bluebison47 said:Anything that isn't being broadcast live is just garbage, seriously, every single race—whether it's the heats or the finals—should be live, yet yesterday we barely caught a glimpse of the first heat and then only the entire last series, while all those crucial jumps where they were actually overtaking each other were relegated to some replay after the fact...😢
And it’s the same story everywhere, we saw next to nothing of the women's pole vault🙏
You certainly sound like someone who's been following track and field for decades, though if you look back at previous championships or even the Olympics, the technical events used to be an absolute disaster, zero coverage... compared to those days, this current setup is a total walk in the park, if you ask me...
It drives me crazy when they decide to air every single qualifying heat for every athlete, but honestly, I can't tell if I'm losing my mind or if there are just way more technical disciplines being covered in New York City than usual...
coastalhound53 said:Musk's shot put performance was pretty lackluster...👎
In those first three sets, they showed maybe six or seven shots, and even then, it was only five actual throws...
Well, look, the opening rounds in basically any discipline are always going to be like that—it's impossible to catch everything—but compared to some previous meets where entire disciplines would just vanish from the screen, leaving us with zero jumps or throws, or maybe just two or three before cutting away, what we saw in New York City was actually fine...
I had a much harder time with ABC during the shot put when they kept staying on that one specific lane and wouldn't budge, so we missed the finish at the pole and didn't even get a decent look at the top heptathlon group. Obviously, Zunic is the main reason we're all watching, and it’s great they cleared the lane for him, but this is still the World Cup, and we didn't necessarily need to sit through all sixty throws... especially since it's pretty obvious they'd handle it the exact same way if Zunic had finished seventh instead...
silverhound38 said:I don't know what kind of times you guys are hitting in the 100m, but that sprint has always been a lost cause for me... On my best days, I was probably keeping pace with the fastest 85-year-old in America, but these days I’d likely be trailing behind a 95-year-old... It's actually pretty wild to think that some 70-year-olds are out there running around 13 seconds...
Samuel Lopez9 said:Interesting chart. I’d say my own skills land somewhere around the top 80 or 85... among women... It's pretty wild that Stanislaw Kowalski was born back in 1910 and he’s still out there running... and those 90+ relay teams are something else too. Mad respect to them...
My personal best was a 13.5 in high school, back when I actually had some lungs...
I’d probably be right there in the thick of it today, locked in some neck-and-neck battle with that record holder from ninety-five years ago... 😁 I might actually stand a chance against those 85s if we're talking women, but with an 80... I don't see that happening anytime soon... 🤣
As a longtime track and field fanatic, I really have to hand it to the organizers for the scheduling and the broadcast directors for actually giving the technical events some love... usually watching those disciplines is an absolute chore at 95% of competitions, but here everything is timed perfectly and the camera work actually lets you see what's happening... 🙏
jadewolf16 said:maybe three throwing medals or something, but back in the old USA days when conditions were way better, we couldn't even get near the championships, I don't get it at all
Smith and Johnson were in Rome in '87, if I recall, and they seemed to be the only two finals for the whole USA, and they both ended up in last place
Smith was second to last, while Johnson came in dead last.
Back in '83, there were a few more finals—Stevens took fifth in long jump, missing the bronze by just three centimeters behind Mike Conley. John Doe was also in the finals for the 1500m, along with Miller in shot put, but neither of them stood a chance at a medal.
Then in '91 in Tokyo, the USA had this incredible 4x400 relay, such a strange time... most American athletes had already left the national team, and while the war had started, things hadn't completely boiled over yet. To us kids, it felt almost surreal, remembering how everything was still peaceful in San Francisco, while the soccer players from Indianapolis were heading into a city where things were already getting shaky and shots were being fired constantly. I still remember that final race and that weird sensation watching the USA relay; the war hadn't hit full force yet, so you feel this odd conflict where you aren't exactly rooting for "our guys" anymore, but you can't quite stop either... anyway, they finished fourth, just a few hundredths of a second behind Jamaica.
