t-and-f: the last of the SEC Photos
SEC Photos by Mike Leary p1 Women's SEC Photos p2 , 3Men's SEC Photos p4 , 5The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
Re: t-and-f: long jump with a flip
I can tell you who. Dave Neilson,head track coach at Idaho State and Stacey Dragilla's coach, made the front cover of several track magazines with his somersault jump. I don't remember his longest jump, but I know that there could be a big difference between his longest and shortest jump of the session depending on how he came out of his tuck. John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Someone who knows far more about track than I do wrote: > > > I seem to recall that long jump with a flip looked like a mechanical > > improvement before it was banned. > > That must have been a truly revolutionary technique. Who was doing it, and > when, and how far? > > Jim Reardon
Re: t-and-f: long jump with a flip
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:57:36 -0500 (CDT) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: t-and-f: long jump with a flip > > Someone who knows far more about track than I do wrote: > >> I seem to recall that long jump with a flip looked like a mechanical >> improvement before it was banned. > > That must have been a truly revolutionary technique. Who was doing it, and > when, and how far? > A quick history, just off the top of my head: Idaho State coach Dave Nielsen is pictured in the pages of T&FN around '73 using the technique. At the '74 Pac-8 meet in the LA Coliseum, John Delamere of Washington State absolutely blew the crowd away by using the style. As I recall, jumped somehting like 25-4 3/4 wind-aided. In '75 Bruce Jenner used it and added about a foot to his best, but the IAAF shortly thereafter banned the technique, citing "safety issues." I think they were premature in so doing. I think Delamere went on to become a member of the New Zealand parliament. gh
Re: t-and-f: long jump with a flip
When I was maybe 10 or 11 (which would have been about 1975 or 1976), my father took me to the Mason-Dixon games in Louisville. Someone there was doing the somersault and I thought it was absolutely the coolest thing I had ever seen. If I remember correctly, it was just an exhibition. I wish I could remember how far he jumped that day. I have never again seen anyone do the flip and until now had wondered if maybe I just dreamed it. To be honest, I didn't even realize that the method was banned. I assumed that it was more showy than effective. Someone must have been having success with the technique for it to get enough attention to get it banned. I suppose it could have also been a safety concern. Does anyone know? [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:57 pm Subject: t-and-f: long jump with a flip Someone who knows far more about track than I do wrote: > I seem to recall that long jump with a flip looked like a mechanical > improvement before it was banned. That must have been a truly revolutionary technique. Who was doing it, and when, and how far? Jim Reardon
t-and-f: banned high jump technique
I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights near or better than eight feet.
t-and-f: Interview with Cliff Rovelto
Trackshark recently conducted an interview with Cliff Rovelto, the head coach at Kansas State. Rovelto also talks about how he came about to being the eventual head coach at K-State and what can be done about the new NCAA regional format. You can view all the interviews at: www.trackshark.com/interviews Thanks, Tom Borish www.trackshark.com _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster for various distances. So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I want! Of course the mile stays the same :-) Cheers, Buck P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and Continentals). Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you think about that! WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights near or better than eight feet.
Re: t-and-f: long jump with a flip
Delamere was the one I remember getting all the headlines, the new technique vaulting him into national-level NCAA contention, and TV analysts giving a great deal more airplay to the LJ than they would ordinarily do. It was presented as 'possibly the breakthough for the LJ that Fosbury did for the HJ'. Still, there were a considerable number of coaches around the country who told their LJ'ers if they even saw one attempt at a somersault LJ in practice, they were off the team. There were many opponents, not just on safety issues, but because 'it had never been done that way before', 'just didn't seem the right way to do it', 'this isn't a damn circus!', etc. Many coaches were downright angry about something which in there view violated the sanctity of "their" sport. And what went unsaid was that if allowed it could suddenly 'invalidate' the credentials of a great number of LJ coaches in the country, when kids getting recruited would theoretically all want to go with one of those 'new technique coaches'. Innovation is a very uphill climb. RT On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:16:05 -0800, you wrote: >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:57:36 -0500 (CDT) >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: t-and-f: long jump with a flip >> >> Someone who knows far more about track than I do wrote: >> >>> I seem to recall that long jump with a flip looked like a mechanical >>> improvement before it was banned. >> >> That must have been a truly revolutionary technique. Who was doing it, and >> when, and how far? > > >A quick history, just off the top of my head: Idaho State coach Dave Nielsen >is pictured in the pages of T&FN around '73 using the technique. At the '74 >Pac-8 meet in the LA Coliseum, John Delamere of Washington State absolutely >blew the crowd away by using the style. As I recall, jumped somehting like >25-4 3/4 wind-aided. In '75 Bruce Jenner used it and added about a foot to >his best, but the IAAF shortly thereafter banned the technique, citing >"safety issues." I think they were premature in so doing. > >I think Delamere went on to become a member of the New Zealand parliament. > >gh
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I'll bet on the Russian ballet dancers to win the high jump. John "Jones, Carleton" wrote: > I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but > also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. > > One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. > The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball > farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster > for various distances. > > So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you > want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! > > Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the > two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can > jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? > > Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of > hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. > > After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I > want! > > Of course the mile stays the same :-) > > Cheers, > Buck > > P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't > use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? > > WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and > Continentals). > > Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND > I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you > think about that! > > WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? > > -Original Message- > From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM > To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) > Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique > > I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports > that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff > (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights > near or better than eight feet.
