Doubtful timing


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

Doubtful timing

Postby fasttrack85 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:35 pm

I was wondering if there are races that have official recognition that are looked at with suspicion(for timing/wind/technical) by fans and experts in general. Obviously the most famous would be Flo Jo's obviously wind aided world record in a TRIALS QUARTER FINAL!!!! I have heard talks about Marita Koch's 47.60 being wind aided(wind switching direction out of the blue) and Marie Jose Perec 46.25 Atlanta run was on an illegal track? What say you about these things?

Some of my own brow raisers are Ivet Lalova 10.77 run barely out of her teenage years and she never quite reproduce that run again ever. How about Xuemei Li 10.79 run in still air also barely out of her teenage years and never replicated again. Fast people run fast if you break 11 seconds by that much of a margin at such a young age it should be duplicated over and over. That seems to be the rule not the exception( SAFP, Bolt, Blake, Jones, ETC). Any opinions or info?????
fasttrack85
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby MightyBurner » Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:42 pm

How about all of the records set in China?
MightyBurner
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:27 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:49 pm

Maybe the most famous, it has a term of its own, is Beamon's LJ. Not only did it have the extreme altitude of Mexico City, but its reported maximum legal wind of 2.0 was most likely a 2.x, x>1; see the thread several years back that discussed this.

In addition, there is the Rieti track and its occasionally stunningly good marks, highlighted by 7:20 3000.

Also, the Clermont, FL track has been disparaged as giving very fast times.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby preston » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:29 pm

fasttrack85 wrote:... I have heard talks about Marita Koch's 47.60 being wind aided(wind switching direction out of the blue)

Where have you heard this and who was saying it? No where EVER have I heard about a 400m race being called into question because wind pushed the athletes around the track. Ever. I think you're making it up and I'm surprised no one called you on it.

fasttrack85 wrote:and Marie Jose Perec 46.25 Atlanta run was on an illegal track? What say you about these things?

I think you mean 48.25, not 46.25 and Atlanta's track was not illegal.
fasttrack85 wrote:Some of my own brow raisers are Ivet Lalova 10.77 run barely out of her teenage years and she never quite reproduce that run again ever. How about Xuemei Li 10.79 run in still air also barely out of her teenage years and never replicated again. Fast people run fast if you break 11 seconds by that much of a margin at such a young age it should be duplicated over and over. That seems to be the rule not the exception( SAFP, Bolt, Blake, Jones, ETC). Any opinions or info?????

Rule rather than the exception? Whose rule? T&F history is littered with one-hit wonders - especially ones who are barely out of their teen years. How can you not know this? Again, you keep saying that you have a guiding principle for the threads that you start but I don't see it. I figured that you mistyped a number on the '96 400 and many people have said that the track was illegal (it wasn't), so I can see where you may have been steered wrong, but "wind chasing 400's" and "early age times should be duplicated over and over again"? Come on.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Ned Ryerson » Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:19 pm

preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:... I have heard talks about Marita Koch's 47.60 being wind aided(wind switching direction out of the blue)

Where have you heard this and who was saying it? No where EVER have I heard about a 400m race being called into question because wind pushed the athletes around the track. Ever. I think you're making it up and I'm surprised no one called you on it.


It's a very real footnote on Koch's 400m WR (and was previously on the GDR's former 4x100m WR). The idea is that Canberra Stadium's horseshoe design allow for wind to swirl around, pushing the athletes around the whole length of the track.

See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD4OUTXvtRU

I think she was inside 11 seconds at 100m, and had an unofficial split of 22.4 at 200m.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby mump boy » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:18 am

Ivet Lalova had a MASSIVE flyer she's taken 2 steps before the others left the blocks

Jon posted blatant photos at the time

In the UK we have an annual meeting at Loughborough that often comes up with ludicrous times including Montell Douglas' UK 100m record of 11.05 which she has never some anywhere near before or since

There is also that ludicrous La Chaux-de-Fonds meeting in Switzerland. 2nd rate UK sprinters use it to get qualifying standards and then get nowhere near the times ever again, usually going out at the subsequent champs in the first round :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby rhymans » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:18 am

La Chaux de Fonds works on warm days because it's at about 980m of altitude, and Geneva is at less altitude (only about 400m) but always produces excellent marks.

