So I was watching the Men's 100m semi finals. A bit distracted, while multi-tasking, so not really doing the talking heads, just stopping to watch the actual race.
Totally baffled why Hinchliffe's 3rd wasn't good enough for automatic qualification.
Turns out there are 3 semi-finals ;doh
Yeah, it seems to be standard these days, but I don't like it tbh. I'd rather they make it stricter in the early rounds (eg only top 2 go through from the heats, which are much easier) to make it only 2 semi-finals.
Trying to understand the facts as the reporting is a bit confusing. But did every single person in the race run faster than the previous world record?
They ran faster than a previous world record, but if you go back 50 years that was probably slower than 10 seconds. I missed whatever it is you're referring to, but it was an exceptionally quick race. Obviously they weren't all quicker than the current WR, or a good few WRs before that. You'd have to go back to Carl Lewis in 1988 when he set a new WR of 9.92 for them all to be quicker, and it's been broken (legally) 10 times since then.
Trying to understand the facts as the reporting is a bit confusing. But did every single person in the race run faster than the previous world record?
They ran faster than a previous world record
Ah, that's makes more sense!
I knew it couldn't have been what they meant when they said "That was a world record for a fourth-placed finish, a world record for fifth, a world record for sixth, a world record for seventh and a world record for for eighth."
A slightly disappointing silver in the Triathlon mixed relay. We were leading most of the way, with favourites France taken out of the running by a crash on the first bike leg, but on the final leg Beth Potter lost her lead on the bike and then got run out of gold by Germany. We just pipped USA in a photo finish for silver, a couple of yards behind Germany.
A slightly disappointing silver in the Triathlon mixed relay. We were leading most of the way, with favourites France taken out of the running by a crash on the first bike leg, but on the final leg Beth Potter lost her lead on the bike and then got run out of gold by Germany. We just pipped USA in a photo finish for silver, a couple of yards behind Germany.
It seems the result has been revised, an even more disappointing bronze rather than silver.
Trying to understand the facts as the reporting is a bit confusing. But did every single person in the race run faster than the previous world record?
They ran faster than a previous world record, but if you go back 50 years that was probably slower than 10 seconds. I missed whatever it is you're referring to, but it was an exceptionally quick race. Obviously they weren't all quicker than the current WR, or a good few WRs before that. You'd have to go back to Carl Lewis in 1988 when he set a new WR of 9.92 for them all to be quicker, and it's been broken (legally) 10 times since then.
I didn't interpret it like that
I may be wrong, but I think Dean is right
So if you had a excel spreadsheet where you had all of the Olympics and the times of each position, I.e. a row of every 1st place first, a row of 3rd place finishes and so on, if you went down the list and highlighted the fastest for each position, you'd spot that the "fastest 4th/5th/6th/7th/8th place finish" recorded was in this year's
That's how they made it seem.
Like Seville got 9.91 in 8th. You look at all the 8th place finishes, nobody had ever ran 9.91.
Disaster for Molly Caudery who was fancied for a medal in the pole vault. She came in at a height of 4.55m in qualifying, and had 3 fails at the height. She doesn't make the final.
Goodness me, what's happened in the Women's Team Sprint in the velodrome? The WR has been broken 4 times this afternoon, first by GB in the qualifying, then twice in the heats before GB broke it again in the last heat. Guaranteed at least a silver as the 2 quickest in the heats race for gold and silver, the remaining 2 heat winners go for the bronze.
Comments
Wonder how much they had to pay for filming in that venue.
I knew it couldn't have been what they meant when they said "That was a world record for a fourth-placed finish, a world record for fifth, a world record for sixth, a world record for seventh and a world record for for eighth."
Hence my baffled query.
I may be wrong, but I think Dean is right
So if you had a excel spreadsheet where you had all of the Olympics and the times of each position, I.e. a row of every 1st place first, a row of 3rd place finishes and so on, if you went down the list and highlighted the fastest for each position, you'd spot that the "fastest 4th/5th/6th/7th/8th place finish" recorded was in this year's
That's how they made it seem.
Like Seville got 9.91 in 8th. You look at all the 8th place finishes, nobody had ever ran 9.91.
I'm glad it wasn't just me who was confused:-)
A great start to the cycling.
New OR.
Just catching up , and watching the medal ceremony. The cyclist in the middle of the three singing God Save the Queen 😂
I watched a lot of cycling in the Tokyo Olympics, and got my head around the different events, rules etc.
But that was years ago, and now I'm totally baffled. Teams going in opposite directions.. or is it just the filming?
Gonna have to up my game!