Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#71

Post by getlawgdon »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #68
getlawgdon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hohn's throw is not the world record and hasn't been for decades.

Because they reset the records to reflect the redesigned javelins. The current world record is ~6 metres less than Hohn's throw...

No, that's not why Hohn's record is not the world record any more than "Hohn is not the current world record holder because he never threw the current implement." Or that "Zelezny never threw the old one." The world record is set according to the latest rules of the sport, and Hohn's throw did not meet the standard by definition. You clearly have no idea what the level of outperformance is of Jan Zelezny's record. It is by some stats evaluations more of an outlier than Bolt's 100m record. For the record, I am a former national-class thrower who has trained with the national record holder and had the opportunity to work a former world record holder on multiple occasions.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#72

Post by getlawgdon »

p1key wrote: post #53
vikiomega9 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source for the reason Johannes Vetter failed? Does not look like this was covered well in the press.

My source for this was watching the final myself. When I watched the broadcast myself it was clear to me that this was the problem. Also the (Finnish) commentators were very knowledgeable in the sport and pointed out the problem many times. I was unable to find a clip of his throws in YouTube, but here's a Google Translated article from a Finnish newspaper: https://bit.ly/3xvZWMk .

Vetter's official performances and progressions can be found on the World Athletics (formerly IAAF) website: https://www.worldathletics.org/athletes/_/14408144

His 97.76 was in 2020 in Poland.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#73

Post by getlawgdon »

lelanthran wrote: post #23
getlawgdon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you deeply misunderstand the statistical nature of a world record. there is a piece out there somewhere about zelezney's record being a more significant outlier than Bolt's. But to be clear, you're insinuating that Jan was a cheat? I had training sessions with the former AR holder and numerous conversations with a former WR holder and threw at a high level. I'm quite familiar with the sport and I'm truly curi…

> I'm quite familiar with the sport and I'm truly curious as to whether you're making this claim about JZ and if you could name 10 throwers without Googling it. What does his claim[1] have to do with knowing who the throwers are? FWIW, I think that, if you look at a sport and find that the performance of athletes in that sport decreased significantly after the introduction of more comprehensive drug testing, then it…

I think you should spend some time plotting throws of the last 20 years using performances from top athletes the worldathletics website. You'll discover that you are mistaken.

This suggestion is related to to for why the claim matters, which is familiarity with the sport (as represented by the ability to name its participants). As a longtime participant in track and field, athlete, coach, and fan, I have invariably found that people reduce perceived phenomena to doping usually have no idea what's actually going on in the sport and aren't involved in it in any substantive way. So, "show your familiarity" is a jabby heuristic to prove the point.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#74

Post by getlawgdon »

hoseja wrote: post #64
nl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Javelin is a bit of an outlier in the Olympics in that throws today are nowhere near the records, even after the changes discussed in the article. This isn't true. There are 10 different athletes who have thrown within 7m of the world record[1] and Johannes Vetter has thrown over 94m 4 times[2]. > So why are we so much worse than 25 years ago? We aren't > The obvious explanation would doping. Zelezy was a freak - a…

Železný had a completely different revolutionary technique, hence his success.

Specifically what do you think was Zelezny's completely different revolutionary technique? Because if you're talking about "wrapping", it was not new. Zelezny did not radically change the technique of the event. I'm very curious to know what you think Zelezny did that was something like what Fosbury did... I can tell you what I think Zelezny did better but that's not the same as what he did completely differently.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#75

Post by getlawgdon »

arey_abhishek wrote: post #9

Fun fact. Uwe Hohn, the permanent record holder, is the coach for this year's Olympic gold medalist.

There is absolutely no such thing as "permanent record holder" in track and field. The structure of records in track and field is a very specific thing, and the current world record holder, which record is set in accordance with the current matrix of regulation and ratification procedures, is canonically considered the superlative all-time performance. Uwe's throw, while astonishing, is a now a sidenote and asterisk.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#76

Post by getlawgdon »

jespere1 wrote: post #35

I don’t get the point of this article. Maybe it’s satire? What else does the author want? Boxing without gloves? Fencing with real swords? Perhaps the ancients won’t be so impressed with the absence of blood drawn? If a caveman is unimpressed by how far the modern javelin travels we could just hand one to him/her see how far they can throw it?

I think it can be chalked up to "naive outsider musings" coupled with the "national geographic touch."

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#77

Post by recursive »

scheme271 wrote: post #57
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also clear safety advantages to recumbents, like harder breaking without flipping over and an unobstructed view without sacrificing aerodynamics, so I do not think they should automatically be considered less safe. I am also pretty confident that the 'manoeuvrability' disadvantage is completely irrelevant for any individual track event. And do you think that it would be an important factor for time trials?

It depends but I don't think a recumbent bike is all that great when climbing or descending. I can't see cyclists wanting a recumbent if there are any significant elevation changes on the course.

Recumbents are beasts of descending. As long as there are no turns. On a straight descent, they'll beat anything without even trying.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#78

Post by sandworm101 »

nl wrote: post #44
sandworm101 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swimming rules have also been progressively eased to help keep the records falling. Flip turns in backstroke. Relay dives. More aggressive dive blocks. The new breaststroke kick. Lots of little thing mean constant trend, constant records dropping.

But restrictions on swimsuit material have gone the other way. There were a bunch of records set using non-permeable suits in 2008-2009 that will take year to break again after FINA introduced the "textile material" rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#Marketing_and_result... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_X-Glide#Controversy

One of perhaps a dozen rules. The one rule that was tightened in a sea of rules being loosened.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#79

Post by nradov »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #55
mariusor wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro cycling is already a pretty dangerous sport, both on track and on the road. To mitigate those dangers a very important part is having a maneuverable bike. Recumbents are nothing of the sort. I doubt that any pro-cyclist wants the speed advantages of one if it means that cornering is more difficult, veering into dangerous.

There are also clear safety advantages to recumbents, like harder breaking without flipping over and an unobstructed view without sacrificing aerodynamics, so I do not think they should automatically be considered less safe. I am also pretty confident that the 'manoeuvrability' disadvantage is completely irrelevant for any individual track event. And do you think that it would be an important factor for time trials?

The view from a recumbent bike becomes highly obstructed when you're riding in a tight peleton. The group road rides that I do don't allow recumbents for safety reasons. Traditional bikes have their dangers but at least your eyes are up higher to allow a good view around other riders.

Maneuverability is important for time trials. Most courses have several tight turns and crashes are common.

Re: Embarrassed by your Olympic javelin: did cavemen do it better? (2012)

#80

Post by nradov »

hervature wrote: post #50
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling is actually another notorious example of a sport where the rules are holding back significant innovation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle

Could also put an engine in there. Sports are defined by arbitrary rules.

There are actually sanctioned eMTB races now. Seems a bit lame but whatever.
Post reply on HN