Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 75
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #41
    Quote Originally Posted by bad hammy View Post
    Field events can be split into two categories - those that shoot for a preset distance (PV and HJ) and those in which athletes can go for a record (PR, CR, NR, WR) on every effort. From a spectator standpoint I much prefer the second group.

    The men's PV, for instance: I'd much prefer to see Mondo shoot for a WR every time he's on the runway, instead of taking shots and wasting energy at the 5.5m range - shoot for a WR on every single effort.

    Like the rest of the field events, six attempts max with a cull of the herd after three. No moving standards or placing bars just let electronic eyes determine the lowest height that 100% of the body clears. And have the electronics create a crossbar of light that can be set at the vaulter's requested height to give them a target.

    It would make the event more exciting and probably cut down on overall attempts, so less time needed.
    The PV, as is, is near perfect. I enjoy watching the buildup. HJ is just as interesting.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #42
    Of course, the original Swiftian proposal had more, ahh, meat on the bones, than this one...
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #43
    Quote Originally Posted by steve View Post
    Suppose you and your friends are trying to see who can jump farthest (a real world long jump competition). One of you marks the takeoff point and another the landing. The winner is the one with the absolute farthest distance.
    That's your artificial jumping contest for fun, not a scenario with jumping over a real-world object that's in your path.

    Watch this video of a guy jumping over a pool.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAPCuwb3NBg

    If he takes off an inch too late, he falls in and gets wet. If he takes off a foot too early, he could get really hurt slamming into the other edge of the pool.

    When long jumping over an obstacle, your jumping ability is rather useless without the accompanying accuracy to place your foot close enough to the right spot relative to whatever you're jumping over. Accuracy is a natural part and parcel of real jumping situations, not an artificial constraint made up by sporting authorities to make life difficult for jumpers.
    Last edited by 18.99s; 09-08-2019 at 07:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #44
    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    That's your artificial jumping contest for fun, not a scenario with jumping over a real-world object that's in your path.

    Watch this video of a guy jumping over a pool.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAPCuwb3NBg

    If he takes off an inch too late, he falls in and gets wet. If he takes off a foot too early, he could get really hurt slamming into the other edge of the pool.

    When long jumping over an obstacle, your jumping ability is rather useless without the accompanying accuracy to place your foot close enough to the right spot relative to whatever you're jumping over. Accuracy is a natural part and parcel of real jumping situations, not an artificial constraint made up by sporting authorities to make life difficult for jumpers.
    I get your point, but to my understanding that's not track and field. Track and field looks at pure jumping or pure running or pure throwing.

    By your logic, if we are going only for "real-world" application then the 100m should be run on uneven ground with dips and rolls, the hurdles should be unevenly spaced lawn fences of differing heights, the shot could be of varying sizes and weights depending on the meet, etc., etc.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #45
    Quote Originally Posted by steve View Post
    By your logic, if we are going only for "real-world" application then the 100m should be run on uneven ground with dips and rolls, the hurdles should be unevenly spaced lawn fences of differing heights, the shot could be of varying sizes and weights depending on the meet, etc., etc.
    There are many real-world scenarios involving running across a flat surface. There are numerous parking lots, streets, sidewalks, natural and engineered grass fields which don't have an incline, and people have had to run across some of them to escape an animal or chase down a thief or runaway child.

    The sprint equivalent of measuring a long jump from the takeoff foot would be to let sprinters react whenever they want, and their recorded time would be the difference between when they moved from the blocks until they reach the finish line. After all, you just want to measure pure speed, not any other ability related to the utilization of that speed, right?

    As far as the shot put and hurdles are concerned, standardization of the implements and surfaces is important for comparing performances across different meets and establishing records and qualifying standards. The long jump presents no such standardization problem that is helped by measuring from the takeoff foot. Measuring from the board makes standardization easier, not harder, given the higher technological requirements of measuring accurately from the takeoff foot rather than the board.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #46
    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    There are many real-world scenarios involving running across a flat surface. There are numerous parking lots, streets, sidewalks, natural and engineered grass fields which don't have an incline, and people have had to run across some of them to escape an animal or chase down a thief or runaway child.
    Sorry, I just think you are wrong. Every event has been improved/engineered/standardized/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it in an effort to make the event more fair at the actual meet and comparable across time and location. Changes in timing, starting, measuring of distances in throws, measuring wind and recognizing altitude, standardizing surfaces, have all been done to try to record the best pure performance in competition. The long jump is not a foot placement accuracy test. The simple goal is to see who can jump the farthest. As such, any improvement in allowing to determine who actually jumps the farthest should be used and should be no different than updates in measuring and standardizing other events.


