Okay, so the title of this post is just a wee tad dramatic!
But the point of this "extra" post is to offer a few suggestions to make our favorite sport even better.
Of course, the "suggestions" are really opinions--MY opinions!
So feel free to offer your own in the comments section, or to state why you DISagree with mine!
Before I begin, I'll offer 3 marks that came in a few days ago.
To get them out of the way before my next FULL report hopefully FILLED with great records and marks!
Maria Michta is the best WALKER we have in the United States right now, male or female!
She walked in both the London OG and the Moscow WC.
(Others before that??)
And this past week, she broke the American Record for the 20,000 meter Road distance.
Her time was 1:31:09.
You might remember that she PR'ed in the 1 Mile Indoor Walk this year also.
Imagine the same for a 1 Mile RUNNER breaking the AR for the 20K RUN!!
Quite a range of distances, eh?
She and her younger sister, Katie, made the World Cup teams, Maria for the Seniors, Katie for the Junior race! Katie is still in High School.
The JT saw a couple of good marks from HS girls.
Katelyn Gouchenour threw the spear 167-0 to become 13th A-T HS!
She's the sister of Alexandra Gouchenour, who scored 5300 points in the HS Heptathlon in 2010.
The other JT was also part of a sister act!
Last year, Megan Glasmann threw 176-11, making her 2nd A-T HS, behind Haley Crouser.
Well, her younger sister, Chrissy, threw the Jav 160-6 last week.
It just misses my HS DDD list!
Actually, it would've been on there, except Ms Gouchenour's mark pushed her down to 25th place!
With her DNA, I have a feeling she'll be ON the list VERY soon!!
Now for my thoughts on improving T&F in the future.
(In no particular order!)
1. Eliminate the 1600 and 3200 races for US HS'ers! The group "Bring Back the Mile" is working to accomplish that. All it would take is for officials to measure the extra 9 (or 18) meters, mark the starting line with a permanent marker on the curb, and that's all!! If this can't be done NOW, then at least time runners at the 1500 and 3000 marks of the respective 1600 & 3200 races! Those distances have Worldwide acceptance, whereas the 1600 and 3200 are used ONLY by US HS's!!
2. Do NOT offer up (like T&FN does!) scientific or mathematical formulas for converting 1600 and 3200 times into 1 and 2 Mile times. You can't do it!! There is NO formula that can predict what will happen in those extra 9 and 18 meters. Just ask Gail Devers what happened to HER in the final 10 meters or so of her Barcelona OG final!!
3. As I wrote about in earlier posts, do away with the 12 pound SP for male HS'ers, and the 55 meter distances indoors (flat and hurdles). For the SP (and DT and HT), also do away with all those OTHER weights used in the "Junior" divisions Worldwide! Having all those different weight categories just adds to the BLOB of records fans (and athletes and officials!!) have to keep track of!! There's NO reason why EVERY boy can't throw the International weights used by Professionals!!
4. Also do away with the "Junior" and "Youth" classifications!! AGE groupings are okay, but putting nebulous labels on them is confusing. One example: A current "Junior" is an athlete whose birthdate was in 1995 or 1996. If you were "unlucky" enough to be born in 1994, but you would still be 19 during the WJ's, you don't qualify!! I say he/she SHOULD. After all, they're still a TEENAGER then, aren't they?? To my mind, a teenager is a "junior"!! Same with the "youth" label. Instead, go by the ACTUAL AGE of the person at the time of the event!! You could still have the WJ meet available for 18 and 19 year olds. Just don't label them "Junior". Go by their actual birthdate (not just the year!). I do, for my Age Records!!
5. I LOVE T&FN, but their website does something really annoying. They have what they call a "comprehensive" or "absolute" yearly list. Those COMBINE indoor marks with outdoor marks in the same events. (Obviously, there's no outdoor 60's or 60H, nor an outdoor WT!!) Here's why I dislike this concept so totally! Let's say Athlete X ran 3:50.00 for the Mile indoors. Now let's imagine that Athlete X runs the Mile in 3:50.01 OUTdoors!! All you'll see--ALL YEAR!-- on T&FN's comprehensive/absolute list is the INDOOR 3:50.00 Athlete X ran!! You won't know--unless you're a real student of the sport OR read my blog (LOL)--that Athlete X ran a SUPER Mile of 3:50.01, even LEADING the WORLD outdoors with that mark! Why? Because his 3:50.00 INdoor mark was the "absolute" best that year!! SEPARATE the seasons!! I do.
