A big blogger's perk is being able to write about whatever you want, even if the subject veers from your blog's purpose.
Even better is when that random subject is connected to your blog's heart, thus tying the random threads together.
One such thread is the announcement that a few members of NOP will be opening their INdoor season on Saturday at Seattle's Washington Preview meet.
The other thread is that the track measures 307 meters around, thus assuring that whatever times are run there will find themselves buried in the trash heap of Oversize Track obscurity.
It's happened many times before!
A few high (low?) lights:
1. Jenny Simpson (then Barringer) runs a 5000 in 15:01.70, the fastest time in INdoor Collegiate history!
2. Mary Cain runs a 3000 in 9:02.10, shattering the previous HSR by 15 seconds!
3. Alexa Efraimson breaks Cain's mark with her time of 9:00.16.
4. Ninth Grader Sophie Cantine shatters the Frosh Class 1000 record with her 2:47.64, coming within 0.35 of the SOPH Class record too!
And I could add tons of other marks!
What do these times have in common?
NONE of them broke any records, and NONE of them can be found on any list of legal INdoor times!
I've ranted about OT's before, probably more often than you care to read!
I've used all the above examples to explain why races run on OT's are wasted efforts.
Of the above examples, only Cain has a LEGAL time at the distance given!
She ran 9:04.51 enroute to a Two Mile, so HER name is on the 3000 list, and she holds that HSR.
But the others?
Nope, not at the distances those times were run!
I'll try to explain why I'm so strongly opposed to elite athletes racing on OT's, in a way other than how I've done it before.
Let's move OUTdoors for a minute.
OUTdoor tracks are 400 meters, and never an inch more (although some rare tracks are LESS than 400 meters).
Thus, times run on OUTdoor tracks can be neatly compared to other's times, no matter where in the world you are!
What if some rich dude (or gal) decided to build a spectacular 450 or 500 meter track?
And what if this track became THE place to try for fast Qualifying times for Championship meets?
After all, the less tight the curves, and the longer the straightaways, the faster you can run--and especially kick!
While the specifics are not the same, how is that not an advantage, in the same manner as having wind-aided marks, or drug-enhanced marks mixed in with "legit" marks?
You can't really measure marks on 400 meter tracks against those made on 500 meter tracks!
And it's the same INdoors!
Your ability to reach top speed, and avoid slowing too much, is much enhanced by the expanded turns and the longer straights of tracks 90 or more meters longer than 200 meters.
(There are various sizes to OT's, with popular ones measuring 268 meters (Air Force Academy), 290 meters (Nutter Field House, Lexington KY, Notre Dame's 352 yards, and of course Seattle's 307 meters!
Records are made to be broken, a cliche, but true.
Being listed as one of the Top 10, Top 40, or in the case of my T&F Record Book, Top 24 athletes EVER carries considerable gravitas when endorsement or shoe contract signing time comes around.
Sure, Nike or Brooks or whomever will probably ignore WHERE you ran that fast time!
In fact, they might even encourage you to seek out OT's in order to run that sub-4:00 Mile!
(Since OT marks are NOT legal for record or list purposes, the grandiose listing by Track and Field News of all the first sub-4's run by Americans is a ludicrous and absurd, and totally non-sensical way of making something out of nothing! I don't know the exact figure, but I'm guessing a LARGE number of those 420+ US sub-4's were run on Oversize Tracks!)
Last year, NOP opened their season on Boston University's 200 meter oval!
Galen Rupp ran TWO American Records, and Mary Cain ran TWO great times (2:39.25, then 4:24.11) in 2 separate meets there.
Cain was still living in Bronxville NY then, so didn't have to travel cross country to get there.
Rupp did, but he's out of school, so travel isn't much of a problem for him.
So maybe now that Mary is living and training in Portland--just a 3 and a half hour drive to Seattle--it's much more convenient for her to open her season in Seattle.
Besides, she had some success there in 2013.
And these races (Rupp might open there too, as well as Jordan Hasay, Treniere Moser, and Cam Levins!) are probably being thought of as rust-busters, with times not given much importance.