I can give you a good instance of a wind-assisted 400. In the Commonwealth Games of 1958, the second round saw English #3 Ted Sampson improve from 47.6y to 46.8y, with the wind following the runners around the whole way. Next day in less helpful conditions with strong cross-winds, Sampson ran 48.2 and failed to make the final.
rhymans
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Rog » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:24 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:
preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:... I have heard talks about Marita Koch's 47.60 being wind aided(wind switching direction out of the blue)

Where have you heard this and who was saying it? No where EVER have I heard about a 400m race being called into question because wind pushed the athletes around the track. Ever. I think you're making it up and I'm surprised no one called you on it.


It's a very real footnote on Koch's 400m WR (and was previously on the GDR's former 4x100m WR). The idea is that Canberra Stadium's horseshoe design allow for wind to swirl around, pushing the athletes around the whole length of the track.

See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD4OUTXvtRU

I think she was inside 11 seconds at 100m, and had an unofficial split of 22.4 at 200m.


Marita Koch herself said she felt a headwind in the home straight, so you can forget any notion of wind assistance.
Rog
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Gabriella » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:14 am

And not only that, but if Koch was blown to a fast time, why weren't some of the other women in that race, and why weren't other events run on the same day assisted? Why only the GDR women's 400m and w4x100m? It's a bit of an (anti GDR) myth.

One race for me that has always been doubtful is the European women's 100m final from 1998.
It was supposedly with the maximum allowable wind at +2m, but I am not so sure.The amount of PB/SB/NRs, 4 women under 11 secs (never seen in European Champs before or since) and the fact that Privalova and Pintusevich couldnt even break 11 sec again that season - Privalova's best outside the champs was 11.04 in Russia and Pintusevich's was 11.02 in Linz. (Thanou had run 10.99 in Greece) makes me raise my eye brows. (That was Privalova's 3rd fastest time ever, and she certainly wasnt a 10.8 athlete in 1998 and nor was 98 one of her best seasons. While Arron was obviously in fantastic shape in 1998 with numerous sub 11 clockings, I dont feel she was a 10.7 woman either)

1 Christine Arron France 10.73 ER
2 Irina Privalova Russia 10.83 SB
3 Ekaterini Thanou Greece 10.87 NR
4 Zhanna Pintusevich Ukraine 10.92 SB
5 Melanie Paschke Germany 11.07 SB
6 Petya Pendareva Bulgaria 11.12 PB
7 Anzhela Kravchenko Ukraine 11.16 PB
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby nevetsllim » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:28 am

mump boy wrote:In the UK we have an annual meeting at Loughborough that often comes up with ludicrous times including Montell Douglas' UK 100m record of 11.05 which she has never some anywhere near before or since


And 10.95 (+2.6) in the heats. :lol:

One mark which was just as ridiculous was when Alena Neumiarzhytskaya ran 11.05 at the BLR Champs just before the European Champs where she then got knocked out in the heats of the 100m and 200m. Interestingly, tilastopaja have voided it due to irregular timing but it still stands as her PB on her IAAF biog where it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I know quite a lot of people have queried Tatyana Chernova's 8.02 60mH from the Russian Indoor Championships this year too.
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby 18.99s » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:12 am

fasttrack85 wrote:Some of my own brow raisers are Ivet Lalova 10.77 run barely out of her teenage years and she never quite reproduce that run again ever.

While there is evidence to indicate that she got a false start, you can't really use her lack of replicating similarly fast times against her, considering that freak broken leg she got in 2005. She had legitimate speed -- in the year of that 10.77, she made the Olympic final of both the 100m and 200m, placing 4th and 5th respectively, and the year before that she was the world's fastest junior at 11.14. Without that broken leg I think she definitely would have run sub-10.9 on multiple occasions.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Powell » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:32 am

Gabriella wrote:And not only that, but if Koch was blown to a fast time, why weren't some of the other women in that race, and why weren't other events run on the same day assisted?