6. Offer more 5000's and 10000's for High Schoolers, both boys and girls! They're going to run these distances in college, and in the pro ranks. There's no reason they can't run them in HS. The HSR's for the 10K's date from 1976 (boys) and 1979 (girls). There are athletes running today that can break those marks. (Well, at least the girls HSR!!) Give them the chance! (See my next idea regarding the Steeplechase.)
6A. As a sub-text to # 6, I'd love to see more track 10K's offered during the summer in Europe. The DL's currently don't have 10K's--not good for TV! So either change that.....or put 10K's on some of the non-DL European meet schedules during the summer! I'm sure they'd attract some athletes who WANT to run a fast 10K, but can't find any!!
7. Not many states run the Steeplechase for HS'ers. And when they do, it's almost always the 2000 meter version. Rarely do they run the 3000 meter version. In fact, I believe all (or most) of the times for the longer race come from "open" meets, invitationals, where Collegians and Pro's run. Or the WJ's! Again, they're going to race the 3K distance in college and the professional meets. Why not start them doing so in HS?? The boys HSR dates from 1979 also! (The girls HSR is much more recent, but that's due mainly to the fact that the Steeple for girls didn't START until just recently!
8. Start a TV channel exclusively for T&F (and Road Running/Walking)!! What we get from NBC or ESPN is so very AWFUL that it's no surprise our sport has such a low fan base! And if that can't be done, at least offer up more FREE (or very low cost) livestreams of meets! But hire announcers who KNOW the sport---like Tim Hutchings and Carrie Tollefson!! Even some former elite athletes---who shall remain nameless!!---don't know the sport....or how to announce it!!
9. There are some GREAT statistical books available for records & marks fans like myself. Athletics Annual, FAST Annual, HS Track, the Histories by Roberto Quercetani, and several others (Age Record books, National Record books, etc). But there is currently no ONE clearinghouse or distributor for ALL of these wonderful books! T&FN advertises the FAST and HS Track books every year, and in the past has offered for sale the Quercetani volumes. But there's a new book out now--A History of Indoor Track and Field: 1849-2013 by Grant Birkinshaw--which I'm finding IMPOSSIBLE to order!! So I suggest a one-stop-shop distribution outlet for ALL of these books! Sort of like a T&F Amazon!
10. Do away with Oversize Tracks (OT's) INdoors. Or at least do NOT put OT marks on your lists. Again, T&FN does this, and it makes for confusion and downright deception! One example: Mary Cain's 9:02.10 from 2013, run on Seattle's OT, is still listed as her PR on T&FN's lists. NOT her actual PR of 9:04.51. Same went for Jenny (Barringer) Simpson's 15:01.70 5000 she ran in Seattle as a Collegian in 2009. It's listed as the CR...or at least the "absolute" best by a Collegian! But it shouldn't be! OT marks are not record-eligible. And they shouldn't be list-eligible either! Outdoor wind-aided marks aren't eligible for the yearly lists. They're listed separately---on a "wind-aided" list, usually found BELOW the REAL (and legitimate!!) list of marks!! And they're NEVER listed as anyone's PR. (They're listed as someone's "a-c", or "all conditions" best!!) If that 15:01.70 or 9:02.10 MUST be listed, then ALSO list that athlete's REAL best mark, the one that IS record and list-eligible!! On MY lists, you won't find ANY Oversize Track marks!! Ever!!
Those are just SOME changes that would help improve T&F in the future.
But the future is....TODAY!!
Next post will be Sunday or Monday, with ALL the great records and marks (and places on A-T lists) you expect to find in this blog!
See you then!
Just for fun -- a few comments on your 10 suggestions. CAVEAT: My opinions are MUCH less strongly held than yours. I also recognize that there are arguments on all sides of these issues. My views are therefore incomplete and I readily acknowledge that there are valid counter-arguments.
ReplyDelete1. I agree totally on the 1600/3200 issue. I would vastly prefer the mile and two mile. I'm less enthusiastic about 1500/3000, but that would be much better than the 1600/3200. I think this is in line with your views.
Except I would go even further, acknowledging that this is one of those views that has some downsides too. I'd like to see the 1500 abolished at all levels and replaced by the mile -- even in the Olympics! The mile is an iconic distance. The 1500 is arbitrary. Yes, I know about the "whole world" using meters, except for the USA and few other places, but as an organized sport, T&F began in English-speaking countries using imperial distances. Besides the 1500 and mile are too close to have two separate events.
Further, there is NO REASON why all distances have to be measured in the same units! In fact, that's already the case with the marathon. 26m 385y is not a "round number" in any system. The marathon is just the marathon and it's fine the way it is. The mile is iconic like the marathon. The four minute "barrier" is still significant in the mile. There is nothing like that for the 1500.
Not all events are calibrated in meters anyway. The shot weighs 16 pounds. The shot circles is 7' in diameter. These units reflect the origins of the sport -- imperial, not metric. No problem mixing units of measurement -- it's already being done in every meet!
(I would also prefer the old yard measurements for other events too, but for now I'll settle for the mile.)
3. Here we disagree. The 16 lb shot is too heavy for many HS athletes. Sure, the top athletes in the country could manage, but that's just a few out of thousands of boys. The 16 lb shot in the hands of a scrawny 9th grader would lead to extremely poor technique (struggling just the handle the weight) and possible injury. And not just "scrawny ninth graders", this applies to most high school boys. For the elite who are capable of it, they can practice with the 16 lb if they want to, and compete with it in open and all-comers meets. Otherwise, this would be a total disaster for the HS shot. Most athletes would end up developing poor technique that they would have to unlearn and relearn later. With the 12 lb shot, HS athletes have a much better chance of developing proper technique and avoiding injury.
When I was in junior high, the seventh graders competed with an 8 lb, 8th graders with a 10 lb, and ninth graders with a 12 lb. Then it stayed with the 12 lb through HS. A great system, though the 12 was probably a bit heavy for a lot of ninth graders. On balance it worked well. It was possible to develop strength and technique incrementally as the body matured and gained strength. Most HS boys are not fully physically mature. Let the weight of the shot progress more-or-less in sync with the maturation of the body.
(Serious character limits on "comments" so I'll continue in another comment.)
5. (This is a loosely held view.) The combining of (some) indoor and outdoor marks makes it easier to compare athletes with one another -- to see how their seasons are progressing. It's just a convenience, and improves perspective. Usually, not too far into the outdoor season, the indoor marks have been eclipsed. But in the early season it gives a clearer picture of how things are going. Again, a loosely held view, but I like the combined lists, which clearly indicate which marks are made indoors or outdoors.
ReplyDeleteI know you strictly divide indoor marks from outdoor marks, but I would lean towards merging them more, not less. In other sports (football, tennis, swimming, speed skating, etc.) the indoor/outdoor distinction is not so rigid. I'd like to see the distinction loosened up in track too.
6 & 7: Agree on the longer distances, except I think the 2K steeple is OK for HS because the athletes can begin to gain hurdling and water jumping technique without being so compromised by exhaustion. The HS athletes are usually NOT nearly as well-conditioned as collegians and pros, and need to be able to develop technique before they can execute properly when tired. The 2K is plenty challenging enough. (This applies especially to the steeple, where special techniques are required, not to the flat racing events.)
8 & 9: There probably isn't enough support for T&F generally to support these ideas, but they're good ideas, just probably not too practical. I don't pay much attention to the books (your #9), but T&FN used to have (still do?) a pretty good list of books. Maybe not every possible book, but a large selection, most of what you're asking for, think.
10. I know you feel strongly about oversized tracks. I feel much looser about the issue. I don't think we need to rigidly standardize everything so much. I actually like seeing what the athletes can do on the big track in Seattle during the indoor season. As for whether or not such marks should count for record purposes, I also feel a bit looser about this. If it were up to me, I'd probably ratify marks made on the Seattle track (or similar oversized tracks) for anything 800m and above. And I used to like the old eleven laps per mile tracks too -- undersized, oversized, it's just a running race. Get the distance right and let the athletes run. An oversized indoor track is still shorter than an outdoor track. No problem.