But for record and list buffs, whatever they run will carry the same degree of importance as times run in training!
Meaning NONE (except to make note of in your training log)!
They will be wasted efforts for list and record purposes!
Doesn't matter if a woman runs 3:55 for 1500, or a man runs 7:25 for 3000!
(BTW, an article states Cain will run the 600 meters, and one of her opponents will be Olivia Baker!)
NO times run on OT's should be eligible for Big Meet Q's!
If EVERYONE had access to an OT, and if ALL OT's were the same size (see above examples indicating they are NOT!), then of course it would be okay to accept OT times!
But then the rules would be changed, and 200 meter tracks would not be seen as the norm.
Why should OT's be allowed INdoors if they're not allowed OUTdoors?
How is it any different?
Well, let's move on!
This post's title includes "and other things".
Here, briefly, are a few.
1. Three groups, including one of athletes, have sent letters to USATF asking that they overturn the ruling that reversed the "popular" vote for Bob Hersh over Stephanie Hightower at their recent meeting! There is LOTS of support for this "demand". It also called for people to give examples of corruption within USATF and some other entities, INCLUDING evidence that Alberto Salazar and Nike were party to, and maybe the CAUSE of, said corruption! I wholly support this move. I believe Salazar should be strongly reprimanded, at the very least, and maybe sanctioned/suspended, for what he did at the 2014 USATF INdoor meet!
2. That Russian drug investigation is a God-awful MESS!! They're talking of fake photos and cover-ups! What the Hell is this, Watergate Redux?? Or WORSE?? And it's so very sad that a seemingly super-talented youngster---Yelena Lashmanova, the girl who "won" the 2013 WC 20K Walk, and "broke" the WR in the process!--got caught up in this mess!! She might carry some of the blame, but it seems MOST of that falls on the entire Russian Athletic community, especially the coaches and administrators!!
3. With Kaylin Whitney probably going Pro before she finishes HS (and all signs point to that, even possibly before her Senior year!), it might be time to change the rules defining amateurs and professionals. It's a known fact that Collegiate footballers and basketballers are paid professionals, even if payments are "laundered" in different ways. Why not T&F athletes? And what of HS'ers, like Cain (a FORMER HS'er!), Efraimson, Alana Hadley, and possibly in the near future, Kaylin Whitney? Why can't they get paid appearance fees, and be open to win prize money? Why should they be penalized for being students? Even scholarship athletes sometimes need part-time jobs to help pay for books or clothes, or food! What's the difference if they earn their money running, throwing, or jumping, rather than as a cashier, babysitter, or a stripper? They're NOT going to get rich while training full time and carrying 15 to 20 units of class work!
BTW, it's interesting that the 3 athletes who have recently gone Pro while still in High School have been all females! Is it that they're so much more talented? Even ones who went Pro AFTER HS graduation (but before starting college!) were female---think Allyson Felix and Ajee Wilson. (Why didn't Alan Webb turn Pro after his HSR's in the 1500 and 1 Mile?)
Enough!
While I will NOT put times run in Seattle on my lists, or accept them as records (if they "break" any!), I WILL tell you of any times good enough to make the lists....IF run on a 200 meter track!
Besides, there's several other meets which SHOULD produce several top-quality marks happening this weekend.
And from that point on, this blog will report ALL of them....in DETAIL!!
(Which, I'm sure you'll be grateful, will leave little time for me to pontificate on OT's (and other things)!! LOL)
"I've ranted about OT's before, probably more often than you care to read!"
ReplyDeleteThat's for sure! ;-)
"... it might be time to change the rules defining amateurs and professionals."
Absolutely! To be more specific, it's time to leave Avery Brundage-style puritanism behind for HS and Collegiate athletes as has already been done for pros. It's absurd that legitimate HS athletes like Cain (was), Efraimson, and now probably Whitney (before she finishes HS) are not eligible to set HS records. Records are a measure of who is the very BEST in an event, and the present rules excluding pros means that the ones who are the best are specifically excluded from setting records! Stoooopid!