Vladykina in second ran 48.27, the fastest time of her career by a good margin.
The problem with assessing the conditions by the overall level of performances at that meet is that it was in October and many of the participants were simply way past their peak. The East Germans clearly focused on the World Cup as the main event of the season, but most of the others did not.
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Gabriella » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:58 am

Powell wrote: Vladykina in second ran 48.27, the fastest time of her career by a good margin.
The problem with assessing the conditions by the overall level of performances at that meet is that it was in October and many of the participants were simply way past their peak. The East Germans clearly focused on the World Cup as the main event of the season, but most of the others did not.


It wasnt her best by a 'good margin'...she'd run 48.60 prior to Canberra, the then 7th best all-time and still the 11th best all-time, and she also peaked for the World Cup too. She was in fantastic shape that season,world number 1 going into the Cup, she also ran 49.84, 49.18 and 48.96, in the months before, gradually peaking towards september. Remove that 48.27 and 1985 still remains her best season time-wise, better than 87 and 88.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Ned Ryerson » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:00 am

Rog wrote:Marita Koch herself said she felt a headwind in the home straight, so you can forget any notion of wind assistance.


Oh, well, if she said it then I guess it's settled...
Last edited by Ned Ryerson on Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Ned Ryerson » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:01 am

Gabriella wrote:And not only that, but if Koch was blown to a fast time, why weren't some of the other women in that race, and why weren't other events run on the same day assisted? Why only the GDR women's 400m and w4x100m? It's a bit of an (anti GDR) myth.


Why wasn't anyone else blown to a fantastic time when FloJo ran 10.49 with a +3m/s wind? Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles.
Ned Ryerson
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Powell » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:50 am

Gabriella wrote:It wasnt her best by a 'good margin'...she'd run 48.60 prior to Canberra


So what's your definition of a 'good margin', if 0.33 isn't it?

Gabriella wrote:She was in fantastic shape that season,world number 1 going into the Cup, she also ran 49.84, 49.18 and 48.96, in the months before


Which of course are very fast times, but all WAY off 48.27.
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby preston » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:16 am

Powell wrote:
Gabriella wrote:It wasnt her best by a 'good margin'...she'd run 48.60 prior to Canberra


So what's your definition of a 'good margin', if 0.33 isn't it?

Gabriella wrote:She was in fantastic shape that season,world number 1 going into the Cup, she also ran 49.84, 49.18 and 48.96, in the months before


Which of course are very fast times, but all WAY off 48.27.

Gabriella is right: .33 is WELL within the margin of improvement for a PB where you're chasing someone at 400m. I think almost the entire womens' final at 400m in '96 ran under their PB's by a similar margin (for most). I can even think of 200m PB's that approach that number. I Don't think Reynolds ever came within .33 of his then WR. It's just not that unusual.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Marlow » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:23 am

I'm not into conspiracy theories (knowing f'rinstance that Clermont's track and timing are legit, I assume that other tracks like Rieti are also - we'd surely (99.99%) have evidence by now if they weren't legit), but every now and then there IS a funky mark that comes out that we KNOW something is up. There have been measurement errors in field events; there have been timing and wind reading problems that went undetected; there have even been officials that falsified marks. It is our job (well, it's really meet management's job, but sometimes they are part of the problem) to question marks and seek explanations. I believe it is gh who invokes the 'Smell Test' on some marks and that's a prudent way to proceed.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Rog » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:41 am

Ned Ryerson wrote:
Gabriella wrote:And not only that, but if Koch was blown to a fast time, why weren't some of the other women in that race, and why weren't other events run on the same day assisted? Why only the GDR women's 400m and w4x100m? It's a bit of an (anti GDR) myth.


Why wasn't anyone else blown to a fantastic time when FloJo ran 10.49 with a +3m/s wind? Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles.