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
Buck, I heard Frank Potts tell the story of going to an international meet and a Japanese pole vaulter walked up to the pit (probably saw dust), placed his pole in the box, shimmied up the pole, and dropped over the bar, winning the event. They passed a rule- one hand must be fixed in place. Can a vaulter do this in your meet? John "Jones, Carleton" wrote: > I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but > also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. > > One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. > The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball > farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster > for various distances. > > So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you > want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! > > Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the > two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can > jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? > > Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of > hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. > > After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I > want! > > Of course the mile stays the same :-) > > Cheers, > Buck > > P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't > use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? > > WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and > Continentals). > > Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND > I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you > think about that! > > WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? > > -Original Message- > From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM > To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) > Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique > > I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports > that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff > (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights > near or better than eight feet.
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
Gang It seems to me that that story is apocryphal (though amusing). Once the pole has been shimmied up, the "vaulter" would need to get some velocity in the direction of the bar in order to clear it. That would seem to be a neat trick. Perhaps one of our lurking physicists can figure out how to do it. David Lesley -- >From: John Lunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Jones, Carleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "'t-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) >Date: Fri, Nov 8, 2002, 8:38 AM > > Buck, > I heard Frank Potts tell the story of going to an international meet and a > Japanese pole vaulter walked up to the pit (probably saw dust), placed his pole > in the box, shimmied up the pole, and dropped over the bar, winning the event. > They passed a rule- one hand must be fixed in place. > Can a vaulter do this in your meet? > John > > "Jones, Carleton" wrote: > >> I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but >> also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. >> >> One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. >> The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball >> farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster >> for various distances. >> >> So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you >> want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! >> >> Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the >> two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can >> jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? >> >> Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of >> hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. >> >> After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I >> want! >> >> Of course the mile stays the same :-) >> >> Cheers, >> Buck >> >> P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't >> use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? >> >> WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and >> Continentals). >> >> Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND >> I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you >> think about that! >> >> WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM >> To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) >> Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique >> >> I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports >> that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff >> (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights >> near or better than eight feet. > > >
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
> From: John Lunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Buck, > I heard Frank Potts tell the story of going to an international meet and a > Japanese pole vaulter walked up to the pit (probably saw dust), placed his > pole > in the box, shimmied up the pole, and dropped over the bar, winning the event. > They passed a rule- one hand must be fixed in place. > Can a vaulter do this in your meet? > John > Cute story, but has tall tale written all over it. According to Richard Hymans' IAAF book on the history of world records, the "climbing" technique came out of England in the 1860s. The technique wasn't just to plant a pole and climb it (I wonder if that's even possible?), but to vault in a regular fashion, then climb the pole a foot or two just as you got to the bar. The method was banned in the U.S. in 1889. gh
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense. 100-200-300-500-1000-2000-3000-5000-1. And what the hell - we could keep the mile just for grins. Lee I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster for various distances. So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I want! Of course the mile stays the same :-) Cheers, Buck P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and Continentals). Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you think about that! WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights near or better than eight feet. -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com
t-and-f: banned high jump technique
This was quite a while ago, even for me. I remember a gymnast at the U. of Illinois "breaking" the world record (in a gym, not in a track meet) with a two footed takeoff. This must have been just before 7 feet was exceeded, and the gymnast exceeded 7 feet. It was the subject of an article in a national magazine of the time (probably "Life" because I remember the photo.) As I recall, the two footed takeoff was already illegal, so there was no question of this guy going for the real world record. I may have a few details wrong -- it would have been about 50 years ago, so I may be rusty. Pat Palmer
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I agree, except eliminate the 300, keep the 3K as a Steeple and you'd even have the same number of events. Most importantly, start making tracks 500m and this would be perfect. I think the quarter milers and half milers might be a tad miffed at the extra 25% distance of their races, however :) While we're suggesting radical changes, I'd submit that having the javelin be based on a "points" system for hitting moving targets would be much more in keeping with the original intent of javelins. And perhaps the moving targets could be those athletes who failed drug tests. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: "Lee Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that > made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a > 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense. > > 100-200-300-500-1000-2000-3000-5000-1. > > And what the hell - we could keep the mile just for grins. > > Lee > > >I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but > >also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. > > > >One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. > >The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball > >farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster > >for various distances. > > > >So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you > >want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! > > > >Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the > >two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can > >jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? > > > >Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of > >hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. > > > >After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I > >want! > > > >Of course the mile stays the same :-) > > > >Cheers, > >Buck > > > > > >P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't > >use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? > > > >WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and > >Continentals). > > > >Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND > >I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you > >think about that! > > > >WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] > >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM > >To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) > >Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique > > > >I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports > >that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff > >(illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights > >near or better than eight feet. > > -- > Lee Nichols > Assistant News Editor > The Austin Chronicle > 512/454-5766, ext. 138 > fax 512/458-6910 > http://austinchronicle.com >
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I think you should run the mile like the jumps. Open the track for a couple of hours and make as many attempts as you like... At 09:04 AM 11/8/2002 -0700, Jones, Carleton wrote: I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster for various distances. So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I want! Of course the mile stays the same :-) Cheers, Buck P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and Continentals). Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you think about that! WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff (illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights near or better than eight feet.
