|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 13:31:29 GMT -5
Bolt would be a solid 400m runner but he wouldn't be winning medals - he'd be one of the runners happy to make it to the semis in a major championship. Compare to Phelps who would have medaled in backstroke too (and might have won if he were swimming fresh). Allyson Felix was a 200m all-time great who switched from doing 100/200 to 200/400 to take advantage of the temporary weaker field in the 400, and the training work she put in for that basically made her completely non-competitive in the 100 - you literally have to change physically to optimize for events. Swimmers just do all of them. Phelps has 28 Olympic medals; 23 gold; Bolt has 8 gold. Phelps is certainly not 3x the Olympic/athletic great is and arguably isn't even that straight up. Swimming has very little differentiating between the events - which is why it's the schedule and not the disciplines limiting things. I would get rid of everything except the free and maybe the backstroke in swimming - taking out fly, breaststroke (ridiculous!) and the medleys plus the 50 free would get swimming down to 21 events - which is still a ridiculously high number. In athletics, I'd can race walking (basic equivalent of the breaststroke - let's move inefficiently!), the steeple (if you want an XC race, put XC in), the triple jump, pole vault, and maybe one of the throws (hammer?). Why is breastroke ridiculous? Arent most of the weightlifting events inefficient? Greco roman wrestling and boxing certainly are very inefficient means of fighting. Its also the stroke that is most different from the others. Also are steeplechase winners the same as the best distance runners? That can't be something different enough that an easy transition couldnt be accomplished?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 13:34:55 GMT -5
Bolt would be a solid 400m runner but he wouldn't be winning medals - he'd be one of the runners happy to make it to the semis in a major championship. Compare to Phelps who would have medaled in backstroke too (and might have won if he were swimming fresh). Allyson Felix was a 200m all-time great who switched from doing 100/200 to 200/400 to take advantage of the temporary weaker field in the 400, and the training work she put in for that basically made her completely non-competitive in the 100 - you literally have to change physically to optimize for events. Swimmers just do all of them. Phelps has 28 Olympic medals; 23 gold; Bolt has 8 gold. Phelps is certainly not 3x the Olympic/athletic great is and arguably isn't even that straight up. Swimming has very little differentiating between the events - which is why it's the schedule and not the disciplines limiting things. I would get rid of everything except the free and maybe the backstroke in swimming - taking out fly, breaststroke (ridiculous!) and the medleys plus the 50 free would get swimming down to 21 events - which is still a ridiculously high number. In athletics, I'd can race walking (basic equivalent of the breaststroke - let's move inefficiently!), the steeple (if you want an XC race, put XC in), the triple jump, pole vault, and maybe one of the throws (hammer?). Why is breastroke ridiculous? Arent most of the weightlifting events inefficient? Greco roman wrestling and boxing certainly are very inefficient means of fighting. Its also the stroke that is most different from the others. Also are steeplechase winners the same as the best distance runners? That can't be something different enough that an easy transition couldnt be accomplished? Weightlifting has 1 event? If they had a general "weightlifting" category and then added a second medal just for clean and jerk, then yeah... you could talk. Steeplechase winners are people who were competitive but not good enough to win at the 1500 or 5K, so their coaches moved them to an event the faster people didn't want to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 13:39:09 GMT -5
Why is breastroke ridiculous? Arent most of the weightlifting events inefficient? Greco roman wrestling and boxing certainly are very inefficient means of fighting. Its also the stroke that is most different from the others. Also are steeplechase winners the same as the best distance runners? That can't be something different enough that an easy transition couldnt be accomplished? Weightlifting has 1 event? If they had a general "weightlifting" category and then added a second medal just for clean and jerk, then yeah... you could talk. Steeplechase winners are people who were competitive but not good enough to win at the 1500 or 5K, so their coaches moved them to an event the faster people didn't want to deal with. To be honest, weightlifting has always been weird to me in that it's only a combination of the snatch and the clean-and-jerk. As someone who has been lifting for over 20 years, I'd love to see squats, deadlifts and especially bench press at the Olympics.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 13:40:18 GMT -5
I should add steeple is basically the only discipline where records could get absolutely smashed and people wouldn't automatically assume doping. It's pretty baked in that those records (not just WR, but down the line) are pretty soft because they haven't had the "best" in them.