OK, these views can all be countered, and I am very aware of just about all the counter-arguments. That's why these views are loosely held. But I generally prefer and more relaxed, less rigid, approach to the sport. (For example, I disagree with gh's hysteria about altitude!)
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!!
ReplyDelete1. We agree.
2. Basically part of #1, so no reply needed.
3 & 4. Definitely DISagree!! You say "scrawny" frosh can't handle 16 lbs. First, why would a scrawny boy want to SP anyway? They're rejected for tackle in football, so should be rejected (by the coach) from doing SP! Those who fit the "image", the 180+ lb'ers, why can't they handle 4 extra lbs? To learn technique? Okay, so let them---as I said in my Dec post on this subject----train w/ the 12---like kids do using training wheels to learn to ride a bike. Then, once learned, toss them!
You didn't mention the other "junior" weights. Same goes for those.
5. Totally DISagree. They're separate SEASONS! They should have separate lists! One, far fewer athletes compete indoors. Two, they compete at odd distances (500, 600, 1000, etc). You can't combine the 60's with the 100/110's!! Nor the WT with the HT!! Several events aren't done indoors. (DT, JT, HT, 10K, 3000SC) Three, you really can't compare marks made on banked 200 tracks with flat 400 outdoor tracks, plus the wind factor, etc! But it all comes back to whether you believe they're separate seasons! I do! (Baseball doesn't have a combined leaders list of marks made during the exhibition season with the regular season....or regular with post-season either!!)
6, 6A & 7. We mostly agree, except on the 2K SC! Basically the same reasoning as for the 12 lb SP. If they can't run 3K, then they shouldn't get into the SC in the 1st place. And since Collegiates run ONLY the 3K , what good will running the 2K in HS do?? If they can't handle the distance, then stick to the 800 or the mile! They run 5K and 6K in XC, with hills and some haystacks, etc, so what trouble will a steeple hurdle give them? Same with the 5K and 10K. They're going to run those distances in college. HS'ers aren't all wimps! I think it's discrimination to think they can't handle it. If they don't want to do the training for it, let them find another sport!
8 & 9. The TV idea has been tossed around before. Someone like Phil Knight (or Bill Gates!) could afford to start one. But if not, then provide livestreams of meets. They do on Eurosport, Sportlemon, the BBC and CBC. Why not in the US?? The book thing would be very simple. T&FN did it in the past---though they cut out their TAFNEWS division---the publishing end. There must be someone who has the time & energy & knowledge to be a central distributor for ALL: T&F books...especially annual record books or histories!
10. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. OT's are a no-no in MY T&F Record Book!! I feel sorry for the athletes who use those tracks to get good times. Cain had a 2nd time (her 9:04 in Boston) to offset her 9:02 OT mark. But Efraimson doesn't! With her 9:00 annulled (by me), she doesn't have that back-up mark! So she's not on my indoor 3K list, while Cain's 9:04 is. Also with those DMR's run at ND last year. It was unfair to those who didn't/couldn't travel to an OT to try to Q for NC's. If EVERY indoor track were 300 meters, it might be okay. Then they wouldn't be OT's! They'd be standard length!, as w/ the 400's outdoors. Also, OT's aren't even all the same distances! ND is 352, Seattle is 307. Others are 290 and so on! Ridiculous! Again, it's unfair for those athletes who run their races on 200 meter tracks! T&F needs standardization. (Altho I DO accept Boston Mar marks. I disagree that it's an "aided" course. I never ran it, but I knew people who did, and they all said it's a tough course!! (Newton hills at 17 miles??!!) Again, if EVERYONE ran on those tracks, and if they were ALL 300 meters EVEN....then I might agree to honor those marks. As it stands now....NEVER!!!!!
Thanks for your comments, as always!!
I didn't expect my views to influence or change yours. Just pointing out that there are alternative points of view which have merit.
ReplyDeleteOn the weight of the shot issue, I think your view is horrendously misguided. You would limit high school event to huge guys who are extremely mature physically. You're holding high school athletes to pro standards, but they're not pros and most of them never will be. Your approach would limit the event only to those who have the potential to be pros or major collegiate stars.