I think Sheila Echols ran 10.83 behind FloJo's 10.49 - that was by far her best. I don't think she broke 11 in the final. I think someone else was under 11 behind Flo Jo too. From memory there was a following wind in the final, but only 3 under 11, despite the fast quarter final times, and only FloJo broke 11 from her qf.
Rog
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby gh » Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:24 am

fasttrack85 wrote:I was wondering if there are races that have official recognition that are looked at with suspicion(for timing/wind/technical) by fans and experts in general....


have you ever looked at our Records or All-Time List sections?

We carry Flojo as windy, and ignore Lalova altogether.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby high knees » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:26 pm

Koch also ran 48.16,twice, 48.22 and 48.26....perfectly capable of having a peak moment of 47.60 without being "wind aided"....she also ran 21.71 and even 7.04 for 60m which speaks to her basic speed/acceleration and the 21.71 speaks to her level of speed endurance....there were other factors of course....but i don't think wind around the track was one of them..
high knees
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby gh » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:41 pm

Ned Ryerson wrote:
Gabriella wrote:And not only that, but if Koch was blown to a fast time, why weren't some of the other women in that race, and why weren't other events run on the same day assisted? Why only the GDR women's 400m and w4x100m? It's a bit of an (anti GDR) myth.


Why wasn't anyone else blown to a fantastic time when FloJo ran 10.49 with a +3m/s wind? Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles.


Relative to their previous/past levels of performance many people in quarterfinals 1 and 2 that day were indeed blown to "fantastic" times in Indy. Indeed, it was this mass breakthrough that pointed the finger at the wind as the causative agent. Bert Nelson put together a good set of stats on the subject at the time.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Flumpy » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:45 pm

Wasn't there an indoor track somewhere in the US that people used to regularly run ridiculous times?

Maybe Fayettiville :?:
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby gh » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:47 pm

Fayetteville had lots of fast 200s and 400s.

Note that it's the same track that was used for the '93 World Indoor in Toronto.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:35 pm

And the outside lanes are probably not legal by road racing standards because they have about the same gradient for the 200 as the Boston Marathon (just a guess, but it definitely is down hill).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Gabriella » Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:00 am

You sued to always see dodgy marks from Lagos.

The German jumps meeting in Bad Lagensalza always has suspciously good results every year, and the Weinheim meeting seems to do the same for sprinting.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Pierre-Jean » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:37 am

Rog wrote:
Ned Ryerson wrote:
Gabriella wrote:And not only that, but if Koch was blown to a fast time, why weren't some of the other women in that race, and why weren't other events run on the same day assisted? Why only the GDR women's 400m and w4x100m? It's a bit of an (anti GDR) myth.


Why wasn't anyone else blown to a fantastic time when FloJo ran 10.49 with a +3m/s wind? Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles.


I think Sheila Echols ran 10.83 behind FloJo's 10.49 - that was by far her best. I don't think she broke 11 in the final. I think someone else was under 11 behind Flo Jo too. From memory there was a following wind in the final, but only 3 under 11, despite the fast quarter final times, and only FloJo broke 11 from her qf.


All of these are not doubtful timing, it's doubtful wind reading.
However, Diane Williams' 10.86 IS doubtful timing, as the original time is 10.88 and for some reason has been compilled as 10.86.
Pierre-Jean
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: NGR

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby mump boy » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:34 am

nevetsllim wrote:
mump boy wrote:In the UK we have an annual meeting at Loughborough that often comes up with ludicrous times including Montell Douglas' UK 100m record of 11.05 which she has never some anywhere near before or since



I know quite a lot of people have queried Tatyana Chernova's 8.02 60mH from the Russian Indoor Championships this year too.


and then 8.29 in Istanbul :roll:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Flumpy » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:39 am

This isn't a timing issue but I've always been doubtful of Tatyana Kotova's 7.42m from the Euro Cup in 2002 never seemed right.

I was there and saw her jump but it didn't look particularly far and I didn't take much notice. A few minutes later 7.42m flashed up and I remember looking at it and assuming it was a mistake.

It was only later when I heard Jade Johnson shouting at her coach 'I got metered!!!' (She'd jumped 6.42m) that I realised it had been valid.

The next longest jump in the competition was 6.65m.