Originally you included Cain's pro marks in your HS lists, then changed that policy when it became evident that the T&F world, including T&FN, was not going to accept marks made by HS pros for HS records. I understand your wish to go along with the prevailing norm, and I do applaud you for at least creating a separate HS pro category so that such athletes are not disregarded altogether as the HS athletes they actually are, but I was sorry to see this change of policy.
I know it would amount to swimming against the current, but I would urge you to consider reinstating HS pro marks to your lists and records simply because it's the right thing to do -- these are legitimate HS athletes (e.g. Alexa Efraimson this year) and if they set records in legitimate competition it should count as what it is -- the record!
"BTW, it's interesting that the 3 athletes who have recently gone Pro while still in High School have been all females! Is it that they're so much more talented? Even ones who went Pro AFTER HS graduation (but before starting college!) were female---think Allyson Felix and Ajee Wilson."
There are no doubt a variety of reasons for this, but I think the main reason is that girls mature physically at an earlier age than boys do. Thus girls have a better chance of reaching the elite level required to compete as a professional at an earlier age than boys. This doesn't mean it can't happen for a boy, but probably means that in the case of extremely talented athletes who can make it as pros even while still in HS, girls will always outnumber boys.
Despite whatever "criticism" I get from my millions of readers (Sic!), I will continue to "rant" against OT's!
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I'm a HUGE fan of Cain (and Efraimson), but even with them, I've stuck to my policy of NOT accepting OT marks for record and list purposes!
I felt AWFUL not being able to put their 3K times (9:02.10 and 9:00.16) on my list!
Luckily, Cain ran a great time (9:04.51) later that season on a 200 meter track!
But the fastest INdoor HS'er ever is NOT on my Top 24 list!
And you can only blame that on OT's!!
I would LOVE to put Cain's 2:35.70 and 4:24.11 (and 4:06.63), plus her 2:01.67 and 4:06.34 from OUTdoors 2014 on my "regular" HS list!
But after thinking about it a long time, I decided to go along with T&FN's stance on that.
There's still several areas I depart from T&FN, namely on keeping separate lists for INdoors and OUTdoors.
I think their "absolute" lists are ridiculous....and confusing!!
For them to call, for example, Lavillenie's 20-2.50 the "absolute" WR only demeans what Bubka did OUTdoors!
(Maybe Renaud will remedy that situation for us!! LOL)
But I WILL honor those HS Pros, as you noted.
I'm looking forward to seeing if Efraimson can break any of Cain's HS Pro records---either INdoors or OUTdoors--this year!
And while I believe Whitney will turn Pro before she graduates, I hope she stays an amateur this year, so as to improve on her HSR's.
Then she can set PRO HSR's in her Senior year!!
Anyway, thanks as always for your comments!
They add a LOT to this blog!
(I hope other readers will read your comments too!)
OOPS! Cain 2:35.80, not 2:35.70!
ReplyDeleteBTW, I included Alana Hadley in my "HS Pro" group. She's still in HS, and has a good chance to beat the HSR time of 2:34:24 (Cathy Schiro O'Brien) in the marathon this year!
ReplyDeleteBut if she does run faster, she'll be listed only as the HS PRO record holder!
The news gets even worse, re OT's!!
ReplyDeleteCheck out the entry lists for Seattle's meet.
Far more talent than just Cain and Hasay!
And almost certain;y far more marks NOT eligible for A-T lists!
The meet hasn't even started yet----it's tomorrow----and I'm already up to HERE with anger, disappointment, and sadness!!
And I will be CERTAIN to mention what a literal waste of time this meet will be----except for the 60 and 60H and the field events!
I like the Seattle meet. It's early season, so many athletes aren't quite at their best yet, which means better marks later in the season (not always, of course). Many athletes haven't competed in months and the OT gives them a chance to get back in to competitive form without as much stress on the body as they would get from the tighter turns on a 200m track. So fewer injuries likely.
ReplyDeleteOne great thing about this meet is that it's a season opener for many athletes. It gives us a chance to see what kind of form they're in. So it's a good preview of the coming season, which may be more significant than any mark set here. So it's very far from a waste of time for either athletes or fans.