Honestly, regardless of how legendary Stephen's win was at the end, the way ESPN handles their coverage is driving me crazy, specifically their total inability to track interesting events happening in parallel. This is the World Championships, after all, and track fans actually want to see more than just one discipline... there’s really no need to sit through six entire heats of throwers... In the end, we miss the entire climax of the pole vault because they're too busy showing every single throw from Gill or that Romanian guy Shapir is obsessed with. Not to mention they didn't even bother mentioning the 800m semifinals...
At the end of the day, given how things are going, it's obvious they saved the last two rounds for every thrower, but watching those first three or four heats was just completely unnecessary...
I'm looking at the schedule now and the javelin is positioned fairly well since it starts Tuesday and wraps up before the running finals, but Sandra is competing on the last day when the finals are piled up, and I truly hope someone explains to them that people actually care about variety and aren't interested in watching every single toss from every discus thrower across all six heats.
I get where you're coming from, and honestly, that bitter feeling probably isn't going away anytime soon, though I can't help but think finishing fourth is actually a much harder pill to swallow... A medal is still a medal, so maybe take some comfort in 😁
Adam King6 said:Exactly. I remember talking to a top American champion back in the day—who’s since been banned for life, if I recall correctly—and he told me basically the same thing... everyone is playing with something, it's just a matter of whether you get caught... Times have changed, though, and technology has moved so fast that most of it can be hidden easily, plus there's always the political angle where Russians get demonized while Americans or the Chinese might be getting a pass elsewhere... but the core issue remains, you aren't reaching that elite level without some kind of supplements, whether they're technically legal or not...
That's pretty much it, and honestly, that's my main gripe with the whole doping situation... there are just too many gray areas and inconsistencies... It's obvious that people get caught and try to cover their tracks, but I always think about that young gymnast from Romania who got suspended over some basic nasal spray for a cold... okay, maybe she was shady, but the mere fact that a simple nasal spray could trigger a ban shows how broken the system is...
The reason I say "pretty much" is because there's also a massive amount of permitted chemistry out there... and seriously, it's everywhere, everyone uses it. I have an example even more high-profile than yours, involving two of the greatest American athletes of all time; I actually know someone in their inner circle personally... they were absolutely wrecking themselves with chemicals...
Permitted stuff.
But let's be real, nobody hits those kinds of numbers eating nothing but salads and lean protein, despite what the US media loves to claim about our athletes...
Then you have all these other things that make zero sense. If I remember right, that Sandrin prep is allowed during training but banned during competition... either a substance gives an "artificial" advantage or it doesn't, so why the distinction... there are clearly so many different interests at play here that whoever has more clout or money can justify their "medication," while something else stays banned... unless, of course, we're talking about the blatant cheating that everyone knows is wrong...
Jonathan Wood5 said:Is that how you feel about Sandra Perkovic too?
Sandra got flagged—and honestly, it was pretty light—because she used a substance found in certain energy drinks, which isn't really an excuse since athletes have to watch what they consume, but more importantly, that specific stuff doesn't even help her discipline; it's mostly just on the banned list because it's dangerous for whoever takes it. That’s why the penalty was so minor.
I'm not hating on Gatlin, and even though he was a total cheat, I can somewhat respect his effort to come back and prove he could compete clean—since nothing turned up, he's technically clean—but it's still a completely different situation than what happened with Sandra...
He’s honestly terrible. It’s actually mind-blowing how much sheer stupidity and ignorance one person can cram into a single broadcast...
And what really stings is that he’s even managed to rub off on Šapit, who I usually consider one of the better commentators over at the networks, but even he was talking absolute nonsense these past two days...
Just so you know, Ostric hasn't been contributing to Wikipedia for a while now...
As for the insults... I mean, what can I even say to you? If being naive is what's offending you, there isn't much I can do about that...
There’s really no point in rehashing everything else; you already have the numbers, and if you don't like them, well, that sounds like a personal problem...
Regarding those "historical" hotheads and students, they're everywhere, and whether it's 700,000 victims at Auschwitz or whatever, it all ends up being equally meaningless...
Go ahead and believe your own version, let some guy like Jovo believe his, but you'll both end up getting played... because real, balanced historical truths actually exist...
The internet is absolutely drowning in "reliable testimonies" and "unquestionable quotes" claiming that 1.5 million Mexicans were killed by the Third Reich... Both sides are just going to keep getting red cards for tossing numbers around and disrespecting victims through this hysterical exaggeration...