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
> I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that > made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a > 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense. > > 100-200-300-500-1000-2000-3000-5000-1. > Don't wish too hard! It's already here (almost). The CIS/CIAU (Canadian NCAA) uses 60-300-600-1000 for their indoor competitions. And 500m indoors is not uncommon. Jimson.
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
gh still gets credit for the absolute best track event that doesn't exist -- the 500m run without lanes. Participants start on an arc at the 100m start and try to beat each other to the tangent at the far end of the track just past the finish. From there, the runners duke it out directly against each other for 400m. No lane staggers to try to estimate for 75% of the race. Remember folks, ultimately it has to be about the competition. No one remembers the score of the Duke-UK game when Laettner hits the last second shot for Duke. They just remember that the game was tight and competitive. When I win my million, I am going to have a team track meet where every distance is randomly determined (within a range) just before the race and no watches of any kind are allowed into the stadium. It's all about getting across the line before the other team and scoring more points. Think about how much time you could save not worrying about measuring and recording individual times -- just award the points for that race and start the next one within a minute. I need to think a bit more about the jumps, but for the throws, you just place flags relative to distance lines to determine who went furthest gets the points. You could do the whole meet in an hour. Exciting stuff, particularly if teams were limited in size and you had to quickly determine who would do what within the somewhat random event order and running distance. Even if we don't try that idea...we should still run the 500m. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Lee Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:48 pm Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense. 100-200-300-500-1000-2000-3000-5000-1. And what the hell - we could keep the mile just for grins. Lee >I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but >also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. > >One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. >The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball >farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster >for various distances. > >So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you >want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! > >Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the >two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can >jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? > >Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of >hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. > >After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I >want! > >Of course the mile stays the same :-) > >Cheers, >Buck > > >P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't >use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? > >WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and >Continentals). > >Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND >I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you >think about that! > >WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? > > >-Original Message- >From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM >To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) >Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique > >I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports >that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff >(illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights >near or better than eight feet. -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 http://austinchronicle.com
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I've long been an advocate of the 500, mainly because it would make for a long sprint that's actually exciting. There's nothing more thrilling than watching guys duelling down the backstretch at high speed in a 4x4, but when you put them in lanes it sucks just about every last bit of thrill out of it. I'd love to see 400s run from a waterfall start (roller derby lives!) but since the death toll would be unacceptable, that's why the 500 is so appealing. Put everybody at the 100 start (no blocks) at a bit of a tangent and let them break for the pole at the end of the straight. Then you get a kick-ass 400 run out of lane 1. It would also be a terrific event numerologically, with the 1-minute barrier being a great marker for international-class running. gh > From: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:48:12 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that > made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a > 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense.
RE: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I'd like to see a running pentathlon: 100, 400, 800, 1,500, 5,000 with a points table. Or maybe a steeple instead of the 800 or 1,500. A few years ago this local high school kid ran a strong leg on a sub-41 sprint relay and was a pretty good cross country runner (16:40 or so for 5,000 meters). He wasn't good enough in any one thing to be a collegiate star, but I always thought there should be something for guys like him. > -Original Message- > From: ghill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:36 PM > To: track list > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > I've long been an advocate of the 500, mainly because it would make for a > long sprint that's actually exciting. There's nothing more thrilling than > watching guys duelling down the backstretch at high speed in a 4x4, but > when > you put them in lanes it sucks just about every last bit of thrill out of > it. I'd love to see 400s run from a waterfall start (roller derby lives!) > but since the death toll would be unacceptable, that's why the 500 is so > appealing. > > Put everybody at the 100 start (no blocks) at a bit of a tangent and let > them break for the pole at the end of the straight. Then you get a > kick-ass > 400 run out of lane 1. > > It would also be a terrific event numerologically, with the 1-minute > barrier > being a great marker for international-class running. > > gh > > > From: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:48:12 -0600 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > > > I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that > > made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a > > 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense.
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
>> Most importantly, start making tracks 500m and this would be perfect. Until this happens and ignoring history (we're creating new events, remember?), why wouldn't we run 1600m internationally instead of 1500m? Ever since I was a kid (but not at the Mason-Dixon games, which I am sure were in yards), I have been bothered by the inconsistency of our metric track events. Why don't we standardize on either standard 250/500/1000m increments or on even numbers of laps at 200/400/800 increments? I don't recall any swimming events starting in the middle of the pool. If the 800 is acceptable, why not the 1600? If not, shouldn't we run 750m? Of course, I know the answers to these questions, but none of them really resolve or explain the inconsistency. The next time you see an 800m race, watch most of the folks in the stands at the bell lap. They will be watching the clock and doubling it to see how the race is going. Wanna know why I think the mile is still so popular? It's not because everyone has a soft spot for Bannister and Ryun, it is because they have a fighting chance of understanding whether the race is a good one time wise at each lap. I know I just made the point that times shouldn't matter (in a team meet, by the way), but I already spent that million. This is a different meet. Until the next million, that is my allotment of bandwidth for the day. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
I believe that there were many 500m tracks in continental Europe in the early 20th century. However, modern track and field was essentially a British sport (and one that was developed to suit the needs of England's gambling-mad upper classes) and so their 1/4 mile track became the "standard" with the compromise in Europe of the 400m track which eventually those on the Imperial system adjusted to. But we could very easily have had 500m tracks and thus a whole different last 100 years of track. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-t-and-f@;lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Christopher Goss Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:03 AM To: Ed and Dana Parrot; "Athletics" Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) >> Most importantly, start making tracks 500m and this would be perfect. Until this happens and ignoring history (we're creating new events, remember?), why wouldn't we run 1600m internationally instead of 1500m? Ever since I was a kid (but not at the Mason-Dixon games, which I am sure were in yards), I have been bothered by the inconsistency of our metric track events. Why don't we standardize on either standard 250/500/1000m increments or on even numbers of laps at 200/400/800 increments? I don't recall any swimming events starting in the middle of the pool. If the 800 is acceptable, why not the 1600? If not, shouldn't we run 750m? Of course, I know the answers to these questions, but none of them really resolve or explain the inconsistency. The next time you see an 800m race, watch most of the folks in the stands at the bell lap. They will be watching the clock and doubling it to see how the race is going. Wanna know why I think the mile is still so popular? It's not because everyone has a soft spot for Bannister and Ryun, it is because they have a fighting chance of understanding whether the race is a good one time wise at each lap. I know I just made the point that times shouldn't matter (in a team meet, by the way), but I already spent that million. This is a different meet. Until the next million, that is my allotment of bandwidth for the day. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
The double decathlon has all of the standard running events and more. If it were done as a two-person event with one competitor doing the field events and one the track events, you'd have your wish X 2. http://www.dmultis.org/rules.htm Bill Bahnfleth At 02:07 PM 11/8/2002 -0500, Bloomquist, Bret wrote: I'd like to see a running pentathlon: 100, 400, 800, 1,500, 5,000 with a points table. Or maybe a steeple instead of the 800 or 1,500. A few years ago this local high school kid ran a strong leg on a sub-41 sprint relay and was a pretty good cross country runner (16:40 or so for 5,000 meters). He wasn't good enough in any one thing to be a collegiate star, but I always thought there should be something for guys like him. > -Original Message- > From: ghill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:36 PM > To: track list > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > I've long been an advocate of the 500, mainly because it would make for a > long sprint that's actually exciting. There's nothing more thrilling than > watching guys duelling down the backstretch at high speed in a 4x4, but > when > you put them in lanes it sucks just about every last bit of thrill out of > it. I'd love to see 400s run from a waterfall start (roller derby lives!) > but since the death toll would be unacceptable, that's why the 500 is so > appealing. > > Put everybody at the 100 start (no blocks) at a bit of a tangent and let > them break for the pole at the end of the straight. Then you get a > kick-ass > 400 run out of lane 1. > > It would also be a terrific event numerologically, with the 1-minute > barrier > being a great marker for international-class running. > > gh > > > From: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:48:12 -0600 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > > > I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that > > made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a > > 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense.
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
If the 400 has proven capable of being highly entertaining in a relay setting, why not stick with the distance and just run it with a waterfall start? It works for the 800. If you increase the 400 by 25%, you're getting far enough away from sprint territory that you'll basically end up with a short 800. That's basically twice as far as anyone can sprint for, so I don't see it appealing to too many people. Dan --- ghill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've long been an advocate of the 500, mainly because it would make for > a long sprint that's actually exciting. There's nothing more thrilling > than > watching guys duelling down the backstretch at high speed in a 4x4, but > when you put them in lanes it sucks just about every last bit of thrill > out of it. I'd love to see 400s run from a waterfall start (roller derby > lives!) but since the death toll would be unacceptable, that's why the > 500 is so appealing. > > Put everybody at the 100 start (no blocks) at a bit of a tangent and let > them break for the pole at the end of the straight. Then you get a > kick-ass 400 run out of lane 1. > > It would also be a terrific event numerologically, with the 1-minute > barrier being a great marker for international-class running. = http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: t-and-f: Fwd: woman marathoner dies
My wife's experience included going back to swimming after giving birth. She used to swim 3,000 to 5,000 yard 4-5 day a week. She found that much more difficult when nursing. The citation on damage from marathoning was an article I saw last summer. I'm afraid that I probably can't retrieve it again. Someone with access to the physiology literature probably could find it. The bottom line here is that this is not about whether to exercise while nursing, which I think LLL is really only concerned about; rather it's about the intensity of exercise. It's like the difference between suggesting that everyone do 30 minutes of aerobic exercise 3 times a week vs. is running 100 miles per week sufficient to produce a world class American distance runner (the latter being a consistent topic on this list). RMc At 12:49 AM 11/8/2002 -0600, Mike Prizy wrote: I was only passing on what LLL would comment on with the little information there is about this unfortunate incident. At this point, I think there are many more unanswered questions than what is actually known. Regarding energy, we found there to be much less: No late night shopping, cleaning, mixing, matching, warming, - and the formula was always right. I don't plan on reviewing the bib list below to see how LLL defined vigorous exercise. However, vigorous exercise v. running a marathon would need defining to accurately compare. Your definition below - which I have never seen before - about the damage a marathon does sounds like it might be a description for a person racing at his/her threshold, but the same person could cover the distance at a slower pace and not be as beat up. Breast feeding has many positive physiological benefits, not only for the baby, but for the mother. http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBJulAug01p124.html In the "A to Z: 26 Reasons to Nurse Your Baby," Q stands for "Quick weight loss for Mother." http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/LVAugSep97p90NB.html Breast feeding does return the mother's body back to a prepregnancy state much faster. Maybe this is an education and medical evaluation area that needs more attention when it involves a nursing mom who wants to prepare to run a marathon. Richard McCann wrote: > My wife nursed our son for 2 1/2 years. She found that it took a fair > amount of energy. She was also active in the local LLL activities and I > strongly support breast feeding. > > Also there is substantial difference between vigorous exercise, which can > enhance the body's functions, and competing in a marathon, which has been > compared to inflicting the same amount of damage as a serious illness which > takes several weeks to recover from. It is this difference in degree to > which I allude--running a marathon is not an activity that should be taken > as lightly as going for a half hour run. > > RMc > > At 02:07 PM 11/7/2002 -0600, Mike Prizy wrote: > > >The unfortunate death of the woman at the Marine Corps Marathon being > >attributed to breast feeding > >was of great interest to me. My wife breast feed all three of our sons > >(each over a year) with no > >complications. > > > >La Leche League International just happens to be in the town where I now > >live of Schaumburg, Ill. > >They support vigorous exercise for breast feeding mothers. According to La > >Leche League, most > >American women who are still breast feeding at 10 months are only doing so > >a couple times a day, > >which should not have had a correlation with a sodium imbalance. Also, > >according to the LLLI, breast > >feeding alone does not cause "great physical stresses" on the body. > > > >Here is what the La Leche League provided: > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi Mike, > > > >Thanks for calling today, and also for sending information about the > >sad death of the mother in the Marine Corps Marathon. The selected > >bib list on Exercise and Breast feeding Mothers is in the attached > >file. We'd appreciate it if you learn anything concrete on the sodium > >levels having a relationship > >with this death. > > > >Again, after ten months of breast feeding, it is very unlikely that there > >would be any sort of impact on the mother's sodium level or her running > >program, from the > >information we have. > > > >Best wishes, > > > >Center for Breast feeding Information > >La Leche League International > > > > > > > > > >La Leche League International > >CENTER FOR BREASTFEEDING INFORMATION > > > >BREASTFEEDING AND EXERCISE > > > >Selected Bibliography > >March 2001 > > > >Dewey, K.G. et al. A Randomized Study of the Effects of Aerobic Exercise > >by Lactating Women on > >Breast-Milk Volume and Composition. N Engl J Med 1994; 330(7):449-53. > > > >Dewey, K.G. and Lovelady, C. Exercise and Breast-Feeding: A Different > >Experience. Pediatrics 1993; > >91(2):514-15. > > > >Dewey, K.G. and McCrory, M.A. Effects of Dieting and Physical Activity on > >Pregnancy and Lactation. > >Am J Clin Nutr 1994; 59(Suppl):446S-59S. > > > >Dressendo