You can always have a separate listing for OT marks, just as you have for HS Pro marks. Even though the track is oversize for indoor, it's still smaller than an outdoor track. Performances in Seattle in mid-January can be very indicative of what's to come, both indoor and outdoor.
Obviously the athletes don't think this meet is a waste of time at all. They like it, just like I do. That's why so many top athletes on the entry list!
I think your A-T lists are very interesting, but they're not all there is to the sport of Track and Field! Too bad you can't just relax and enjoy this excellent meet!
Mu "anger etc" comment was possibly a bit hyperbolic! (LOL)
DeleteI DO like watching the meet (if it were free on Flotrack, that is!!), but the facts still stand-----every time run on the oval (as noted, 60s excluded!) is NOT eligible for records or lists!
And I'm not the only one who sees it this way!
Even T&FN lists OT marks separately from 200 meter track marks!
And they list Kim Smith's 15:14.18 as the 5K CR, NOT Jenny's 15:01, which was run in Seattle!!
And where is Alexa's 9:00.16 on the HS list for 3000?
On the OT list ONLY!!
And Sophie Cantine's 2:47.64, and on and on and on!!
Sure, the fields are fabulous, the competition is important, and it's still early in the season!
But for those of us (and I believe that includes MOST T&F fans!!) who want to know who's fastest---where are they going to look to answer that question?
Lists!
And unless you're a PRO fan (you, me, the folks on T&FN MB, etc), who know to look at the OT marks also (and the wind-aided marks outdoors!!), they're NOT going to even SEE these marks, because all they'll normally see are the "legal" lists!!
I understand all of what you say....about the athletes wanting to test themselves early in the season, and not really caring about times......but records are records, and times are times.....and THAT is a VERY important part of this sport....if not THE most important part!!
(Even Cordner Nelson, one of the founders of T&FN in 1948, said as much, when he named the 6 or 7 types of T&F fans....in an article a LONG time ago in T&FN----and right at or near the top of his list was the STAT NUT!!!)
And what about the athlete who doesn't run as fast or faster on a 200 meter track?
Sophie Cantine is a prime example!!
As a Frosh in HS, she ran 2:47.64 for the 1000 in Seattle!
That mark, if run on a 200 meter track, would NOW rate as NINTH A-T HS!!
But where is she on the REAL A-T list?
NOWHERE!!!
(She's just a soph now, so has this year and 2016 and 2017 to run faster on a legal track!)
Anyway, enough.
You and I obviously do NOT agree on this!
But there's enough other good stuff happening this weekend, some of which you might already know about!!
Look for my next post on Sunday....after the Houston Marathon/Half-Marathon!!
Forgot to mention---a big reason why I don't have any OT lists is because----as I pointed out in my last post---OT's come in different sizes.
ReplyDeleteRemember?
268, 290, 300, 307 meters----352 yards!
And probably some other sizes too!!
To have an equitable list----where everyone's marks are given equal chance----you need to have ALL the tracks the same length!!
As it is, there's even differences between INdoor flat tracks and banked tracks!
(TFRSS has a great example of the craziness of trying to formulate what one would run on a banked track, off what one ran on a flat track....or vice versa. In this case, TFRSS also re-formulated the mark based on the altitude factor too! Long story short, the guy ran something in the 4:05 or 4:06 range in Montana, I think! TFRSS gives his time as 3:56.77!!!!!, based on flat vs banked track and altitude factors!! Talk about CONFUSING!!!)
"Even T&FN lists OT marks separately from 200 meter track marks!"
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly what I suggested that you do. I never said that OT tracks don't matter or are not a factor.
"Forgot to mention---a big reason why I don't have any OT lists is because----as I pointed out in my last post---OT's come in different sizes.
Remember?
268, 290, 300, 307 meters----352 yards!
And probably some other sizes too!!"
Sure, but that's no reason not to have a separate list of indoor OT marks. T&FN separately lists wind-aided marks, and of course not all aiding winds are of the same speed! Just as you can show wind speed in parentheses next to the mark, you can show track size next to the mark. It's a way of acknowledging, rather than ignoring, a notable mark that for some reason doesn't qualify to be on the regular lists. The worst thing is to ignore the mark as if it didn't exist!
