebound components of human locomotive propulsion. Also, your reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy (no, I did not liken it to running in loose sand) doesn't fly. I'm going to guess your perspective is heavily informed by yesteryear rose-colored glasses, but no, the dirt/cinder tracks were NOwhere near as running-efficient as today's are. I do, however, agree that an attempt to quantify it is too replete with variables to make an educated guess. On the other hand, anecdotally, I (think I) see about a .1 and .2 difference between the two historically. Hayes' 10.06 in Tokyo (esp. from a chewed-up Lane 1) MUST have been AT LEAST 9.8x on Mondo!

[kuha]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The human body running is actually VERY similar to "a solid metal ball falling straight down on surface"...but no, the dirt/cinder tracks were NOwhere near as running-efficient as today's are….I do, however, agree that an attempt to quantify it is too replete with variables to make an educated guess.

Chasing rabbits down rabbit holes…

I honestly do not agree with the first statement, at least as stated here; there's much more nuance to it than a single measure of instantaneous rebound. We ALL AGREE on the basics of the second statement here--the point of has always been HOW MUCH difference there actually is. And, thank you for agreeing with my larger point above: we cannot quantify the difference, no matter how many steel balls we may be chucking about.

So, I repeat: a superb cinder or cinder/clay track was a very fine running surface.

[Jackaloupe]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

So, if you are actually attempting to respond to my posts, you apparently you think you CAN quantify the difference between a very fine cinder or cinder/clay surface and an all-weather surface? Fine: do it.
kuha

Why? I leave that to the Manufacturers. Besides, it's a fait accompli that synthetic tracks are here to stay--possibly more for the so-called All Weather factor, along w/ lower maintenance than the actual performance advantage, which also facilitates better shoes (Long spikes are heavier and entail more friction loss each stride).

I was responding to your selective, often misstated, citations of what boils down to Basic Physics. Glad Marlow took on that absurd "reductio", where you put those sandy words in his mouth.

I've limited my personal observations to just a few, but I did get to run on early synthetics, which were often too hard. From my experience w/ springy board tracks and jumping surfaces (Madison Sq. Garden, Philadelphia Inquirer and Franklin Field's Spike Shoe Meet w/ Indoor Track laid down on the infield), I suspect I would've done a lot better w/ the 42" High Hurdles. I was right behind George Hearn, in 6.3 (ht) when he set a Nat'l HS Record for 50 yd. HH, but had stride trouble on cinders, even w/ HS 39" hurdles. Only on LA Coliseum grass could I even crack 16 seconds at USC.
So I do know the positive effect of "rebound".

[lonewolf]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

[So, I repeat: a superb cinder or cinder/clay track was a very fine running surface.

That may well be but in 70 years of T&F I don't recall ever seeing a "superb" cinder/clay track.
I could certainly discern that some non-synthetic tracks were better than other non-synthetic tracks and was happy to run on them but, imo, the worst synthetic track is superior to the best non-synthetic track. No attempt to quantify or calculate percentage of efficiency, they are just better.

[kuha]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

(Long spikes are heavier and entail more friction loss each stride).

:shock:

I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but good luck!

[Marlow]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

And, thank you for agreeing with my larger point above: we cannot quantify the difference, no matter how many steel balls we may be chucking about.

You're welcome!

[mal]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I was fortunate / old enough to have run on a fantastic grass/cinders track, and fast cinders only track and a clay track with cinders mixed.

They were all fast for fast runners. However none of them gave back like an artificial track.

Apart from the postcard I found tartan the quickest for a sprinter.

[aaronk]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I was fortunate / old enough to have run on a fantastic grass/cinders track, and fast cinders only track and a clay track with cinders mixed.

They were all fast for fast runners. However none of them gave back like an artificial track.

Apart from the postcard I found tartan the quickest for a sprinter.

I ran on a religious track in high school!

It was very Hole-y!!! :lol: :lol:

[Jackaloupe]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

'm not sure who you are arguing with, but good luck!

I tossed in comments on Shoes/Spikes to indicate it's not the surface alone but all it facilitates, starting w/ lighter, more efficient footware--even if my 1955 Adidas were plenty light, compared to American shoes by Rawlings et al.

Don't need "luck" to rebut the specifics you were tossing out, starting w/ the notion that dropping a ball bearing had no bearing;~) on the argument (too unlike feet, right angle??), and on thru your putdown of "pseudo-science".

I'd sure hate to debate Evolution or Global Climate Change with you, no matter what side you took.

Glad the real expert/historians have weighed in w/ what we can only hope is the last word on this one.

[berkeley]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

Returning to the topic of this thread, even the EAA's official scribes are not immune, listing Sjoberg's ER at 2.43. I guess it could be a typo ...

http://www.european-athletics.org/news/ ... ml?cid=rss

[tandfman]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

I have to nominate the headline writer for this one, from NBC Sports:

http://olympictalk.nbcsports.com/2014/0 ... -olympics/

Yohan Blake, Lolo Jones beaten at Adidas GP; no high jump WR

With all of the impressive things happening at that meet, they focus on two who lost (one of whom wasn't remotely favored). Then they describe an absolutely amazing high jump competition by headlining not what happened, but what didn't happen.

The writer of the story deserves a shot, too, for reporting the high jump only in meters, making the height that they jumped as well as the world record meaningless to most American readers.

[cladthin]

Re: Clueless writing about our sport

The classic mainstream media focus on the FAILURE to set a record BS. I've never seen a write-up on a good FB or Basketball game where the lack of a record setting performance was part of the headline.