Doubtful timing

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

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby gh » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:01 pm

preston wrote:
gh wrote:Preston is a known shit-disturber who walks the fine line...

What an incredibly dishonest and sh**ty, thing to say. Trust me, I don't want your giant spoon.

dude/dudette: you makes your bed you sleeps in it.
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby kuha » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:24 pm

Well known to all but himself.
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby fasttrack85 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:00 pm

[quote]Preston wrote:
You can narrow your argument to NOW say "the elite of the elite" as opposed to "fast people" but the fact remains that fastest times tend to be outliers for a lot of prodigies. Darrel Brown, MLF, Dawn Sowell, D'Andre Hill? There are more athletes who peaked at early post teen than athletes who peaked beyond because of life (grad school, injuries, etc). Go look at One of the new additions is that they have the age at which athletes set their mark in brackets on the all time list. That means that for retired athletes, the number in brackets is the age at which they set their PB that sits on the all-time list. Of the top 50 women performers, fully 16 are on the list at age 23 or younger. Of the 56 men on the all-time list, fully 17 were aged 23 or younger. Also, its fairly well established that Lalova had a flier, but that doesn't mean she had less ability than the other women.

As for Li Xuemei. She ran 22.01. That correlates and is NOT a one-timer. And, the following year she ran 10.95. To fair-minded people that's as good as backing up the 10.79

Stop taking things so personal, I'm just saying your point doesn't hold water. And, for someone who suggests that their posts are placed through the rigors of logic, facts and relevance - such glaring omissions of your presonal mission statement points to the opposite. The fact that you won't accept that you're wrong and just say "my bad" tells me something extra.[/quote]

In my opinion the majority of the people being discussed here put themselves in " the elite of the elite" category if the performances in question were to actually hold up. Running 10.77(in Lalova case) just barely out your teen years and 10.79(in Xuimei case) also barely out your teen years in still air are beyond elite. All the examples you gave are people who ran good times for their age or peaked young. I am talking about people who ran some of the best times period(for any age and under any condition) and did it at young ages and never did it again. Darrel Brown breakthru performance was his 10.09 at age 17 which was very good but he had a 10.01 at age 18 and a 9.99 at age 20. Mark Lewis ran 10.04 at almost age 20 which is also very good good especially for a British sprinter and even though that was his best recorded time his performances in the subsequent years slowly tapered off instead of just plumetting.

to be continued......
Last edited by fasttrack85 on Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby fasttrack85 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:01 pm

If your peak is in the 10.7x you should be meandering around 10.8 for a while then 10.9 before you completely fall out of the sub 11 category in you are legit. I am pretty sure Ivet Lalova in a good sprinter especially considering that Bulgarians are not the first nation that pops into mind when thinking of elite 100 meter sprinters. However she is just not 10.77 good. As for Li Xuemei, I don't put much stock into people who only run good times on home soil under dubious conditions and represent dubious countries. Her peformance was at the Chinese games and fast times would have made every single athlete running look good. Lets face it countries like China have been known to do sketchy things when it comes to athletics. Falsifying ages of gymnasts in the Olympics etc. I wouldn't put it past them to rig up a good time for an athlete they want to look good on the world stage. Lets face it a Chinese female running 10.79 0.0 is a freakazoid performance and if you are a freakazoid of a Monday you should be a freakazoid on a Wednesday.

I scrutinize all extraordinary performance. Notice when VCB fixed her start in the indoor season in 2010 and brought her pb down to 7.00 her 100 dropped to 10.78 the same year. The next year it climbed to 10.76. Running 10.7x had becomed engrained in her muscle memory if she executed a good race by her standards. Shelly did 10.78 at 21 in Bejing and then did 10.79 and 10.73(both with practically no wind) the next year in Berlin then dropped 10.70 and 10.75 earlier this year. Kerron Stewart ran 10.75 twice in 2009. Once Carmelita ran 10.67 things were never the same for her again. She climbed all the way to 10.64 and then always manages to drop a couple fast times every year. Of course there is good ole Florence Joyner Griffith once she figured out how to run at mind blowing speeds I don't think she could run slow even if she tried.

I think I backed up my point b4 and I did now. I did not say it is not possible to peak young. However if you run times that are heading to the top of the list for your event then it is rare that is should be a one off. I could provide more examples all day but my fingers are getting tired.
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby preston » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Again, your self-described allegiance to logics and relevance falls down due to your over reliance on emotion. A few things:

1) all subseqent defenses have been dishonest. Why? Just look at your original post.
-You wondered about official recognition of marks that are regarded with suspicion citing 10.49 in QF and 47.60 on a triple witching track along with the ATL was illegal canard. You went on to talk about your own "brow raisers" citing Lalova and Li being barely out of their teens. You then said fast people - just out of the teens was NOT the pivoting criterion - but when you got called on it you switched arguments to "what I had happened was I meant..." out of their teens, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU WROTE and from the way you wrote it - clearly not what you meant. Why do I say that? Because you refuse to accept Dawn Sowell, Lalova or Li. In fact, by my count, sub-10.80 by sub-23 year olds are NOT backed up more than they are for women (you're obviously talking about women if you mention sub-11). The only "backed up" would be SAFP and MJ while Li, Lalova and Sowell didn't. Hardly a trend to build an argument around. (That's the tunnel in your argument with a train running through.)

2) You can't talk about objectiveity and logic, yada, yada, yada and then delve into talk about drug suspicion - which by definition, without an AAP, means you're not being logical. In addition to not holding the standard to EVERY other athlete. There is not a country that actively tests that has not found PED's. Eugene, Clermont, Indy are all in the USA but you cite China? And, because you want to believe it you say "I wouldn't put it past them..." but when you're called out about it you start yipping about being picked on.

3) You cite VCB...she was 28 in 2010. Jeter was 29 in 2009. You cherry pick Stewart for running 10.7x but she didn't break 10.80 until she was 25. How does that apply to the fresh out of your teens again? I know you THINK you backed up your point, but you didn't, and that's because you clearly don't get it.

So which is it? Is it a post teen or is it entry onto the all-time list regardless of age? Because you're post is all over the map.
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests