Track starts v. Swim starts

RE: Track starts v. Swim starts

Former Member — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:46:28 GMT

Interesting point. Two other factors play in. 1) T&F can have numerous events occurring simultaneously (i.e. 100m, high jump, & javelin) while swimming can have only one; thus, an emphasis to keep things moving 2) If you notice, the longest pre-race rituals at the blocks occur at the shortest events, particularly the 100m. When a race is this precise, athletes arguably need more time Of course, maybe they (the athletes, USA T&F, and NBC) have just learned to milk it over time and it's gotten out of hand like NBA free throw rituals before they instituted the time limit

RE: Track starts v. Swim starts

__steve__ — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:20:07 GMT

One word: advertising :bump:

RE: Track starts v. Swim starts

knelson — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:18:29 GMT

The 100 is so short they almost have to milk it. If everyone just went right to the blocks and they started it would all be over in 20 seconds!

RE: Track starts v. Swim starts

Patrick W. Brundage — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:14:21 GMT

I'm not sure where this belongs. My apologies if I mis-posted. Maybe it's NSR. I'm baffled by the big difference in the time it takes to get track and swim events started. In swimming, they march the swimmers out, they tear off their sweats and headphones, adjust their goggles, and they are ready to go. Track starts (at least in the sprints) often take several times longer to start than the entire race takes to run. They adjust their blocks (don't they know their settings?), stretch out (weren't they stretching before they were introduced?), stand up, wave to the crowd, do some sort of proprietary one person secret handshake (which often involves salutes, Greek God poses, genuflection and other quasi-religious moves), stretch out a bit more, wiggle into their ready position, etc. What's up with that? One word: sprinters! :bolt: