Bolt blew it (Read 2037 times)

     

    That's why you keep the zero tolerance rule, to discourage this. If a sprinter wants to risk a DQ, so be it.

     

    I believe that this would lead to fewer false starts, as sprinters could really learn to time it well given the standardization, but perhaps I am wrong about this.

    What's your response to the high likelihood that Bolt would've been DQ'ed even under this approach (assuming we believe he was affected by Blake's flinch, that is)?  Even if you aren't one of them, lots of folks ARE complaining that Bolt "belonged" in the final and want the rule changed because it caused him to be out of it.

     

    After thinking about it, I've realized that, to me, part of the spectacle of the 100m is that these athletes can coil up that much explosiveness,  maintain just enough control over to it to not unleash it until it's time, then deliver its full fury when it is time.  All the while knowing that the slightest mistake, measured in thousandths of a second, can be the difference between gold and not even medaling.  Seeing a guy running fast is one thing, but seeing a guy execute a near-flawless 100m dash is another.  I much prefer the latter.

    “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

      What's your response to the high likelihood that Bolt would've been DQ'ed even under this approach (assuming we believe he was affected by Blake's flinch, that is)?  Even if you aren't one of them, lots of folks ARE complaining that Bolt "belonged" in the final and want the rule changed because it caused him to be out of it.

       

      After thinking about it, I've realized that, to me, part of the spectacle of the 100m is that these athletes can coil up that much explosiveness,  maintain just enough control over to it to not unleash it until it's time, then deliver its full fury when it is time.  All the while knowing that the slightest mistake, measured in thousandths of a second, can be the difference between gold and not even medaling.  Seeing a guy running fast is one thing, but seeing a guy execute a near-flawless 100m dash is another.  I much prefer the latter.

       

      Your second point first: that's the best argument I've heard. Those dudes literally exude nervousness. I agree.

       

      To your first point: I think that under my approach, sprinters would not be focused on reacting to external stimuli, but focused on timing themselves to a rhythm that they have practiced incessantly and have wired. So, I don't think that you would get those sort of reactions, jumps, and flinches. But again, I could be totally wrong about that.

        Who says you can't win an argument on the Internet?

        Big grin

         

         

        I wonder where you could find a pool of appropriately talented people to conduct a study using the timing-light start method.  It'd be interesting to see if they really could learn to time it finely without a higher error rate than current start procedures.  But then, you'd also be required to provide society a replacement idiom for "jumping the gun."

        “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


        Kill

          Can we put a shark in the steeplechase pool too?

           

          Only if they have frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads.

          Passion is a rather frightening thing because if you have passion you don't know where it will take you.

           

          When it’s all said and done, will you have said more than you’ve done?

            Only if they have frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads.

             

            I figure every creature deserves a warm meal.

            JimR


              That's why you keep the zero tolerance rule, to discourage this. If a sprinter wants to risk a DQ, so be it.

               

              I believe that this would lead to fewer false starts, as sprinters could really learn to time it well given the standardization, but perhaps I am wrong about this.

               

              I'm confused with your logic.  You're saying your method discourages false starts because of a rule that is already in place in the current system?

                I'm confused with your logic.  You're saying your method discourages false starts because of a rule that is already in place in the current system?

                 

                It must be because I haven't explained my position thoroughly.

                 

                Under this proposal, the automatic DQ rule would still stay in place, YES.

                 

                What would change: A regular rhythm would be introduced into the three-count start so that runners would no longer have to react to the gun (though this would be the safest way to start, and nothing would prohibit it). They could "time" the start because every start at a major event would be standardized and exactly evenly spaced. Sprinters could practice it and wire it. The 100ms "cushion" would also be eliminated because "timing" the start wouldn't be discouraged.

                 

                My guess is that this would eliminate the vast majority of false starts because it would take the uncertainty out of the equation.

                 

                Summary of counter-arguments:

                1) Timing the start might be really hard, and sprinters would continue to false start because timing things is harder than I make it sound. So, this proposal wouldn't solve the false start problem.

                2) Reacting to the gun is a really important part of racing. It creates much of the magic of the 100m: watching these nervous dudes try to stay still before exploding. It shouldn't be eliminated, even if we have to live with this false start problem.

                3) A million other red herrings and misunderstandings.

                 

                Smile

                  Jeff, you do know you're not fooling anyone, right?  Your advocacy for an NHRA drag-racing-style Christmas tree over the current starter's pistol is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on our second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.  Your liberal elite agenda could not be more obvious.  Commie.

                  Runners run.

                  xor


                    I am against keeping bears.

                     

                      10 points for Huffelpuff?

                      Runners run.


                      HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                        Can we put a shark in the steeplechase pool too?

                         

                        You're not running the 100 in the right place.

                        It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                          I am against keeping bears.

                           

                          GAH!!!!

                           

                          (joking.)

                           

                          (and jesus christ I am like a moth to the flame with this thread. just so everyone knows, i am aware i have a problem. thank you for your concern.)


                          Fat butt on couch

                             

                            Summary of counter-arguments:

                            1) Timing the start might be really hard, and sprinters would continue to false start because timing things is harder than I make it sound. So, this proposal wouldn't solve the false start problem.

                            2) Reacting to the gun is a really important part of racing. It creates much of the magic of the 100m: watching these nervous dudes try to stay still before exploding. It shouldn't be eliminated, even if we have to live with this false start problem.

                            3) A million other red herrings and misunderstandings.

                             

                             

                            4)  The winner could simply be the person willing to take the biggest risk and jump earliest, since all runners are essentially starting at different points in time.

                            2) (reworded) Reacting to the gun ensures that all athletes are reacting to a common starting time, creating the purest assessment of the ability to be fastest from a specific start time to the finish line.

                             

                            That's really bigger than any of the others.

                            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                             


                            HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                              If you standardize the start delay, it is easier to guess the start, so there is higher potential reward for guessing -- trying to jump early, but not early enough to be DQ'd. In fact, one could practice this skill. Now that there is more reward for that, we may expect to see it more often, leading (possibly) to more false starts.

                               

                              If I understood the preceding posts -- which is fairly questionable -- then the whole point of the randomized start delay was to combat this -- to reduce the reward for guessing the start, and therefore lower the incidence of false starts.

                              It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                                4)  The winner could simply be the person willing to take the biggest risk and jump earliest, since all runners are essentially starting at different points in time.

                                2) (reworded) Reacting to the gun ensures that all athletes are reacting to a common starting time, creating the purest assessment of the ability to be fastest from a specific start time to the finish line.

                                 

                                That's really bigger than any of the others.

                                 

                                4) This is also true of the current starting regime. Some sprinters will be better at timing the start, just as some are better at reacting to the gun. So, I don't see much merit in this counter-argument. 

                                 

                                2) This is also the case with my system. The start would be simultaneous and fair. Sorry, don't see the merit here either.

                                 

                                Sad