Racewalkers unite in opposition to chips in insoles being mandated by IAAF that would determine it they are actually walking

freestylesail wrote:

So let me get this straight. Racewalkers are rebelling against having to prove they are walking , because their whole goal isn't truly walking; it's convincing people they're walking when they're technically running. The sport is in the charade.

Well, herein lies the key to making the sport media-friendly. Every time the shoe sensor detects an illegal float, their shoes light up, a siren goes off, and the athlete must perform a penalty action. I'd suggest a 5-meter moonwalk in the wrong direction.

Go to hell.

Doing the moonwalk is now officially illegal since the Leaving Neverland doc.

Offendedplusoutraged wrote:

freestylesail wrote:

So let me get this straight. Racewalkers are rebelling against having to prove they are walking , because their whole goal isn't truly walking; it's convincing people they're walking when they're technically running. The sport is in the charade.

Well, herein lies the key to making the sport media-friendly. Every time the shoe sensor detects an illegal float, their shoes light up, a siren goes off, and the athlete must perform a penalty action. I'd suggest a 5-meter moonwalk in the wrong direction.

Go to hell.

Doing the moonwalk is now officially illegal since the Leaving Neverland doc.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this post.

I don't have the time to read replies right now, but I just came to say that if this is implemented, race walker records will need a pre and post chip-requirement era. I think it's a potentially great idea, even if it forces everybody to change their form.

Racewalking is still popular in other parts of the world (like Central America) so no matter how much we (USA) think it's stupid, it's not going away

The chips can easily fail and DQ an athlete. DQ the sport I say, too technical (judging) to grow.

As for butterfly on swim.. keep that, it's the most fastest stroke from the start like sprinting in running. Now breaststroke, is the most technical, requires more judgement, and is slowest

Some questions from a non-RWer:

It does seem weird to this non-RWer that the longest distance in T & F (the 50km racewalk) is the one where there are restrictions in place that make you cover ground slower. It just intuitively feels (to me) like the longest RW event should be shorter than the marathon. What's the history (and what was the original decision-making process) behind the 50km distance?

Would there be as much outcry about eliminating, say, just the 50km and keeping the traditional 20km distance? And would that outcry be reduced if it came along with an accompanying reduction in non-RW events (say, if the triple jump, weight throw, 200m, and 10,000m were also eliminated)?

Lastly, do mostly the same athletes compete in both the 20km and 50km RW, or are these different athlete pools (like 10,000m runners and 1,500m runners)?

RWer wrote:

Not true. Many would be DQ'd, but there are a lot of walkers who train hard to remain legal. I would guess that much of the middle of the pack on back would be fine (with the exception of the few at the back that are just horrible), and 3/4 of the front pack would be DQ'd. The majority would be ok.

It's the 75% of the better walkers making the noise (and their coaches) about this. And they are wrong. If you have rules, they should be followed, otherwise it's not right.

As a runner and not a racewalker, I've learned to view having both feet off the ground as a legitimate part of the sport. I don't see the purpose of trying to keep a foot on the ground if it's effectively legal not to do so. Here's the 20km video from the Rio Olympics:

Just play it on 1/4 speed (click the little gear button on the youtube player) and see how often you see someone keep both feet on the ground. It's very rare. Keeping a foot on the ground is simply not the way the sport is played.

As a non-racewalker, I'm actually against the chip. It will completely change how all of the top walkers walk. It will completely change the mechanics of the sport. All these people who trained their entire lives under one set of rules will have to alter that. Imagine being told you have to change the way you run!

Maybe they could phase it in gradually. Have ten years of both chip and non-chip simultaneously before phasing out non-chip?

One thing I like about the chip idea is that the sport will require fewer officials, which makes it more pure in some sense. I like that.

Can I suggest we cut the distances to zero? Meaning the IAAF just says “this racewalking stuff is just plain stupid. Stupid to watch and stupid to do. We aren’t going to spend any more money or effort on it”.

Let the racewalkers create their own organization.

They should keep the 50K. It has a long Olympic history and is very competitive event. America men is not competitive at this distance internationally but that does not mean it is not an exceptional sport.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

Go, Laura! wrote:

Yes,

Reading the Save The Race Walking website linked in that AW piece ... They're not against the proposed insoles but just concerned that this technology is adequately tested first before being used in competition and then, if it is deemed a good solution, that it should be available for use at all races. They accuse the IAAF of being secretive about a lot of the detail and plans for implementation.

I think you mean "Save The Racewalking website," not "Save The Race Walking website." The latter sounds like a website for nationalistic/racist walking enthusiasts.

No, I did mean what I wrote. The event is Race Walking, not Racewalking. :p

Go, Laura! wrote:

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

I think you mean "Save The Racewalking website," not "Save The Race Walking website." The latter sounds like a website for nationalistic/racist walking enthusiasts.

No, I did mean what I wrote. The event is Race Walking, not Racewalking. :p

Quick, go update the title of the wikipedia page! They reference both, but appear to prefer racewalking over race walking, you can reverse that:

Alabama BS wrote:

Can I suggest we cut the distances to zero? Meaning the IAAF just says “this racewalking stuff is just plain stupid. Stupid to watch and stupid to do. We aren’t going to spend any more money or effort on it”.

Let the racewalkers create their own organization.

Honestly, this. I know lots of track fans who watch multiple events, but I dont know any who follow racewalking. Just split it off from the IAAF (and various national agencies).