But the worse problem is that the too heavy weight would force the body into all kinds of wrong positions which would eliminate the possibility of developing any decent technique for all but the rare few who could handle it -- certainly fewer than 10% of the athletes who now participate in the event, probably fewer than 5%. Distances achieved would generally be ridiculous to the point of embarrassment and few would even want to do the event.
I play piano. What you're suggesting is like having novice students perform advanced virtuoso pieces in their recitals. They would make a horrible mess of it, and the teacher who suggested such an approach would be, rightly, considered totally incompetent. Your approach would totally destroy the event for all but the rare few. Jacko Gill or Ryan Crouser could have handled it. But even they got where they are by gradually working up the weight of the shots they used. Until very recently Jacko was still using lighter shots. That's how he got so good! And he's one of the rare few who probably could have done OK even with being forced to use a too heavy shot too soon. Though he would undoubtedly have progressed more slowly, and most likely have had a lot more injuries, which would be another result of your approach.
The situation with the steeple is analogous, as you say, but not as extreme of a problem as with the shot. Still, your approach would put a big, unnecessary, obstacle in the way of young developing athletes. Technical events are difficult enough to learn without putting artificial obstacles in the way.
When I was learning to pole vault, if I had been required to use the same poles the world's best vaulters used, I would never have gotten anywhere. But I used light "baby" poles when I was smaller and weaker, and gradually moved towards heavier poles as I grew, gained weight and strength, and improved my technique. It took me many years -- well into college -- to get to where I could handle the big poles needed for world-class heights. If I had not been able to progress gradually, but instead required to start at the end, I would never even have been able to even get off the ground in the event. This is analogous to the shotput issue.
Well, I HATE arguments, so I'll drop out now and chastise myself for disagreeing with you on this forum. From now on, I'll just occasionally make a bland comment -- nothing controversial! My fault for expressing views which differ from yours! My apologies!
But I'll keep reading your blog!
Wow!
ReplyDeleteDidn't realize we were arguing.
Thought we were just commenting, and replying to those comments.
But you're right.......you won't change my mind....and haven't.
Nor would I expect to change yours.
One question, however, regarding the SP.
If boys need to start at a lower weight in HS---from 12 to 16-----do you think girls should?
THAT was my main point in that earlier blog (in December).....that boys started at a lower weight implement, then later had to adjust to the heavier weight ......but girls started at the same weight they'd be throwing throughout their entire career!!
Isn't the girls SP weight the same.....from beginning to end??
It's 8.8 pounds, right?
Should they start at 6.6 lbs, which is the equivalent percentage of their normal weight shot?
If you're worried about their body development, I would think girls more than boys would need to start at the lighter weight!!
Just asking, not arguing!
Glad I didn't chase you away!!
I'm going to need to take a break from posting, but will still be reading so please keep up the great posts!
ReplyDeleteSince you asked, very briefly, yes, the basic principle applies to girls and women in the shotput too, as it does to all events requiring technical skills -- they take time and a reasonable progression of difficulty to master. (Training wheels on a bicycle is a very poor analogy since it takes many years to master the complex techniques involved in some track and field events, especially field events. Kids learn to ride a bicycle in a matter of days. Pole vaulting and shotput are two of the most technical events in the sport.)
However, there are some big differences between men's shotput and women's shotput. While the weight of the women's shot is just over half of the men's, the women themselves are much closer in parity of bodyweight to the men. Valerie Adams is 6' 4" and 260 lbs which is about the size of the average world class male shotputter! So, as a percentage of bodyweight, she is using a MUCH lighter implement. Though Val is exceptionally large, this applies across the board for the girls and women. Thus they are already less burdened by a weight which can throw them into awkward positions. The women don't throw as far, even with the much lighter weight, due to weak upper body strength compared to men, but still the light weight is less likely to cause technical problems. Even so, girls learning the event will benefit from a lighter weight and gradually work up to an international standard shot.