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
Nick Setta, 5-11/177, Notre Dame kicker might still make for a good candidate for your running pentathlon. I always thought Setta could have potentially been a great decathlete, but I'm not sure if he ever did the PV. But the way he has been kicking this year, he might as well try it. Just read through his stats and look at some of the people he ran against in high school. In high school, he would run XC meets Saturday morning and would then be driven to where his school was playing that day's football game. What could he have done if he concentrated on running? http://und.ocsn.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/setta_nicholas00.html (Part of his football bio at ND) ...hit the crossbar on 72-yard field goal attempt . . . kicked Illinois state record 59-yard field goal as sophomore in '96 vs. Bloom . . . averaged 46.7 yards per punt as junior, with 27 of 64 kickoffs going for touchbacks . . . ...won four letters in both cross country and track and field . . . finished sixth in Illinois state track and field meet in high jump as junior and also ranked as top hurdler . . . four-time team captain and MVP in both cross country and track . . . had bests of 1:53.4 (???) in 800 meters, 3:59 in 1500 meters, and 6-10 in high jump . . . finished 11th in Illinois state cross country meet in '98, fifth in '97 and helped Lockport to Illinois state cross country crowns in '96 and '97 . . .. . http://www.ihsa.org/activity/trb/1998-99/2result2.htm#Event12 800-Meter Run - Ill. H.S. state final 1999 Final Heat 1 Nicholas Setta (Sr.), Lockport (Twp.) 1:52.24 2 Jon Dreher (Sr.), Winnetka (New Trier) 1:52.65 3 Rob Hulick (Jr.), Hinsdale (Central) 1:53.01 4 Eric Duda (Sr.), Carol Stream (Glenbard North) 1:53.73 5 Mike Lewis (Jr.), Cahokia 1:53.78 Ill. H.S. XC State meet 1997 (3M) 1. Lockport (Twp.) - Setta's team 12 14 19 26 63 (125)(135) = 134 2. Elmhurst (York) - Sage's team 2 23 28 32 50 (66)(183) = 135 3. Wheeling - Torres brothers' team 16 31 57 70 (142)(149) = 165 (Record is Craig Virgin - 13:50) 11 Jorge Torres Jr Wheeling 14:15 22 Donald SageSo Elmhurst (York)14:22 3 Adam Wallace Sr Deerfield 14:30 4 Mark Pilja Sr Naperville (North) 14:32 53 Juan OrtegaJr Berwyn-Cicero (Morton) 14:34 64 Jonathan Berning Sr Chicago (Marist) 14:35 75 Nathan Purcell Jr Salem 14:36 86 Ed Torres Jr Wheeling 14:39 97 Arturo Cabarl Sr Bensenville (Fenton) 14:43 108 Onecimo GuerecaSr Chicago (Kennedy) 14:49 11 Robert Breit Sr Skokie (Niles North) 14:49 129 Jason Van Swol Sr New Lenox (Lincoln-Way)14:50 13 10 Chris Siemers Jr Bensenville (Fenton) 14:51 14 11 Mike Seman Sr Hinsdale (Central) 14:51 15 12 Greg Targosz Jr Lockport (Twp.)14:52 16 13 Andy Janssen Jr Naperville (Central) 14:52 17 Joe ZeibertSr Lombard (Glenbard East)14:54 18 Jeremy Borling Sr Orland Park (Sandburg) 14:55 19 14 Nick Setta Jr Lockport (Twp.)14:55 Ill. H.S. XC State meet 1998 (3M) 11 Jorge Torres Sr Wheeling 14:00 22 Donald SageJr Elmhurst (York)14:16 33 Edwardo Torres Sr Wheeling 14:24 4 Chris Siemers Sr Bensenville (Fenton) 14:35 54 Andy Janssen Sr Naperville (Central) 14:38 65 Ryan Teising Jr Naperville (Central) 14:41 76 Mike Cropper Sr Hoffman Estates (Conant) 14:41 8 Brad Bennett Sr Hoffman Estates (H.S.) 14:42 97 Nathan Purcell Sr Salem 14:44 10 Juan OrtegaSr Berwyn-Cicero (Morton) 14:49 118 Nicholas Setta Sr Lockport (Twp.)14:52 "Bloomquist, Bret" wrote: > I'd like to see a running pentathlon: 100, 400, 800, 1,500, 5,000 with a > points table. Or maybe a steeple instead of the 800 or 1,500. > > A few years ago this local high school kid ran a strong leg on a sub-41 > sprint relay and was a pretty good cross country runner (16:40 or so for > 5,000 meters). He wasn't good enough in any one thing to be a collegiate > star, but I always thought there should be something for guys like him. > > > -Original Message- > > From: ghill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:36 PM > > To: track list > > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Tr
t-and-f: Davis-Potts Libraries - Again
Hi Guys, Just wanted you to know that all books ordered will be going out next Tuesday. I have been quite ill with a cold over the past 3 days but I am feeling much better now. I was unable to get anything out this week due to the illness; I am terribly sorry about this. Again, everything will be on its way early next week. Many thanks for your continued support. It is much appreciated. You may be interested in knowing that the Potts' family is most grateful to those of you who will cherish having something which once belonged to Don. Stay in touch, Scott
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
> From: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:59:39 -0800 (PST) > To: track list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > If the 400 has proven capable of being highly entertaining in a relay > setting, why not stick with the distance and just run it with a waterfall > start? It works for the 800.>> Or, like a big-league 800, run the first curve in lanes, break at the top of the stretch.
t-and-f: Heptathlon standards
JJK's score of 6304 would put her at No. 5 on the yearly list for 2002. What 6304? That would be her score after SIX events in her WR performance.
