Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    3rd row, on the finish line
    Posts
    9,170
    Quote Originally Posted by bad hammy
    Plus running just one 10k each for men and women kills well over an hour of track time.
    Like Conor said below, I can't ever recall seeing a [non-trials] meet that had both. One of the most exciting track evenings of my life was '97 Brussels, when they had a [men's] 3000, 5000, AND 10,000. And, trust me, no one in the stands was complaining or heading for the exits. It helped, of course, that we saw 2 WRs plus a great run by Geb.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    213
    To B. According to a dutch historian, prof. H. Pleket, athletes in old Greece had to run on a straight track of approx. 200m in sort of lanes. At least at the finish, there was a clear distinction of each lane with poles. At distances longer than the straight version, athletes had to approach the finish (turning point!) from the right and return counterclockwise.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11,294
    [quote=Conor Dary]
    Quote Originally Posted by "bad hammy":2vgolsk9
    I'd say the 10k. The steeple is unique, while the 10k is a longer, more boring version of the long and boring 5k. Plus running just one 10k each for men and women kills well over an hour of track time.
    No meet, except for maybe Mt. Sac and the Stanford meet and the Trials obviously, that I can remember, ever had both a women and men's 10k.[/quote:2vgolsk9]
    Two of the meets I regularly attend . . . gotta leave the meet before Stanford runs those six to eight 10ks . . .
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #14
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    62,020
    I saw a Bislett (must be '91), which had two men's 10Ks and a women's. That was a rather long evening to sit through.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,257
    Concerning 10k's, I say the more time spent at a track meet, the better.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #16
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,411
    Starting blocks.

    The first year generally recognized is 1929, when Notre Dame coach John Nicholson, a great hurdler at Missouri ('13), was able to get his blocks into several meets. It was several and various years before the different alphabet organizations allowed them, first in competition, and later, for records to be set with them.

    However blocks had been around for a long time, but generally used for indoor sprints on board tracks.

    Hurdler and all-arounder Al Copland had tried using blocks outdoors for standing starts . . . back in 1888. They were disallowed by at least one meet in which he used them. That's just based on a comment Copland made in 1929, but he didn't claim to be the first to use blocks outdoors.

    The acceptance of blocks by the alphabets came not because it was an aid to the runners (this potential even delayed their acceptance), but because it aided greatly in the speed in which heats could be run off in the sprints and hurdles. It took long enough to dig a good pair of starting holes, but once used during a recalled start holes often would have to be dug again. Get enough heats and there would be further time taken by groundskeepers tamping clay into the old holes.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,511
    [quote=bad hammy][quote="Conor Dary":2vs0vzry]
    Quote Originally Posted by "bad hammy":2vs0vzry
    I'd say the 10k. The steeple is unique, while the 10k is a longer, more boring version of the long and boring 5k. Plus running just one 10k each for men and women kills well over an hour of track time.
    No meet, except for maybe Mt. Sac and the Stanford meet and the Trials obviously, that I can remember, ever had both a women and men's 10k.[/quote:2vs0vzry]
    Two of the meets I regularly attend . . . gotta leave the meet before Stanford runs those six to eight 10ks . . .[/quote:2vs0vzry]

    I stay up late to watch the 10,000s on the web, and LATE is the word, as it is around 10pm PDT and I am in the CDT.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,663
    Quote Originally Posted by vip
    No. 5: Drop the steeple, yes! A race that does nothing for anyone except those who compete in it and their families/friends.

    Close second would be the triple jump. A poor knockoff of the long jump and an event that few understand or care about.
    Sure, the steeple goes first.
    I would probably eliminate the Hammer before the TJ. Then the 10000. Then I would painfully work myself down, event, by event, until we are left with the 100.

    And then we bring the curtain down!
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,394
    Quote Originally Posted by nmzoo
    Why are track races run counterclockwise (as are most “lap races” such as Speed skating, horse racing Nascar, etc)?
    Here's an interesting answer. I suspect, however, that it is not the right answer:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_athlet ... -clockwise
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Re: Five Topical Questions
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,196
    Re: anticlockwise, I just found this thread at New Scientist. It covers practically every scenario but has no definitive answer. But it is an interesting read.

    http://www.newscientist.com/blog/lastwo ... round.html
    Knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •