Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2014 Irish National Championships

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Gandalph
    Registered Users Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭Gandalph


    Oregano_State wrote: »
    That completely ignores the circumstances. 2014 is the best year ever in Irish Sprinting when it comes to strength in depth.

    We've 18 men that have gone under 10.9 so far this year.

    I don't doubt it, seen a lot of talent around recently but I'm sorry, 10.9 is a piss poor nationals standard, you really can't deny that. It would of only got 3rd in the schools and only barely.


  • Options
    #93
    Billy Mills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭Billy Mills


    Oregano_State wrote: »
    That completely ignores the circumstances. 2014 is the best year ever in Irish Sprinting when it comes to strength in depth.

    We've 18 men that have gone under 10.9 so far this year.

    No it doesn't. 10.9 for 100m as a national championship time is shocking. There is no depth in terms of international quality because there is no one who is anywhere close in the 100 and 200- the guys literally aren't anywhere near world standard times. How many under 10.5?


  • Options
    #94
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Billy Mills wrote: »
    No it doesn't. 10.9 for 100m as a national championship time is shocking. There is no depth in terms of international quality because there is no one who is anywhere close in the 100 and 200- the guys literally aren't anywhere near world standard times. How many under 10.5?

    I'd personally be more concerned about the field events. One participant going to Zurich (European level, not even world level) out of 18 field events is a complete joke!


  • Options
    #95
    ecoli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    Billy Mills wrote: »
    No it doesn't. 10.9 for 100m as a national championship time is shocking. There is no depth in terms of international quality because there is no one who is anywhere close in the 100 and 200- the guys literally aren't anywhere near world standard times. How many under 10.5?

    Look at the context

    Top Sprinter this year was not there

    #2 was not able to compete

    Joint #3 were DQ'ed in final away competing at WJC this week

    #5 competed in 400m (and medalled)

    #6 was DQ'ed in heats

    #7 is at WJC

    Looking down the list in fact of the top 15 on this years rankings 1 prior to this weekend actually ran and finished the final without a DQ and that was after a doubling with the 200 in a relatively condense weekend (heat a final both days plus relays) and equalled 10.9 in final for second


  • Options
    #96
    dna_leri
    Registered Users Posts: 2,623 ✭✭✭dna_leri


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    I'd personally be more concerned about the field events. One participant going to Zurich (European level, not even world level) out of 18 field events is a complete joke!


    I think in both sprints and field events the under-age talent is there but whether the coaching and structures are in place to bring them through is questionable.

    Among the 11 gold medals at the weekend's schools international, there were 2 championship record performances in the throws, with 2 other golds in the jumps. Also given the poor show at Euro team champs we should not be surprised not to be represented at Zurich, how the emerging talent is managed will decide future participation at this level.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Oregano_State
    Registered Users Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    Billy Mills wrote: »
    No it doesn't. 10.9 for 100m as a national championship time is shocking. There is no depth in terms of international quality because there is no one who is anywhere close in the 100 and 200- the guys literally aren't anywhere near world standard times. How many under 10.5?

    Who said anything about World Standard times?

    Looking at it in isolation yes 10.9 is a shocking time for a national championship, I didn't say that it wasn't.

    What that doesn't do is take into account that there were a number of high-profile DQs, including the favourite, as well as two of our other top guys being away at the World Juniors (competing in the 200m no less), and the race was into a headwind, and pretty much everyone ran faster in the heats, with Fahey and Davis setting PBs.

    In the past 20 years Ireland have had exactly one athlete capable of competing at European level in the 100m or 200m, and he just retired this year.

    We now have a large number of guys under the age of 20 coming through, way more than ever before, getting PBs regularly and increasing the level of competition and yet the best some people can come up with is slagging the overall standard for being not good enough. With the numbers we have now running under 10.9, next year that becomes 10.8, with a couple going sub 10.5, the following year we'll have people targeting 10.3, and after that you're getting into top class sprinting. It's a case of looking at the big picture with the numbers and age-profile of the guys we have now. Look at the numbers of records set in the schools this year for proof of the rising standards.

    The simple fact is that sprinting in Ireland has never been better, standards have never been higher, and being negative on the internet about one slow race is not going to change that.


  • Options
    #98
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,595 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    As posted, the time of 10.9 is only half the story! Maybe he should dress up. Might get a medal in the women's race!


  • Options
    #99
    doctorchick
    Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭doctorchick


    walshb wrote: »
    Have to agree with Kiernan. I too thought that Healy nipped the 100m race from Foster. How accurate is the timing?

    and
    runjb wrote: »
    In one way disappointing that we had a 'joint' first placing in the women's 100m today. I would have thought with all the technology available that these were a thing of the past but I guess they still do happen from time to time. Two in the one weekend though may have been pushing the mathematical probabilities a little!! It was a thrilling race none the less. Healy scooped a very good PB in the process.

    TV camera was not positioned exactly on the finish line - it had to be moved forward slightly of the line (about 12 inches) to allow for the photofinish cameras to have a clear view of all 10 lanes as all 10 were being used for finals and so TV pictures would not give anything like the accuracy of the photofinish cameras.

    Electronic timing is deadly accurate. In both dead heats not only were the two sets of athletes given the same time in hundredths but they could not be separated by thousandths. That aside, the point at which both athletes in the two finals crossed the line was exact to the pixel on the photofinish picture. The cameras are aligned to the very leading edge of the finish line, and that is where the picture is taken and read. Not only that but there were three cameras in use, two from the stadium side at slightly different heights and one in field (on the big white pole). All three cameras gave exactly the same result - dead heat, athletes could not be separated.

    I have been involved in athletics for over 35 years and I cannot ever remember this happening before, and I imagine it won't be seen again for a long time. However I can assure you the gear is accurate and the dead heats were real events.


Advertisement