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
Sorry, I mis-phrased what I meant to say. I don't like waterfall starts on the turn... I was thinking 1-turn stagger with a 100m break line like the 800, making for 300m run without lanes. Dan > > If the 400 has proven capable of being highly entertaining in a relay > > setting, why not stick with the distance and just run it with a > > waterfall start? It works for the 800.>> > > Or, like a big-league 800, run the first curve in lanes, break at the > top of the stretch. = http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: t-and-f: 500m tracks (was: Track rules (was: banned high jumptechnique)
> From: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:04:46 -0800 > To: "\"Athletics\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > I believe that there were many 500m tracks in continental Europe in the > early 20th century. > > However, modern track and field was essentially a British sport (and one > that was developed to suit the needs of England's gambling-mad upper > classes) and so their 1/4 mile track became the "standard" with the > compromise in Europe of the 400m track which eventually those on the > Imperial system adjusted to. But we could very easily have had 500m tracks > and thus a whole different last 100 years of track.> I don't know about "many" 500m tracks. One thing you've got to consider is the size of the stadium that has to go around a 500m track and how many people it would seat. At the turn of that century, you weren't getting many crowds of that size. It's instructive to note the size of the Olympic tracks in the early going. 1896 Athens--333.3m (you can still run on this one; you wanna talk tight curves!) 1900 Paris--500m, laid out on a horse-racing track. 1904 St. Louis--c536m (1/3 of a mile), with a 220y straightaway! 1908 London--1/3 of a mile again, positioned inside a 660y banked concrete cycling oval and containing a giant swimming pool on the infield! 1912 Stockholm--383m 1916 Berlin--0m 1920 Antwerp--400m (at last!) 1924 Paris--500m 1928 Amsterdam--tracks standardized at 400 henceforth, but note that Harbig's legendary 1:46.6 in Milan in '39 was on a 500m job. Gh
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
Or could ignore the common finishline and run it center-to-center, giving you 50m of straightaway before the break. > From: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:06:19 -0800 (PST) > To: track list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > Sorry, I mis-phrased what I meant to say. I don't like waterfall starts > on the turn... I was thinking 1-turn stagger with a 100m break line like > the 800, making for 300m run without lanes. > > Dan > >>> If the 400 has proven capable of being highly entertaining in a relay >>> setting, why not stick with the distance and just run it with a >>> waterfall start? It works for the 800.>> >> >> Or, like a big-league 800, run the first curve in lanes, break at the >> top of the stretch. > > > = > http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. > http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F > > @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) > _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax > / / > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 >
Re: t-and-f: Heptathlon standards
ghill wrote: > JJK's score of 6304 would put her at No. 5 on the yearly list for 2002. What > 6304? That would be her score after SIX events in her WR performance. Has anybody calculated what her "best case" heptathlon score would be, taking her PRs for all events? I believe that you guys publish that kind of thing from time to time in TFN, but it's still nice to hear again. bob
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
> Or could ignore the common finishline and run it center-to-center, > giving you 50m of straightaway before the break. I know a coach who sets up all his intervals that way. He says he likes it because it makes it easier to get from one side of the track to the other for calling out splits. Not sure how that equates to spectating enjoyment, though. Dan = http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
t-and-f: Illegal jumping
Netters: A few thoughts and facts on the illegal LJ and HJ methods: I have always wondered why the somersault LJ was banned for safety reasons (when their was no clinical evidence it was unsafe), while the "springboard" poles have been allowed to continue despite causing so many deaths, (I have ven wished for the return of Teddy Roosevelt, who took direct action when football was killing so many college athletes) I can't recall it ever being used in HS meets in NJ, but I did once see Al Hamlin, a Delaware Valley graduate, use it in an AAU meet while he was at Maryland. Al become a 7,000-plus decathlete, using the somersault to add about two feet to his previous best. Long, long ago, there were a pair of gymnastic coaches in Hudson County, Bob martin and Frank Wells, who claimed they could have topped 8 feet using a two-foot takeoff. I saw them tumbling on many occasions and can well believe it. The is a personal postscript to this. Bob's son, a "junior." was a valued runner on my grammar school track team, but never competed in the high jump. However, an earlier star, Billy Leonard, who weighed less than 75 pounds, was on the tumbling team coached by Martin and Wells. The HJ was not part of our usual menu of events, but we went once to a meet in Englewood which had it and Billy volunteered to try it. The venue was outside the backstretch--this was the same track where the old Englewood Invitational was held--and I had my hands full marshalling some 50-60 4th to 8th graders for the running events and didn't see what was going on. Billy was using the two-foot takeoff and easily topping the bar when the coach of our main rival,. the great Jack Yockers, saw his style and exploded. The Solomonic decision of the officials was to stop him going it any more, but allow what he had done to stay in the books. Gary Hill's post on the size of Olympic track was most interesting. I had always thought that the largest track ever used for a major track and field meet was the third of a mile oval at Persing Field, Jersey City---still extant, though not used for competition any longer (my team won a major elementary meet there in 1956) but now I know it has to share the honor. Gary did not mention that the 1924 Paris track is also still with us---it was the site of the climactic sovccer game in the mobie, "Victory," and you could see the present, rubberized track in several of the shots (Too bad the prodcuers of "Chariots of Fire" didn't have the funds to shoot their Olympic scenes there (they settled for a small stadium and a 400M track in Wales, I believe). I had always thought that the 500M tracks came into being because they fit more comfortably about a full-size soccer field, while the 400/400 tracks do so around our smaller football fields. Ed Grant
Re: t-and-f: long jump with a flip
I recall going to one of the old ITA Pro Indoor track meets. I recall a picture, possibly on the cover, of Delamere in his WSU jersey. My older brother and I started doing it too. He ended up a whacked out skier doing all kinds of flips and me, well, though never injured doing a flip, chose an event, shall we say, much closer to the ground, at least according to the human eye. I say bring it back, maybe we can win some X-Gamers over. Allen James > > Subject: t-and-f: long jump with a flip > > > > Someone who knows far more about track than I do wrote: > > > >> I seem to recall that long jump with a flip looked like a > mechanical > >> improvement before it was banned. > > > > That must have been a truly revolutionary technique. Who was > doing it, and > > when, and how far? > > > A quick history, just off the top of my head: Idaho State coach Dave > Nielsen > is pictured in the pages of T&FN around '73 using the technique. At > the '74 > Pac-8 meet in the LA Coliseum, John Delamere of Washington State > absolutely > blew the crowd away by using the style. As I recall, jumped > somehting like > 25-4 3/4 wind-aided. In '75 Bruce Jenner used it and added about a > foot to > his best, but the IAAF shortly thereafter banned the technique, > citing > "safety issues." I think they were premature in so doing. > > I think Delamere went on to become a member of the New Zealand > parliament. > > gh
Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique)
Lots of good ideas, but nobody has hit on the right solution. For whatever reason, we have quarter-mile tracks all over the world. Call 'em 400-meter tracks if you want, but if track and field had been intended to be a metric sport, those tracks would be 500-meter tracks. So the proper solution is to take track back to its roots and have the events in what fits quarter-mile tracks -- yards. The 100, 220 (1/8 of a mile or a furlong, as those of us who remember such things know it), quarter-mile, half-mile and mile and so on up. And the tracks should have 220-yard straightaways as they used to have, thus doing away with need for any kind of staggered start in either the 440 or the 880 -- and allowing the spectator to see at all times who's ahead and who's behind. (I'm not sure what I'd do about the second hurdle event. The old 220-yard low hurdle event on a straightaway was pretty much a third sprint, and there is something appealing about the 440-yard hurdle event. But you really do have to run it staggered, which is to the bewilderment of most spectators for most of the race.) I've always regretted that the United States, the only major nation to come through the second war relatively unscathed and thus in a position to have its way, didn't join with the host United Kingdom (then still sensibly using imperial measurements) and impose yardage events on the rest of the world in the 1948 Olympics. Instead, as Europhile know-it-alls whose Bible was Track & Field News gradually took over, we have foolishly yielded to the rest of the world so that American spectators have deserted track and field because they have no idea what's going on. Bill Allen - Original Message - From: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "track list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:59 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > If the 400 has proven capable of being highly entertaining in a relay > setting, why not stick with the distance and just run it with a waterfall > start? It works for the 800. If you increase the 400 by 25%, you're > getting far enough away from sprint territory that you'll basically end up > with a short 800. That's basically twice as far as anyone can sprint for, > so I don't see it appealing to too many people. > > Dan > > --- ghill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've long been an advocate of the 500, mainly because it would make for > > a long sprint that's actually exciting. There's nothing more thrilling > > than > > watching guys duelling down the backstretch at high speed in a 4x4, but > > when you put them in lanes it sucks just about every last bit of thrill > > out of it. I'd love to see 400s run from a waterfall start (roller > derby > > lives!) but since the death toll would be unacceptable, that's why the > > 500 is so appealing. > > > > Put everybody at the 100 start (no blocks) at a bit of a tangent and let > > them break for the pole at the end of the straight. Then you get a > > kick-ass 400 run out of lane 1. > > > > It would also be a terrific event numerologically, with the 1-minute > > barrier being a great marker for international-class running. > > = > http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. > http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F > > @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) > _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax >/ / > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
