Indoor Track Indexing


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby gh » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:30 am

Now posted to the front page: links to the two articles we ran on the subject in the December and January editions.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby gh » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:27 pm

also posted now: response from an NCAA coach on the committee.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby tandfman » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:16 pm

Also on the front page now, hepstrack.com weighing in on the subject (and calling the NCAA's indexing "junk science").
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby j-a-m » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:28 am

Doesn't the way this indexing has been done also devalue conference championships?

The argument would go like this: Conference championship are on a banked 200 track, many good 200m runners end up on inside lanes, therefore run slower than their potential. So the next week they go to a last chance meet where they run either on the outside lane of a banked track or on an oversized track. As a result, last chance meets become more important than conference championships.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby decafan » Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:01 am

j-a-m wrote:Doesn't the way this indexing has been done also devalue conference championships?

The argument would go like this: Conference championship are on a banked 200 track, many good 200m runners end up on inside lanes, therefore run slower than their potential. So the next week they go to a last chance meet where they run either on the outside lane of a banked track or on an oversized track. As a result, last chance meets become more important than conference championships.


You bring up two very good points. 1. The 200m is never a fair fight on a 200m track, regardless of indexing. Lane draw is everything. The 200m should not be a championship event IMO for that reason. 2. The fact that so many Indoor NCAA Championship competitors are determined in last chance meets tells us there was a real need to make an indexing adjustment. Yes, I understand there are many, many variables that contribute to this point, but the fact that so few athletes qualify in the track events from a 200m flat track, when most schools have 200m flat tracks is a sizable elephant in the room to ignore. If it were up to me, you would ONLY be able to qualify for track events from 200m tracks. What is wrong with having a clear distinction between indoor and outdoor track?
decafan
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:20 pm

What is wrong is that racing on 200m track is injurious to some runners, even distance runners.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby decafan » Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:47 pm

26mi235 wrote:What is wrong is that racing on 200m track is injurious to some runners, even distance runners.


Really? That is quite a claim. Please submit one shred of empirical data that supports your statement and we can then debate the merits of ending indoor track and field altogether.
decafan
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:53 pm

decafan wrote:
26mi235 wrote:What is wrong is that racing on 200m track is injurious to some runners, even distance runners.


Really? That is quite a claim. Please submit one shred of empirical data that supports your statement and we can then debate the merits of ending indoor track and field altogether.


Stuart Eagon (Wisconsin)

Actually, it is not uncommon for the coach to hold a number of the distance runners back in the indoor season because of the high stress of racing indoors (they cannot always run on Arkansas' 200B or Washington's 300+.

Given that I know a number of runners from the modest set I am familiar with, I am almost stunned that you think that there is not a shred of evidence on this.

I am not sure that those 200 and 400 guys are particularly thrilled about running a bunch of races on Flat 200s.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby decafan » Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:07 pm

26mi235 wrote:
decafan wrote:
26mi235 wrote:What is wrong is that racing on 200m track is injurious to some runners, even distance runners.


Really? That is quite a claim. Please submit one shred of empirical data that supports your statement and we can then debate the merits of ending indoor track and field altogether.


Stuart Eagon (Wisconsin)

Actually, it is not uncommon for the coach to hold a number of the distance runners back in the indoor season because of the high stress of racing indoors (they cannot always run on Arkansas' 200B or Washington's 300+.

Given that I know a number of runners from the modest set I am familiar with, I am almost stunned that you think that there is not a shred of evidence on this.

I am not sure that those 200 and 400 guys are particularly thrilled about running a bunch of races on Flat 200s.


OK, so no empirical evidence... Anecdotal evidence is a pretty slippery slope, my friend.
decafan
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:05 pm

Wrong reference point - you are not looking at an 'experiment' and cannot use that reference point for evaluation. In fact, you almost have to flip the Ho/evidence for alternative in this sort of case. Maybe you ought to talk with a lot of coaches.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby decafan » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:18 am

26mi235 wrote:Wrong reference point - you are not looking at an 'experiment' and cannot use that reference point for evaluation. In fact, you almost have to flip the Ho/evidence for alternative in this sort of case. Maybe you ought to talk with a lot of coaches.


You have no control group to know whether or not Stuart would have been injured outdoors if he had trained through indoors. There were many factors that lead to his injuries in college and it is ridiculous to blame it all on indoor track. Perhaps I should talk with myself- considering I have loads of experience as a athlete, and even more as a collegiate coach. Collegiate athletes that kick ass indoors have a tendency to kick ass outdoors. Athletes that get injured indoors tend to be the same ones that get injured outdoors. "Everybody knows" might mean something to you and even some of my peers, but it doesn't mean much to me. It doesn't mean much to Pat Henry or Vin Lananna. Pull the data and give me something I can use. BTW, I would be very interested in the correlation between kicking ass in cross country and being injured for outdoor track. Pull that data too if you have the time.
decafan
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:02 pm

You really do not get it do you:

Please submit one shred of empirical data that supports your statement a


Anecdotes count as 'shreds'. Now you are wanting me to provide studies that indicate that your universal claim, absolutely unsupported, is not correct. That is what I meant by 'reference point'. You made a claim, back it up with something more than assertion, especially since you now how something you claimed did not exist facing you to overcome.

Both he and his coach were of the same opinion, and somehow a coach of his stature is vastly more impressive to me than your unsupported statement -- that coach being Jerry Schumacher.

["Jerry Schumacher is an American coach for the sport of track and field, specializing in distance running. He has coached Olympic bronze medalist and the American women's 10k record holder Shalane Flanagan, the former men's American 10k record holder Chris Solinsky, the men's American two mile record holder Matt Tegenkamp, and the women's NCAA 10k record holder Lisa Koll. Prior to 2008 he was the head coach of the University of Wisconsin–Madison track and field team.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Schumacher]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby decafan » Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:16 pm

26mi235 wrote:You really do not get it do you:

Please submit one shred of empirical data that supports your statement a


Anecdotes count as 'shreds'. Now you are wanting me to provide studies that indicate that your universal claim, absolutely unsupported, is not correct. That is what I meant by 'reference point'. You made a claim, back it up with something more than assertion, especially since you now how something you claimed did not exist facing you to overcome.

Both he and his coach were of the same opinion, and somehow a coach of his stature is vastly more impressive to me than your unsupported statement -- that coach being Jerry Schumacher.

["Jerry Schumacher is an American coach for the sport of track and field, specializing in distance running. He has coached Olympic bronze medalist and the American women's 10k record holder Shalane Flanagan, the former men's American 10k record holder Chris Solinsky, the men's American two mile record holder Matt Tegenkamp, and the women's NCAA 10k record holder Lisa Koll. Prior to 2008 he was the head coach of the University of Wisconsin–Madison track and field team.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Schumacher]


I admit it. I'm lost. What statement do you feel I have made beyond requesting you back up your original claim with data? You claimed that everyone knows that indoor tracks hurt athletes. I challenged that assertion and asked for data to back the claim. You gave a name of one athlete you believe was hurt by indoor track. I rejected your anecdotal evidence and asked for real data. You then gave me coach Jerry Schumacher and his opinion Stuart was hurt by indoor track (more anecdotal evidence), and then oddly pasted his wiki bio. I know Jerry personally, btw. No wiki info needed. You claim I have made an unsupported statement. My only statement in regards to you is that I reject your assertion that everyone knows indoor tracks hurt athletes. I have never seen supporting data for that claim. It is possible that you are correct, but I am not someone who just blindly accepts statements that can easily be proved or disproved with hard data. You made the claim. I am just asking you to back it up.
decafan
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:43 pm

This is silly: First (and most importantly), by having the prior posts slip out of view on page 1 of the thread I am the one that probably led us down that road because your prior post is one that I agree with you on essentially everything. I too think that we will see more of a balance in the qualifying facility, which will make things more fair.

Second, I had began with the quote below and your response was about a scintilla of evidence. I did not say that all runners get injured because of running/racing on indoor tracks just that some do. I had proved my point [some runners] with my example(s) and then you wanted me to provide studies; if I claimed 50% or 20% or 10% or some other non-trivial number, maybe, but it was a limited statement:

What is wrong is that racing on 200m track is injurious to some runners, even distance runners.


As another anecdote, the track on the drawing board at Wisconsin (but far from any further action as far as i know) is for a banked 200m track that is 'pneumatic' (can be raised, in general is flat) with another several lanes outside Lane 6 so that the outer circumference is close to 300m so that it is much easier to run on for training. I do not know how definitive this is and as far as I know it is not an active project at all but does tell us about what the coaches and athletes at Wisconsin think.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:04 pm

There is a thread on LetsRun asking for some wide-radius 200m tracks. I am not sure what the variation is from the standard, since the straight is not that long as is.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:28 pm

26mi235 wrote:There is a thread on LetsRun asking for some wide-radius 200m tracks. I am not sure what the variation is from the standard, since the straight is not that long as is.


How about a 200 meter circle? What could be wider than that?

By the way, my high school's old indoor 'track' when I was there was a 80 yard circle in a basement room. 22 laps to the mile.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby repmujhgih » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:53 pm

Texas Tech's Indoor track is a 220m Circle. Some do not like it because you are on a constant turn, but it is not sharp in the least so you are able to get into a routine and maintain it. People tend to run fast times on that track, but it is hard for them to get big competition to come in due to no major competitions run on that style of track.
repmujhgih
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:34 pm

A 220m track has half circles of 110m, which is about what a standard track gives. The IAAF has a restriction on acceptable tracks: A radius of 50m for performance a lane to be used for qualifying or records. Few indoor tracks could fall outside that unless they are large and almost circular; e.g., 300m circle would be 48 meters, so only the first two lanes would be acceptable.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby Bruce Kritzler » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:46 pm

repmujhgih wrote:Texas Tech's Indoor track is a 220m Circle. Some do not like it because you are on a constant turn, but it is not sharp in the least so you are able to get into a routine and maintain it. People tend to run fast times on that track, but it is hard for them to get big competition to come in due to no major competitions run on that style of track.


Believe that Texas Tech's track is 232m.
It is fast, as guys have run 45.+ on it.
Bruce Kritzler
 
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Indoor Track Indexing

Postby repmujhgih » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:19 pm

Bruce Kritzler wrote:Believe that Texas Tech's track is 232m.


That's right, 232 meters. I was a jumper and couldn't remember for sure. I just remember watching a lot of fast times on it from Tech athletes as well as other schools that were there.
repmujhgih
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DoubleRBar, Google [Bot], rsb2 and 18 guests