Another factor is that as far as "girls learning the event" goes, there are hardly any, at least in the U.S. This event is not at all popular with girls. Did you see the funny posts by gh and Marlow on the T&FN website a couple years ago? They are humorous anecdotes about the near-impossibility of getting a high school girl to take up the shotput. So the issue of learning is almost moot since there is hardly anyone doing it. Sure, there's the occasional Raven Saunders, but she's a rare exception. And her big improvement this year (for which we don't an explanation yet, do we?) could well be for the reasons I have been stating -- that it took her awhile to catch on to the event because of its technical demands and possibly a too heavy shot. But now she's figured it out and is doing very well. She may also have beefed up and increased her strength which would also help her handle the weight of the shot. Perhaps we'll learn more about her experience in the event.
(Annoying character limit! Continued next post.)
Parry O'Brien was a very scrawny 9th grader! Many consider him the GOAT of the men's shotput. He won two Olympic gold medals, an Olympic silver medal, set 17 world records, and was the first over 59', 60', 61', 62', and 63' -- but according to what you have written you would have rejected him as a potential shotputter. (" First, why would a scrawny boy want to SP anyway? They're rejected for tackle in football, so should be rejected (by the coach) from doing SP!") I knew Parry personally. During high school he went on a major weight training regime to put weight and strength on his slender body, worked very hard on this and was quite successful. By his senior year in HS he placed third at state. And he just kept getting better from there.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your whole approach to this issue is that it excludes many potential champions who happen to be late developers. Only those exceptional athletes who mature early and show prodigious abilities early pass muster with you. So Mary Cain passes, but Parry O'Brien doesn't. Mary has a long way to go to catch up to Parry in achievement. I hope she does it, but that's a tall order.
Your approach would have eliminated me too. In the ninth grade is was barely five feet tall and weighed less than 100 lbs. You want me to use international standard poles? (Same as requiring a shotputter to use a 16 lb ball from the outset!) If you were the coach at my HS you probably would have told me to try out for the chess team! Bob Seagren, also a late maturing boy, would also have been eliminated.
I'm going to take my break now, and will make an exception only if you haven't heard gh and Marlow's funny stories about HS girl's shotput. Let me know.
Don't know how to put this without making you angry, but all this technical talk is NOT where my interests lay (lie?? LOL).
ReplyDeleteI'm almost 100% into marks & records.
The reason I wrote that blog on the SP was because of the dusparity between boys & girls in US HS's.
Girls use the same wt implement from 9th grade through the ppro level, wgile boys have to adjust to a new wt in college.
It was the unfairness of it (for boys), not the technical aspects, that interested me.
But here's a change I could live with.
Have 9th & 10th grade boys throw the 12 exclusively while they're learning technique (and growing), then in the 11th grade, have them start using the 16, but still mainly use the 12.
Then in their senior year, switch the percentages around.
Let's say in 11th grade, they use the 12 80% of the time.
In 12th gradem they use the 16 80% of the time, but still use the 12.
That way, at least, they're not having to make a 100% adjustment in their freshman year in college.
Just a suggestion!!
I know about O'Brien.
I've read every issue of T&FN from 1957 on, plus the Quercetani histories.
Great that you KNEW him!!!!!
About Raven Saunders.
Don't know if you read the stories on her (when she threw 53-8 in December), but her 11 foot improvement (Her '13 PR was just 42 feet!!!) was due almost entirely to a change in technique, from the glide to the spin.....or vice versa!! (Shows you how much I DON'T know about techniques!!! LOL)
Try Flotrack to see her interview at NBIN.
She (AND her coach!!) speak about the change!!
Well, got to get to work on my next post.
Still collecting marks from yesterday!!
BTW, just started reading Jeff Hollobaugh's new book, "The 100 Greatest Track & Field Battles of the 20th Century" (pub. in 2012).
GREAT book.
He counts them down from 100 to # 1. I've read the first half of the book, through to # 52.
He has stuff about O'Brien in there....and many other field event "battles".
VERY informative, nostalgic, and entertaining book!
Highly recommended....especially for Old Farts like us, who know about all (or most) of these "battles"!!
Have a nice "break"!!
LOL
Several typos in above comment!
ReplyDeleteSorry!
Should have proofread it better!
But I'm sure you can figure out what the words should've been!!
Your highly informative blog posts are much appreciated, as always. I won't be commenting, but I will be reading! Take care, my friend.
ReplyDelete