Whilst she was a great jumper I'm not sure she was in the same league as Heike, Jackie and Galina. I think her next longest jump was 7.12m.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:40 am

Anyone remember some dodgy 200 meter (homer) marks that caused some others to not get WRs?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Pierre-Jean » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:28 pm

Flumpy wrote:This isn't a timing issue but I've always been doubtful of Tatyana Kotova's 7.42m from the Euro Cup in 2002 never seemed right.

I was there and saw her jump but it didn't look particularly far and I didn't take much notice. A few minutes later 7.42m flashed up and I remember looking at it and assuming it was a mistake.

It was only later when I heard Jade Johnson shouting at her coach 'I got metered!!!' (She'd jumped 6.42m) that I realised it had been valid.

The next longest jump in the competition was 6.65m.

Whilst she was a great jumper I'm not sure she was in the same league as Heike, Jackie and Galina. I think her next longest jump was 7.12m.


There were great conditions, she hit a perfect board, i've analysed the jump on video, i couldn't find any blatant measurement error.
Pierre-Jean
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: NGR

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby fasttrack85 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:38 pm

preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:... I have heard talks about Marita Koch's 47.60 being wind aided(wind switching direction out of the blue)

Where have you heard this and who was saying it? No where EVER have I heard about a 400m race being called into question because wind pushed the athletes around the track. Ever. I think you're making it up and I'm surprised no one called you on it.

fasttrack85 wrote:and Marie Jose Perec 46.25 Atlanta run was on an illegal track? What say you about these things?

I think you mean 48.25, not 46.25 and Atlanta's track was not illegal.
fasttrack85 wrote:Some of my own brow raisers are Ivet Lalova 10.77 run barely out of her teenage years and she never quite reproduce that run again ever. How about Xuemei Li 10.79 run in still air also barely out of her teenage years and never replicated again. Fast people run fast if you break 11 seconds by that much of a margin at such a young age it should be duplicated over and over. That seems to be the rule not the exception( SAFP, Bolt, Blake, Jones, ETC). Any opinions or info?????

Rule rather than the exception? Whose rule? T&F history is littered with one-hit wonders - especially ones who are barely out of their teen years. How can you not know this? Again, you keep saying that you have a guiding principle for the threads that you start but I don't see it. I figured that you mistyped a number on the '96 400 and many people have said that the track was illegal (it wasn't), so I can see where you may have been steered wrong, but "wind chasing 400's" and "early age times should be duplicated over and over again"? Come on.



PRESTON DID I STEP ON YOUR TOE????? WHY DO YOU KEEP STALKING MY THREADS TO LEAVE NONSENSE COMMENTS. IT IS OBVIOUS MANY OTHERS PEOPLE HEARD ABOUT MARITA KOCH POSSIBLY WIND AIDED 400 METER WR RECORD RUN. I AM NOT A TROLL LOOKING FOR ATTENTION. I POST BECAUSE I WANT TO DISCUSS THOUGHT PROVOKING SUBJECT MATTER. I DONT TRY TO EVER BE CONTROVERSIAL BUT I WILL POST SOMETHING DESPITE ITS CONTROVERSY. YOU HOWEVER ARE STARTING TO BE LIKE AN ANNOYING GNAT THAT NEEDS TO BE SQUISHED.
fasttrack85
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby gh » Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:46 pm

Preston is a known shit-disturber who walks the fine line. Advice from management, so you don't get caught up in a purge: keep your cool and avoid all-caps postings.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby fasttrack85 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:33 pm

preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:... Rule rather than the exception? Whose rule? T&F history is littered with one-hit wonders - especially ones who are barely out of their teen years. How can you not know this? Again, you keep saying that you have a guiding principle for the threads that you start but I don't see it. I figured that you mistyped a number on the '96 400 and many people have said that the track was illegal (it wasn't), so I can see where you may have been steered wrong, but "wind chasing 400's" and "early age times should be duplicated over and over again"? Come on.