You mentioned variables that make direct comparison of marks difficult -- such as indoor flat tracks versus banked tracks. There are many other variables also, both indoor and, especially, outdoor. Besides track length, there is the hardness or resiliency of the track surface (always ignored because it's such a complex variable!), wind in events which are heavily affected by wind but don't have legal limits (discus and pole vault, for example), altitude, temperature, humidity (which has a huge effect on air resistance), rain, and many more. The important thing to recognize about this is that the sport is, and always has been, conducted in a wide range of venues with differing conditions. To get overly worked up about track length indoors (as you do) or altitude (as gh does) is a bit silly because at the same time you're ignoring many other harder-to-quantify variables which have just as much effect on performances!
I'm NOT suggesting that there should be no standards. I agree that indoor OT marks should not qualify for A-T lists and records. But that's not the same as saying they should be ignored altogether.
I have always been especially interested in the statistical side of the sport, and thus I enjoy your blog which emphases this. But I don't live in a fantasy world where I imagine that by eliminating a few variables such as OT tracks (indoors) or wind-aided marks (outdoors) that we then have truly comparable conditions. We don't, and that's just the way it is. And it doesn't mean that the statistics are meaningless either -- it's not a black and white thing. The statistics say a lot, and they are interesting, but they are not absolute. You simply cannot adjust for all the variables, and that's OK.
What if this year Allyson Felix and Kaylin Whitney both run 10.99 for 100m outdoors? Except that Allyson did it into a 3.0 mps headwind, and Kaylin did it with a 2.0 mps aiding wind? Both marks would appear on all lists as equivalent -- legal marks. But are they comparable? Not by a long shot, and the data needed to know this won't even appear on most lists. Yet the difference in conditions, as they affect the times, is FAR GREATER in this example than the difference between running a mile on a 200m indoor track as opposed to a 307m indoor track.
How about all the most promising young female distance stars competing in Seattle -- Mary Cain, Alexa Efraimson, and Elise Cranny all there! Unfortunately all in different events, but still this will be very interesting. They, and most of the other stars, seem to be running distances at the short end of their range. Has Mary Cain ever run a 600 before? When was the last time Jordan Hasay ran a race as short as 1000m? Ever? Cranny in the 1K too. Efraimson in the mile -- a good distance for her. Though it will be interesting to see what Mary can do at 600m, I really wish she was in the mile field against Alexa. I guess we'll have to wait for that match-up. A lot of other notable stars and great match-ups too, but I'll leave it to you to provide those details.
ReplyDeleteNice to chat with you. I may seem to disappear from time to time, needing a break from commenting, but I'll always be reading your blog and I'll reappear in the comments section from now and then, as if out of nowhere!
Much appreciation as always for your great blog posts. I will be looking forward to your report on this weekend's events. Don't forget the pole vault summit!
Hasay ran the 800 in Seattle last year---around 2:08.
ReplyDeleteRowbury ran in the same race---in fact, the Preview meet last year!
Cain't never run a 600, as far as I know, but remember that 5:05 mile win at USATF in '13?
She finished in 1:31 for the final 600----splits of around 32.7, 29 and 29!
Of course, that was after WALKING the first 1000 in around 3:34!!
Excuse me, I meant after the first 1009 meters!! LOL
Anyway, should be interesting, but I will STILL regret all the great times run (I HOPE!!) that will NOT be on the A-T lists!!
BTW, I think one reason NOP and the Stanford crew are running Seattle is because of the convenience factor.
Seattle's much closer to Portland, and even Palo Alto, than NYC or Boston are!!
(Though I hope they all run in the Millrose and Boston meets!!)
Anyway, next post is Sunday, as noted!
Just reread your comments. (Somehow missed the one about wind, etc!! Sorry!!)
ReplyDeleteBut about that, refer again to what I said about TFRSS.
Some dude ran a mile yesterday (It's now Saturday!!) in 4:05+. I saw the actual results.
