And if you think the UAA indoor results are valid, explain to me how every single person in the final set a lifetime PB (and obviously SB) by over a tenth of a second, and didn’t go on to run near those times ever again?
Tell me how likely it is multiple people that are in long-to-short programs are going 6.4low and even 6.38 and are going 10.96-11.1 in the 100m? Crack f***** kills.
On the first, it’s called adaptation. At some point your body will adjust and adapt to training.
On the second, it’s called over-training and cumulative effects of fatigue. So I am going to say UC was burnout by years end and stumbled and f’d up their exchange because of a decrease in motor control from cumulative fatigue. Last year sucked for midwest tracksters, especially those in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
And if you still have to ask if I think his program was good, you completely misunderstand what has been said by both Mort and myself and you should probably go back and read through our comments SLOWLY.
So IWU had 4 guys faster than UChicago’s #3 man on the relay and still lost. Yep, IWU really had a good relay put together, fo sho.
I just explained that UC had 3 faster over 200m than IWU’s at 200m and IWU’s #4 was slower than even kids not even on the UC 4x1 in the 200m dash and 55m dash.
Stumbled and f’d up their exchange? What the fuck are you talking about? I have video and pictures from the relay and it was questionable to DQ them in the first place, not to mention it was one of their better performances, time wise.
Adaptation? So multiple people from 3-4 different teams (consequently, 3-4 different training programs) ran lifetime PRs by over a tenth from the day before. People who didn’t improve in a single race into college and didn’t improve since ran a .1+ (.2 in one case) PR in the 55m, but couldn’t translate it into another race of even mediocre quality?
You are really making yourself look like a complete fool to anybody who knows anything about the athletes and teams involved.
IWU’s #4 was barely slower than UChicago’s #3 and #4, while IWU’s #1 & #2 were fast enough to embarass UChicago’s #1 and UChicago’s #2 wasn’t even able to be seeded in their heats at meets.
Look at the top 3 times in the 200m for them and look at the results of those athletes in meets not called UAA championships. Hell, look at the results of all UAA athletes in meets not called UAA championships.
Stumbled and f’d up their exchange? What the fuck are you talking about? I have video and pictures from the relay and it was questionable to DQ them in the first place, not to mention it was one of their better performances, time wise.
Adaptation? So multiple people from 3-4 different teams (consequently, 3-4 different training programs) ran lifetime PRs by over a tenth from the day before. People who didn’t improve in a single race into college and didn’t improve since ran a .1+ (.2 in one case) PR in the 55m, but couldn’t translate it into another race of even mediocre quality?
You are really making yourself look like a complete fool to anybody who knows anything about the athletes and teams involved.
So tells us what happened in the relay and why they were DQ’d?
IWU’s #4 was barely slower than UChicago’s #3 and #4, while IWU’s #1 & #2 were fast enough to embarass UChicago’s #1 and UChicago’s #2 wasn’t even able to be seeded in their heats at meets.
Look at the top 3 times in the 200m for them and look at the results of those athletes in meets not called UAA championships. Hell, look at the results of all UAA athletes in meets not called UAA championships.
To me it looks like the UAA championships mean a lot to UAA coaches. Not uncommon when speaking of academic institutions since survival at the DIII level in those schools probably means doing well in Conference championships in sports like track, XC, golf, swimming, wrestling, etc… You cannot tell at both indoor and outdoor UAA championship meets the timing system and/or track distances were screwed up. Do most of the schools still run on yardage tracks like UC in the UAA?
Since DB thinks his weak argument is valid, let’s add up that times:
IWU:
10.74
10.74** (bare minimum estimate based upon 55m/200m/400m ability, probably 10.6x)
11.31
11.47 ————
44.26 (if you switch out 11.31 for 11.70, you get 44.64)
Since DB thinks his weak argument is valid, let’s add up that times:
IWU:
10.74
10.74** (bare minimum estimate based upon 55m/200m/400m ability, probably 10.6x)
11.31
11.47 ————
44.26 (if you switch out 11.31 for 11.70, you get 44.64)
UChicago
10.96
11.10
11.54
11.57 ————
45.17
IWU top 3 200
21.44
21.47
22.77 ———-
65.68
UChicago top 3 200
22.18
22.48
22.71 ———
67.37
Neither the 11.47 or 11.70 ran on IWU’s relay team, instead it was a runner who ran 23.03 over 200m.
UAA outdoors times is likely valid, though wind readings were 2.5-3.0 the entire time except during races when people were chilling in front of wind gauges (video evidence of this).
UAA indoors 55m times have been discarded by the teams themselves for record keeping purposes.
They were DQ’d for supposedly passing out of the zone, but this is questionable as there is a photo with the baton clearly in Reeves hand before going out of the zone (right at the end). Even if it was a legitimate DQ, your “stumbled” argument is weak considering mistakes happen in the relays and we have to look at the complete portfolio of races and times rather than looking at a singular event and deciding their competence from that.
UAA outdoors times is likely valid, though wind readings were 2.5-3.0 the entire time except during races when people were chilling in front of wind gauges (video evidence of this).
UAA indoors 55m times have been discarded by the teams themselves for record keeping purposes.
They were DQ’d for supposedly passing out of the zone, but this is questionable as there is a photo with the baton clearly in Reeves hand before going out of the zone (right at the end). Even if it was a legitimate DQ, your “stumbled” argument is weak considering mistakes happen in the relays and we have to look at the complete portfolio of races and times rather than looking at a singular event and deciding their competence from that.
“stumbled” is a vague reference to making a mistake. Kind of like the phrase, “George Bush has stumbled in decision making throughout his Presidency.“
So UC either pushed the exchanges to the extreme and/or the outgoing runner took off too quickly. In my experience, using a long to short program combined with pushing exchanges to the end of the zone results in a lot of DQ’s. I am willing to bet UC sprinters either had 1 or 2 good days in terms of performance probably 1 considering conditions last spring and that is a sign of a long to short program with too much volume and too much stress.
So then what explains why IWU was so good at women’s relays and sprints as well?
Plus, 23.0 is going to be faster than 11.70, so your argument isn’t helped at all. The numbers and facts don’t lie, DB.
The 23.03 ran a 6.96 55m indoors. I am afraid the numbers aren’t lying. Lets not forget that Olopo and Harden had other events. Heck even Rose and Conti ran on the 4x4.
It is impossible to be limited to 6.96 and then later go 23.03. Perhaps he was sick or hurt, but that wasn’t his ability at the time he ran 23.03, clearly. I’m “afraid” you are mentally challenged.
Oh yeah, Olopo and Harden ran ummm the 100m before the 4x100m. Yep, really took .2+ off each of them, I bet.
UChicago had more than 1 good performance (relative to their abilities), considering they made the final at D3 nationals and beat IWU head-to-head in May.