While it is true that alot of young sprinters don't always progress into their later adult years it however is also true that once people reach into the upper echelon(time wise) or running it is very rare that is is a one off. For the women 100 meters i would say sub 10.80 is rare air. The majority of the women in that category have proven that it was not a fluke run( Flo Jo, Marion Jones, SAFP,VCB, Kerron Stewart, Carmelita Jeter). Likewise think of the men sub 9.80 sprinters(Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell, Tyson Gay, Yohan Blake). The 100 is one of those races that it is hard to get lucky with. If you reach the upper stratosphere of that event you are either genetically special or really know what the hell you are doing. Barring severe injury and the decline of good health I am a firm believer you should be able to do it again with the examples I gave above to back up what I say.
fasttrack85
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby mump boy » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:55 pm

fasttrack85 wrote:
preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:... Rule rather than the exception? Whose rule? T&F history is littered with one-hit wonders - especially ones who are barely out of their teen years. How can you not know this? Again, you keep saying that you have a guiding principle for the threads that you start but I don't see it. I figured that you mistyped a number on the '96 400 and many people have said that the track was illegal (it wasn't), so I can see where you may have been steered wrong, but "wind chasing 400's" and "early age times should be duplicated over and over again"? Come on.



While it is true that alot of young sprinters don't always progress into their later adult years it however is also true that once people reach into the upper echelon(time wise) or running it is very rare that is is a one off. For the women 100 meters i would say sub 10.80 is rare air. The majority of the women in that category have proven that it was not a fluke run( Flo Jo, Marion Jones, SAFP,VCB, Kerron Stewart, Carmelita Jeter). Likewise think of the men sub 9.80 sprinters(Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell, Tyson Gay, Yohan Blake). The 100 is one of those races that it is hard to get lucky with. If you reach the upper stratosphere of that event you are either genetically special or really know what the hell you are doing. Barring severe injury and the decline of good health I am a firm believer you should be able to do it again with the examples I gave above to back up what I say.


Lalova's had a MASSIVE flyer the photos that show she had done 2 steps with other people still in the blocks used to be online but i can't find them now

It was blatant and i would estimate add at least .2 to her time
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:13 pm

Lalova's 'race' is essentially an extremely interesting workout. It counts for about as much.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Per Andersen » Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:52 pm

Wasn't Donovan Bailey's indoor 5.56 50m WR from 1996 a bit dicey? I can't remember the details.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby Grasshopper » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:34 pm

Davidson Ezinwa's would-have-been collegiate record of 9.91 (w.-2.1) at Azusa Pacific in '92 is assumed to have been a faulty wind reading, despite no evidence to support that argument. It's been discussed here a few times (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2673). Apparently there a video somewhere in which the stadium flags suggest a tailwind for the first half of the race and headwind for the 2nd half.
Grasshopper
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby preston » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:35 am

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.
fasttrack85 wrote:While it is true that alot of young sprinters don't always progress into their later adult years it however is also true that once people reach into the upper echelon(time wise) or running it is very rare that is is a one off. For the women 100 meters i would say sub 10.80 is rare air. The majority of the women in that category have proven that it was not a fluke run( Flo Jo, Marion Jones, SAFP,VCB, Kerron Stewart, Carmelita Jeter). Likewise think of the men sub 9.80 sprinters(Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell, Tyson Gay, Yohan Blake). The 100 is one of those races that it is hard to get lucky with. If you reach the upper stratosphere of that event you are either genetically special or really know what the hell you are doing. Barring severe injury and the decline of good health I am a firm believer you should be able to do it again with the examples I gave above to back up what I say.

You're history suggests you are a bit too thin-skinned to accept correction, much less criticism - even if constructive, but...here's what you said first:
fasttrack85 wrote:...Fast people run fast if you break 11 seconds by that much of a margin at such a young age it should be duplicated over and over...

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 IAAF.org. 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.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Doubtful timing

Postby JRM » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:03 pm

Per Andersen wrote:Wasn't Donovan Bailey's indoor 5.56 50m WR from 1996 a bit dicey? I can't remember the details.


I can't remember exactly, but the consensus was either a flyer or rolling start. It was also run at altitude, so the combination of both pushed him into the record books.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: doug5321, gktrack and 11 guests