Beamon had that rare combination of the major Championship "peak" and Mexico City being at one helluvan altitude.
The Olympics 2012
- Thread starter mjo
- Start date
I think long jump and Bolt have been mentioned in the same sentence before during the Olympics, either by Bolt himself or the pundits, I can't remember. Personally I think it's pretty unlikely; he'd have more to lose than to gain in my opinion.
Rutherford wants to go to sprinting.
Perhaps the likes of Bob Beamon and Mike Powell were just extraordinary athletes, it just seems that performances in field events aren't improving or even coming close to matching past records despite the advances in sport.
Every single field event world record has lasted at least 16 years:
The high jump record (2.45m) has stood for 19 years, in the past decade the closest anyone has got is 6cm under it and that was only the joint 25th best jump of all time.
The pole vault record (6.14m) has lasted 18 years, the closest anyone's got to that in the past decade is 6.04m.
The triple jump record (18.29m) has lasted 17 years, no one's even jumped over 18m since 1998.
The shot put record (23.12m) has lasted 22 years, no one's got over 23m since 6 days after that record was made in 1990.
Discus (74.08m) 26 year record.
Hammer (86.74) 26 year record.
Javelin (98.48m) 16 year record.
Long jump (8.95m) 21 year record.
It could just be that all of those records were by truly exceptional athletes, but I would expect people to be getting at least relatively near to those records. On the track side, even with the exceptional athletes the overall standards improve, notably in the likes of the 100m where a large number of athletes are now capable of running under 10seconds.
Every single field event world record has lasted at least 16 years:
The high jump record (2.45m) has stood for 19 years, in the past decade the closest anyone has got is 6cm under it and that was only the joint 25th best jump of all time.
The pole vault record (6.14m) has lasted 18 years, the closest anyone's got to that in the past decade is 6.04m.
The triple jump record (18.29m) has lasted 17 years, no one's even jumped over 18m since 1998.
The shot put record (23.12m) has lasted 22 years, no one's got over 23m since 6 days after that record was made in 1990.
Discus (74.08m) 26 year record.
Hammer (86.74) 26 year record.
Javelin (98.48m) 16 year record.
Long jump (8.95m) 21 year record.
It could just be that all of those records were by truly exceptional athletes, but I would expect people to be getting at least relatively near to those records. On the track side, even with the exceptional athletes the overall standards improve, notably in the likes of the 100m where a large number of athletes are now capable of running under 10seconds.
Maybe it's because very few people care about the field events?
I don't want to be so blunt, but if you think about it I think there could be some truth to it. If less people are interested in the sport then less people are playing the sport, there are less coaches and less funding/sponsorship. All that means that a recipe for perfection in the field events has maybe not developed, or is not widely known?
I'm not sure, I'm speculating/bullshitting and I might not even agree with myself, but if you compare it to running, for example, there's a hell of a lot more people and companies from a hell of a lot more sports that are interested in running shoes and technique.
I don't want to be so blunt, but if you think about it I think there could be some truth to it. If less people are interested in the sport then less people are playing the sport, there are less coaches and less funding/sponsorship. All that means that a recipe for perfection in the field events has maybe not developed, or is not widely known?
I'm not sure, I'm speculating/bullshitting and I might not even agree with myself, but if you compare it to running, for example, there's a hell of a lot more people and companies from a hell of a lot more sports that are interested in running shoes and technique.
Oooh! Flubber!!!
Why not?
I would have expected it to be even more beneficial as long distance running on hard surfaces is bad for the joints, muscles, etc.
I can no longer run outside on concrete as my knees are wrecked for months afterwards, but relatively soft tarmac roads are fine.
I would have expected it to be even more beneficial as long distance running on hard surfaces is bad for the joints, muscles, etc.
I can no longer run outside on concrete as my knees are wrecked for months afterwards, but relatively soft tarmac roads are fine.
During the Olympics it was mentioned (by athletes and pundits) quite a few times that the London track surface was fast, which was good for the sprinters but took more out of your legs so made it a bit harder for the mid to long distance runners. I don't know the ins and outs of it.
There's a BBC article here that goes some way to explaining it, including this quote:
There's a BBC article here that goes some way to explaining it, including this quote:
How?
Maybe so, but where does it get the additional energy from in order to return to the legs?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