Yet TFRSS lists the mark as 3:56.77!!
They adjusted the time using flat vs banked track and altitude formulas!
That's about NINE seconds difference!
For the average fan----or even we sophisticated fans!---it makes the sport too confusing!
I often make comparisons to baseball, especially as to why I separate the INdoor from OUTdoor season.
I say that baseball separates stats made during the exhibition season or the post-season from stats made during the regular season!
Imagine the meaninglessness of baseball records if they started ADDING exhibition stats to regular season stats!
(Of course, baseball stats changed when they added 8 games to the schedule, from 154 to 162 games!!
Remember when Roger Maris got 61 homers, and they gave it an asterisk because he had 162 games, while Babe Ruth had just 154 games?
As to OT's and baseball, imagine baseball changing the distance between bases from 90 feet to 120 feet.
Or changing the pitchers mound from 60-6 from home plate to 80 feet away!
Would make it much harder to steal a base!
And easier to get thrown out by a long throw from the outfield!!
Etc, etc etc!
Bottom line, there's no way to compare times run on 200 meter tracks to those run on OT's!!
(Luckily, there's no wind-aided factor INdoors!)
As for windy marks OUTdoors, sure, winds are all different speeds.
And THAT is why they're not put on regular lists!!
You can't compare one against the other!!
Anyway, I WILL be interested in seeing what everybody does later today in Seattle.
But no way will I put OT marks on regular A-T lists.....and I'm NOT going to create A-T OT lists!!
Sorry!!
LOVE these "chats"!! LOL
Your argument about baseball stats doesn't mention that all ballparks are different size. Coors field in Colorado is notorious for being an easy park to hit home runs, but these are counted the same.
DeleteAnyway, I am a more casual fan, and somebody might have brought this up already...
One final thought on OT's.
ReplyDeleteHow did these places decide on the different sizes?
Was it because of available space, or some technical aspect of putting a track together in an enclosed space?
Why didn't Seattle make theirs 300 meters, instead of the odd 307?
Much easier to get splits!
5 laps to a 1500, 10 to a 3K, 16 plus 200 for the 5K.
With 307, you have to figure 4 laps is 1228, so you need to measure off another 272 for a 1500!!
Crazy!
Notre Dame's 352 yards is easy to understand.
5 laps to a mile----5X352=1760!
(Although not-so-easy for metric races!)
Ditto with the 268 and 290 places.
5X268 is 1340. So you'd need another 160 for a 1500.
The 290 place is 5X290=1450, so you have to add 50 for the 1500!
If you're gonna have OT's, they should all have to be 300 meters!
Most of your arguments are against points I never made or suggested in any way. So I don't understand the rationale for most of what you're saying. And your refusal to create a separate list for OT marks, which I did suggest and which T&FN does, just makes your lists less valuable because they represent less of what the indoor track season actually is -- a series of meets which includes a few prominent meets on oversized tracks. So, to this extent, your lists are representative of some idiocyncratic biases of your own rather than the sport of indoor track and field as it is. So I still find your lists interesting, but if I want to get the complete picture, I need to look elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI think you make the same mistake in refusing to list HS marks made at 1600m and 3200m. I dislike these distances as much as you do -- I think they're an abomination and that the decision to go to these distances was a big mistake. However, the fact is simply that they ARE the distances that are run in HS now and for many years already. I would lobby to change back to the mile and two mile, but in the meantime, if you refuse to list marks made at 1600m and 3200m you're making several big mistakes yourself and actually adding to the problem of what was a bad decision in the first place. First, you punish athletes (by refusing to acknowledge their achievements) for the "sins" of the bureaucrats. The athletes didn't decide on these distances and they have no alternative to them if they want to participate in the sport. Second, your lists have gaping omissions because you're not acknowledging the marks made by athletes competing in the events that are available to them. Thus you fail to represent the sport as it is.
