What has happened the blistering times we used to see in the men's and women's 200m. According to my stats only 8 guys have gone under 20 seconds since 2000, and other than Marion Jones what woman has gone under 22 seconds since 2000.
Yeah. I've noticed the same thing. On the women's side, people are medalling in major championships with 22.3s and 22.4s, times that would have barely gotten them out of semi-final rounds in the 90s.
Maybe it's specialization? Everyone's focusing on the 100 or the 400?
I suspect you can credit/blame the Golden League for a lot of that. I don't what happened in 2000 and earlier, but I can tell you that for 01, 02, 03 the 100m has been a Golden League event (both sexes). That means that all the truly significant invitationals are spending their sprint money on the 100, not the 200. With Michael gone, can you blame them?
Based on some of the trash-talk wars we've seen among the male sprinters the last couple of years, I would posit that the 200 is viewed as an event where you can try to pick up a medal at the WC/OG if you have the chance, but in terms of being the man, you've got to go for the 100.
Am I in an absolute minority here when I say that there is something very unsettling about the whole 200 around a turn? I am really not that keen on the race. I think it was a better event when it was run on a straight track. Yes I know it is no longer possible. My question is where are the Peter Normans, Kederis and Mallards of the 100? I mean nobody comes out of nowhere and runs a 9.85.
"According to my stats only 8 guys have gone under 20 seconds since 2000"
Sub 20 is FAST. Note that 19.85 puts you in the top ten list All Time. 2 guys (Crawford and Keteris) moved into the top ten last year, and Chapel in 2000. I don't see a drop. Last year was an "off" year w/no WC or Olympics, and still 2 guys ran 19.85. Note that pre-MJ anything under 20 was screaming - under 19.9 was very rare.
>Am I in an absolute minority here when I say that
>there is something very unsettling about the
>whole 200 around a turn? I am really not that
>keen on the race. I think it was a better event
>when it was run on a straight track. Yes I know
>it is no longer possible.>>
Never having seen a 200 on the straight (gee, maybe I'm not that old!), I can't say whether or not it was better, but it certainly couldn't be any worse. I agree with you that it's not a very good race. Even with a very experienced eye, it's hard to tell (other than the leader) who is where for most of the race. And other than the occasional glitch like Coby Miller's 20.01 out of lane 1 in Lausanne a coupla weeks back, anybody who is in 1 or 2 might as well just give up (as Maurice did in the USATF final, not even showing).
Of course, if you've ever been to a World Indoor and watched that version of the 200 it's even more ludicrous. In dozens of races through the rounds in Birmingham this year, it was the rare race where the runners didn't come across the line in a perfect diagonal from lane 6 in. There's a race that should definitely be scrapped. Either that or run it as a series of time-trials with everybody getting 6.
ps--while I never ran 200 on the straight, the first time I ever ran a half-lapper (a 220, actually) it was run center-to-center. Imagine what that did to the guy in lane 8!
>>Of course, if you've ever been to a World Indoor and watched that version of the 200 it's even more ludicrous. In dozens of races through the rounds in Birmingham this year, it was the rare race where the runners didn't come across the line in a perfect diagonal from lane 6 in. There's a race that should definitely be scrapped. Either that or run it as a series of time-trials with everybody getting 6.<
Well, if you're going to do a time trial, you might as well put everyone in lane 1 and not have to worry about lane encroachment, which can be a big problem in the indoor 200. Of course, you'd then have to create a new record for the event. Scrapping it is a much better idea.
Its pretty simple ... Track is now a money sport ... Athletes run where tehy can make the most money .. IAAF has taken the money out of the 200 so there goes the incentive ... Everyone focuses on the 100 to try to get paid ... Kenteris is fortunate that his govt pays him to run the deuce ... So he can focus on it ... EVeryone else plays the money chasing game in the 100 ...
I completely disagree with those of you who think the 200m is less exciting than the 100m. The 200m has the drama of the turn and gives us exciting comebacks. The 100m is over too quick for non track fans to relate to. We have had some great 200m matchups over the past few years. In 96 we had the drama of Carl Lewis against MJ and in 2000 MJ against Mo. This year and next years 200m will be very exciting. Can Kenteris beat the odds and win again? Can the Americans make up for their recent championship failures?
Is the new false start rule really affecting sprint times? This could be verified by comparing reaction times this year to those of previous years........ I haven't specifically been paying attention to this but I doubt that there is much of a significant difference this year... it certainly hasn't jumped out at me anyway.