    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    The sprint equivalent of measuring a long jump from the takeoff foot would be to let sprinters react whenever they want, and their recorded time would be the difference between when they moved from the blocks until they reach the finish line. After all, you just want to measure pure speed, not any other ability related to the utilization of that speed, right?
    Not true in my opinion. Sprinting events are primarily a race amongst a group, not just a measure of pure speed. Time is kept to allow for comparison across locations and other track meets and conditions are standardized (blocks, what's too fast a reaction, position of the gun sound, etc.) to make the race aspect fair, because the race is the main thing. Still, the main goal of the sprint event is to win the race against others on the day it's held, even if the time is not the fastest ever recorded.

    If there was no race and each person did a time trial separately to see who was fastest over a certain distance (only pure speed), I would guess that reaction time would be removed as a factor. But, since that is not how sprint events are done, the reaction time is a necessary part of it to allow the race to be started fairly.


    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    As far as the shot put and hurdles are concerned, standardization of the implements and surfaces is important for comparing performances across different meets and establishing records and qualifying standards. The long jump presents no such standardization problem that is helped by measuring from the takeoff foot. Measuring from the board makes standardization easier, not harder, given the higher technological requirements of measuring accurately from the takeoff foot rather than the board.
    Th standardization problem with the long jump is that the farthest actual jump may not count under the rules. It may be a foul, or may take off before the line (see Ivan Pedroso, Carl Lewis, and other's long fouls). Until recently, we had no fair way of marking the takeoff and getting an accurate jump measurement, so we used a measurement from the line. Now we do have ways we could measure a jump from takeoff to landing without requiring the jumper trying to his a set takeoff mark. Accuracy of foot placement became a part of the event because a jumper would strive to take off as close to the line as possible, so as to have his/her maximal jump distance be included in the measurement.

    That said, I agree that it won't happen anytime soon beach most meets couldn't employ the technology. However, there was a time when electronic measurement of time was not at most meets, and here we are today. So, who knows.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #47
    FWIW, I just re-read my last post and nearly fell asleep in the middle. My apologies.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    2,032
    Quote Originally Posted by steve View Post
    I get your point, but to my understanding that's not track and field. Track and field looks at pure jumping or pure running or pure throwing.

    By your logic, if we are going only for "real-world" application then the 100m should be run on uneven ground with dips and rolls, the hurdles should be unevenly spaced lawn fences of differing heights, the

    ...
    That would be called cross country. Although it's a lot longer than 100m.
    Last edited by bobguild76; 09-08-2019 at 04:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #49
    Quote Originally Posted by 18.99s View Post
    That's your artificial jumping contest for fun, not a scenario with jumping over a real-world object that's in your path.

    Watch this video of a guy jumping over a pool.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAPCuwb3NBg

    If he takes off an inch too late, he falls in and gets wet. If he takes off a foot too early, he could get really hurt slamming into the other edge of the pool.

    When long jumping over an obstacle, your jumping ability is rather useless without the accompanying accuracy to place your foot close enough to the right spot relative to whatever you're jumping over. Accuracy is a natural part and parcel of real jumping situations, not an artificial constraint made up by sporting authorities to make life difficult for jumpers.
    By this line of thought, wouldn't the javelin through require some sort of animal target, to replicate the real world scenario?

    I conflicted on this subject to be honest. I prefer the current approach to the vertical jumps, but would be happy to see a pressure sensitive take off area for the horizontal. What is missing would be the ability to compare across the generations (already difficult with the changes in tracks).

    Maybe the better approach would be to take a lesson from power lifting. With the advent of power vests, they recognized the great advantage with the new technology, and immediately began separate competitions and a separate list of records.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #50
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,597
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinR View Post
    ... and immediately began separate competitions and a separate list of records.
    talk about polarizing topics!
    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
  •