In this regard, I should add that I don't like T&FN's solution, and I know you don't either. They agree with us that the proper distances are mile and two mile, and they do better than you in that they do not simply and wrongly ignore marks made at 1600m and 3200m. But what they do that I don't like is that they combine them all into a single list (not bad in itself, if there was a reasonable way to do this), but they use a formula to convert 1600m marks into (supposedly) mile equivalents. What I object to use the use of a formula to convert marks. It's inherently error-prone and the resultant marks are at best approximations and not actually timed. And they take no account of how the race was actually run. Those extra meters might be very different in case of athlete finishing strong and one dying at the line.
So my suggestion is two-fold: 1) Lobby hard to reinstate the mile and two mile; and 2) in the meantime list 1600m and mile on separate lists, and same for 3200m and two mile. This would be my preferred solution.
Next best, but not really satisfactory in my view, is the T&FN solution. It has the advantage of combining very similar distances into a single list, but has the unacceptable disadvantage of using a conversion formula rather than actual timed marks.
By far the WORST solution is to punish the athletes and misrepresent the sport by ignoring marks made at 1600m and 3200m altogether.
As for your earlier post -- I never said anything remotely in support of conversion formulas. I'm totally against them and they have nothing to do with any point I have made. Nor are they required in any solution I've suggested.
ReplyDeleteYour baseball analogies seem completely irrelevant to our discussion. I don't see the connection. My "wind" analogies are much more to the point. Just as wind-aided marks are listed separately, so also should OT track marks be listed separately. Actually, I think OT track marks have much more validity than wind-aided marks and certainly deserve acknowledgement -- though separately from the regular A-T list marks, as I have said repeatedly. But you keep arguing as if I said that OT track marks should be included on the regular A-T lists which I never said and in fact explicitly said should NOT be the case.
It does get a bit frustrating trying to discuss these things with you when you ignore what I'm saying and respond as if I said things which I never said at all.
Been VERY busy all day gathering material for tomorrow's post, so didn't see your newest comments until now.
ReplyDeleteWOW!
Don't know what to say, except that maybe trying to discuss these things isn't a good idea!
But I'll comment on your idea for me to do separate 1600 and 3200 lists.
No way!!
Remember the days (about 40 years ago) when there were separate list for 110H and 120H (yards), or the 400 and 440, 800 and 880?
I used to list both, using the T&FN conversions (.07 for 800-880, .03 for 400-440)
To this day, I still have Ryun's converted 1:44.9 880 listed as 1:44.2 for 800!
But I think that's the only converted time I have left on my lists! (I'd have to check!)
The simple answer is that it would be too much work to have separate lists for the 1600-3200.
Yes, I know I'm "punishing" the kids forced to run those distances.
Same with my refusal to have OT lists.
Just don't have the time.....or the desire!
And what happens if/when they return to the mile and 2 mile, completely eliminating the metric distances??
What would happen to those 1600 and 3200 lists?
They'd go the way that lists of 440 yards, 880 yards, 3 and 6 miles, etc etc have gone.....into some rarely/never looked at dust-covered closet of forgotten eras.....rich for historians, but not for current day fans!!
(Might as well have lists for bamboo pole vaulters, straddle HJ'ers, dirt track lists, etc etc!)
If you feel you need to look elsewhere to get the complete picture, that's your choice!
Actually, I don't rely on one source either!!
(Especially not T&FN or TFRSS or IAAF lists!)
I still think OT track aren't fair!
As I said earlier, if all OT''s were the same size----say 300 meters----then I'd probably have separate OT lists!
But there's too much variation in size!
If OT's were the norm, the NCAA, USATF, NBIN, and WIC (also Euro Indoor Champs) would probably be held occasionally on OT tracks.
But they're NOT!!
In tomorrow's post, I'll be mentioning what happened in Seattle-----but not giving it much space!!
(Besides, I've got TONS of other stuff to report!!)
Sooooooo, I hope I won't lose you, although you seem quite upset about all this!
Don't blame you!
I get VERY upset when I disagree with someone too!!
Anyway, I have to get back to work, and see what ELSE I can find to cram into my post tomorrow!!
(Might even do 2 posts....because I've got TOO much stuff!! But most likely will just have one LONGGGGG post!)
HOPE......really HOPE.....you'll continue as my Number ONE fan!