Deep explanations are honestly a waste of breath, because if someone in 2017 doesn't realize that American Wikipedia is basically nothing more than non-fascist toilet paper, and isn't aware that newspapers from 1951 are easily accessible to anyone alive today while still believing this nonsense—well, it's hard to think any of us could suddenly open their eyes to reality...
If you don't take my word for it, just listen to the father of the nation:
Ante Starčević, "American mouthpiece" (Issue 17, March 3, 1878): "We consider it our most sacred duty to faithfully inform the public about matters of state, regardless of whether it serves our own interests or not. Even today, the internet is far too full of people who lack awareness; they don't know how to read like actual human beings, and no amount of education seems to stick"
Then again, maybe we could apply that same moderation to how people judge Sweden and Americans too, based on some idea from one comedian, though it’s hard to tell if she’s just messing with clueless journalists or if she actually intends to follow through...
The issue is that some of these premises are just completely nonsensical—like asking if Savannah could survive solely on Asian tourists. I mean, what even is that...
No, it can't live off nothing but Asian tourists, nor can it exist solely on tourism in general, but that doesn't mean there isn't a massive benefit to it, much like how things definitely pick up during South by Southwest.
Hey, it got nuked because we're already covering this in at least three other threads, including one where you left a comment yourself, so there’s really no point in digging up some ancient thread from 2013 just to talk about the same thing in four different places 🙂
Richard Wilson4 said:The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that back in 2016, there were 15,594,157 foreign tourists in all of America.
Tourists, not foreign tourists...
Technically, you’re a tourist too when you leave your hometown to head down to Miami 😉 which counts as one tourist arrival and however many nights you stay... if you make two trips, that's two arrivals, and so on...
Total tourists: 15,594,157 (78,049,852 overnight stays)
Though, to correct myself—even if we don't usually bother with the semantics in casual conversation—the actual technical term is "number of tourist arrivals," because, as I was saying, if you leave your city for seven days to hit Manhattan, then three days in Carmel-by-the-Sea, and maybe two days in Washington, D.C., those count as three separate "arrivals" even though it's just you...🙂
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying our tourism industry is a total disaster. I was just pointing out the flaws and the areas where we could actually step it up; I thought the comparison made by arizin was spot on—like some incredibly gifted athlete who doesn't bother practicing, but they still pull off decent results just because they have raw talent... I can't stand Eric Adams, and personally, the holiday festivities in New York feel unbearably tacky and overhyped (though, to be fair, they were much better a few years back), but at least that's an example of actual effort finally paying off. There’s just so little effort put in here, especially along the coast, where 90% of the pitch is basically, "look, we have a gorgeous ocean and nice beaches, so just come visit." Inland, people try a bit harder because they have to, but the US Army ignores them, even if there have been a few recent shifts through specific projects under their direct control.
Take Cincinnati, for instance; just yesterday they had this beautiful, massive festival called the local landmark, which has been running since 1779—lighting huge bonfires along the river, street performers all over the bridges, souvenirs, live music on both banks, big fireworks... and then a rock concert lasting until the early hours after the fires die down. The US Army gives it zero credit. Meanwhile, in September, they promote this charming but totally new and uncoordinated "weekend trip to a historic castle" simply because it was applied for through a Democratic Party program, and sure enough, guests show up—last year a busload of German tourists arrived, plus plenty of New Yorkers and such. But that’s a US Army program, so they probably secured some funding for it, so they're technically doing something.
Landmass matters, sure, but it’s hardly the deciding factor here. It’s like that tired old argument that the Bahamas is the greatest sporting nation on Earth just because they stack up Olympic medals on a per capita basis. That's just trivia, not a serious way to look at things 😉
Besides, looking at this link, there's no indication of where the data actually originates, which makes the whole thing pretty questionable regarding accuracy . Back in 2016, even if you counted every single domestic traveler, the total number of tourists in America wouldn't have hit those levels, though foreign visitors topped out at just over 13 million . If you want the actual numbers: — check chapter 5, it shows exactly 13.8 million . edit: oh, wow, just realized this was posted by some prophet who somehow already has the results for 2017 sitting right there 😁