|
|
|
Post by pelican on Jul 26, 2021 13:42:34 GMT -5
Also are steeplechase winners the same as the best distance runners? That can't be something different enough that an easy transition couldnt be accomplished? Yes, if I'm going to make fun of breaststroke, I have to make fun of steeplechase as well. A lot of the steeplechasers are just people who aren't quite good enough to run the 1500 or 5000. It also gives a bit of an advantage to taller people, and it's a bit more unpredictable. The technical skill matters somewhat, but some of the East African runners are atrocious over the barriers (and especially the water jump) but they're good enough at running that it doesn't matter. The 100/110 and 400 hurdle races, though, are pretty different from the sprints. The technique and stamina needed is impressive, especially for the 400. We've had 400-meters hurdles world records set for both men and women this year, so those should be fun races to watch.
|
|
|
Swimming
Jul 26, 2021 13:42:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by udubhuskiefan on Jul 26, 2021 13:42:39 GMT -5
Good prelims swims from Walsh and Douglass. Walsh specifically looked very relaxed and must have more in the tank. It is really admirable what these girls and Desorbo are doing at UVA.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 13:43:12 GMT -5
I should add steeple is basically the only discipline where records could get absolutely smashed and people wouldn't automatically assume doping. It's pretty baked in that those records (not just WR, but down the line) are pretty soft because they haven't had the "best" in them. True, and this is especially the case for the women, as their event has only been held at the Olympics since 2008 Beijing. That being said, I think some people would still assume doping because it is track and field, and pretty much every record-breaking performance is viewed with suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 13:45:33 GMT -5
Sure and I'm not saying the same people would win all the races, but the fact that none of the top 100/200 sprinters that I can think of also competed in the 400 seems strange. (I know there are 200/400 combination guys, but all 3 is what I mean). The 200 winner is going to be between 19-20 seconds. There is almost always someone in the final of the 400 that posts a 45 second or worse time. Hard to believe someone who could do the first 200 in 20, couldn't do the second 200 in 25 The 100 and 400 are just completely different. I don't think it's possible to be truly competitive at the Olympic level in both. If you haven't run track, you may not realize what a brutal race the 400 is. I think the 800 is worse, but the 400 isn't that far off. Those extra 200 meters make a big difference. Michael Johnson's best 100 time would have made the finals in both of the Olympics where he won the 400. (He would have finished 5th and 6th). Not knowing much about track, I am sure you are right about how different they are, so someone who could compete in all 3 would be rare, but it clearly is possible if the scheduling wasn't an obstacle. Also seems odd that the sprints and hurdles of roughly the same distance and the distance and steeplechase aren't more often contested by the same people. Is there a reason why?
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 13:49:04 GMT -5
Why is breastroke ridiculous? Arent most of the weightlifting events inefficient? Greco roman wrestling and boxing certainly are very inefficient means of fighting. Its also the stroke that is most different from the others. Also are steeplechase winners the same as the best distance runners? That can't be something different enough that an easy transition couldnt be accomplished? Weightlifting has 1 event? If they had a general "weightlifting" category and then added a second medal just for clean and jerk, then yeah... you could talk. Steeplechase winners are people who were competitive but not good enough to win at the 1500 or 5K, so their coaches moved them to an event the faster people didn't want to deal with. Sorry events was the wrong word, the various lifts they do. Which of those is the most efficient way to lift said weight? Yes, my point exactly. So why don't the faster people compete in and win the steeplechase? You would think the person who finishes 4th in those other events would be willing to deal with the nuisance of they could call themselves a gold medalist?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 13:49:24 GMT -5
The 100 and 400 are just completely different. I don't think it's possible to be truly competitive at the Olympic level in both. If you haven't run track, you may not realize what a brutal race the 400 is. I think the 800 is worse, but the 400 isn't that far off. Those extra 200 meters make a big difference. Michael Johnson's best 100 time would have made the finals in both of the Olympics where he won the 400. (He would have finished 5th and 6th). Not knowing much about track, I am sure you are right about how different they are, so someone who could compete in all 3 would be rare, but it clearly is possible if the scheduling wasn't an obstacle. Also seems odd that the sprints and hurdles of roughly the same distance and the distance and steeplechase aren't more often contested by the same people. Is there a reason why? Well, as c4 pointed out, the training for the 400 and 100 are very different. Also, you can't just take someone's personal best and drop it into another race without any context. There are other factors like the wind, temperature, altitude and track surface that can make a pretty big difference.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 13:50:47 GMT -5
Michael Johnson's best 100 time would have made the finals in both of the Olympics where he won the 400. (He would have finished 5th and 6th). Not knowing much about track, I am sure you are right about how different they are, so someone who could compete in all 3 would be rare, but it clearly is possible if the scheduling wasn't an obstacle. Also seems odd that the sprints and hurdles of roughly the same distance and the distance and steeplechase aren't more often contested by the same people. Is there a reason why? Well, as c4 pointed out, the training for the 400 and 100 are very different. Also, you can't just take someone's personal best and drop it into another race without any context. There are other factors like the wind, temperature, altitude and track surface that can make a pretty big difference. Just looked it up and that time was barely wind legal. It's impossible to compare personal bests with results of an actual specific race (unlike swimming, the conditions and tracks vary a bunch). He never got close to breaking 10 in the 100. If he were that fast in the 100 on any given day, Team USA would have put him on the 4x1 at some point - they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 26, 2021 13:53:18 GMT -5
Weightlifting has 1 event? If they had a general "weightlifting" category and then added a second medal just for clean and jerk, then yeah... you could talk. Steeplechase winners are people who were competitive but not good enough to win at the 1500 or 5K, so their coaches moved them to an event the faster people didn't want to deal with. Sorry events was the wrong word, the various lifts they do. Which of those is the most efficient way to lift said weight? Yes, my point exactly. So why don't the faster people compete in and win the steeplechase? You would think the person who finishes 4th in those other events would be willing to deal with the nuisance of they could call themselves a gold medalist? Because steeple is a fringe event with less sponsorship money? Some good Americans have focused on steeple in recent cycles but they're still losing internationally to the Africans and there's more money in being the best/2nd Best American in a more traditional event than being a bronze medalist or Olympic finalist in the steeple. Fast people also don't like the steeple because it's riskier - pack running over barriers really heightens the possibility someone else will take you out.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2021 14:00:36 GMT -5
Well, as c4 pointed out, the training for the 400 and 100 are very different. Also, you can't just take someone's personal best and drop it into another race without any context. There are other factors like the wind, temperature, altitude and track surface that can make a pretty big difference. Just looked it up and that time was barely wind legal. It's impossible to compare personal bests with results of an actual specific race (unlike swimming, the conditions and tracks vary a bunch). He never got close to breaking 10 in the 100. If he were that fast in the 100 on any given day, Team USA would have put him on the 4x1 at some point - they didn't. Yeah, agree on all counts. This is the kind of mistake that people who aren't knowledgeable about track and field would make. I could potentially have seen Team USA putting him on the 4x100 for publicity purposes if they felt that the rest of the team was fast enough that he wouldn't jeopardize their gold medal chances. But they didn't even do that, so I have to agree that he just wasn't fast enough in the 100 to be truly competitive at the Olympic level.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 14:02:37 GMT -5
Michael Johnson's best 100 time would have made the finals in both of the Olympics where he won the 400. (He would have finished 5th and 6th). Not knowing much about track, I am sure you are right about how different they are, so someone who could compete in all 3 would be rare, but it clearly is possible if the scheduling wasn't an obstacle. Also seems odd that the sprints and hurdles of roughly the same distance and the distance and steeplechase aren't more often contested by the same people. Is there a reason why? Well, as c4 pointed out, the training for the 400 and 100 are very different. Also, you can't just take someone's personal best and drop it into another race without any context. There are other factors like the wind, temperature, altitude and track surface that can make a pretty big difference. Sure but when that personal best was achieved despite rarely running said event, I think its reasonable to assume it probably could have been duplicated. Would you say that the top sprinters, if they chose to, could transition to hurdles at the same distance, say over 3-4 years, and win? Also in every sport there is a large degree of stasis. Look at how long it took basketball players to start shooting a lot of 3s, BVB players to use multiple types of sets or 2-balls, the changes to breast, back and fly that took place decades after those strokes had been swum the same ways. I wonder how many track stars could compete successfully in more event if the schedule allowed and they had innovative coaches.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jul 26, 2021 14:08:14 GMT -5
Sorry events was the wrong word, the various lifts they do. Which of those is the most efficient way to lift said weight? Yes, my point exactly. So why don't the faster people compete in and win the steeplechase? You would think the person who finishes 4th in those other events would be willing to deal with the nuisance of they could call themselves a gold medalist? Because steeple is a fringe event with less sponsorship money? Some good Americans have focused on steeple in recent cycles but they're still losing internationally to the Africans and there's more money in being the best/2nd Best American in a more traditional event than being a bronze medalist or Olympic finalist in the steeple. Fast people also don't like the steeple because it's riskier - pack running over barriers really heightens the possibility someone else will take you out. Those are all excellent reasons to run normal races instead of steeplechase if a choice is forced, but seem like pretty poor reasons to not run both. Besides adding a second event would mean a financial windfall, especially if you win both, see Michael Johnson as compared to every other 200 or 400 winner ever (except the ones who were also 100m guys)
|
|