It can still be an Olympic event or whatever, but have it under it's own organization, there just isnt enough overlap in the fans or participants. It would be like the IAAF combining with the world boxing association. Any fan overlap there is probably just as incidental.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

Quick, go update the title of the wikipedia page! They reference both, but appear to prefer racewalking over race walking, you can reverse that:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racewalking

LOL.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Not An Expert wrote:

Some questions from a non-RWer:

It does seem weird to this non-RWer that the longest distance in T & F (the 50km racewalk) is the one where there are restrictions in place that make you cover ground slower. It just intuitively feels (to me) like the longest RW event should be shorter than the marathon. What's the history (and what was the original decision-making process) behind the 50km distance?

Would there be as much outcry about eliminating, say, just the 50km and keeping the traditional 20km distance? And would that outcry be reduced if it came along with an accompanying reduction in non-RW events (say, if the triple jump, weight throw, 200m, and 10,000m were also eliminated)?

Lastly, do mostly the same athletes compete in both the 20km and 50km RW, or are these different athlete pools (like 10,000m runners and 1,500m runners)?

Race walking has its origins in pedestrianism. Often times 6 day walking races that were quite popular in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The events were spectacles for the time. The 50km observes that history of the event. There have recently been a few tour format multiday races like cycling that are pretty exciting, but they are typically only races in China.

As far as athletes, you get some guys who have the spread for 20km and 50km with the GOAT Robert Korzeniowski winning gold three straight Olympics in 50km and going Gold in 20km and 50km in 2000. You have a few others who have successfully completed the spread.

Honestly if we had to get rid of one event I'd say the 20km makes the nost sense because of obvious judging issues. 50km is a bit cleaner and generally a more dramatic race. If they switch to 10km/30km there is not a huge difference between the athletes and having two events is kind of pointless.

Who is Frankly??? wrote:

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

Every so often there is a discussion of race walking on these boards and I never comment because, frankly, I don't care about this event. I don't care about it's history. I don't care about whatever the "controversy" is. Much as I don't care about a lot of Olympic events, such as dressage, synchronized swimming, rhythmic gymnastics and others, all despite their "Olympic history".

It probably also doesn't help that every time someone says "race walking", my mind flashes to the local mall walkers group wearing fanny packs and their Sony Walkman attached to their hip.

This totally worthless post shows that you should have probably just passed on by like you said you have always done.

The first post was funny and made people laugh. The second, useless.

I always thought they "walk" ridiculously fast, so it seems unrealistic. It would be much better if it was just a bunch of random people walking fast. Also, allow them to shove each other.

Key Lime wrote:

Honestly if we had to get rid of one event I'd say the 20km makes the nost sense because of obvious judging issues. 50km is a bit cleaner and generally a more dramatic race. If they switch to 10km/30km there is not a huge difference between the athletes and having two events is kind of pointless.

I agree with your thoughts, but that leaves another problem that's lurking just below the surface of this debate: the women's 50 km, which has been added to the world championships and Olympics only in response to legal challenges based on gender discrimination. At a time when the IOC and IAAF have been looking for events to cut, and when the men's 50km walk was already in a fairly precarious position, the men's 50km now cannot be included in the schedule without the women's 50km, an even more time-consuming event, with even fewer seriously competitive participants from an even smaller collection of countries, in a discipline that's hard to judge and isn't terribly popular to begin with. Reducing the distances in the walking events alleviates some concerns, but I have my doubts about the future of the discipline, at least at the Olympic Games.

My Quals: First, I have been running for over 47 years. I still regularly compete. However I know a little about RWing too...

In the late 1970s and early 1980s I also competed at racewalking the national level (and a few European races). I had one national Junior Championship, was on two National Championship Team (one of which was at the 50k Olympic distance), and won one Open National Championship. (For reference, my PR in the marathon when I got back into running laterandI was just short of 40 was in the 2:40s). I regularly trained RWing up to 80-110 miles a week. Now I am back to running just 47-50 as an old guy.

My opinion?

1) Leave the 20k and 50k alone. There is a long history to those distances. You don't mess with the marathon distance do you? Bad enough the mile went to being a 1500 in most majors.

2)Chip 'em! In the late 1970s and 1980s I trained very very hard to get in great shape AND stay legal. I never ONCE was DQ'd or even drew a caution flag. But I constantly saw competitors breaking contact (and I am not afraid to say it) and cheat. I saw it in two mile indoor races, 10,000m, 20K (a lot), and 50ks. I saw in NAIA college races and in tons of post - collegiate competition. (I even saw it by other attendees at the Olympic Training camp.) I certainly could have (or believe I could have) won many more big races and 'titles', if I had lowered myself and 'lifted' but then I would have to have lived with myself as cheat. I can not do that. My few flashes of success were honest. The sport suffered from cheating then and it is almost a farce now.

The technology is now there -use it. We don't tolerate cheating in other Olympic sports, why allow it in racewalking?

Not An Expert wrote:

Would there be as much outcry about eliminating, say, just the 50km and keeping the traditional 20km distance? And would that outcry be reduced if it came along with an accompanying reduction in non-RW events (say, if the triple jump, weight throw, 200m, and 10,000m were also eliminated)?

Lastly, do mostly the same athletes compete in both the 20km and 50km RW, or are these different athlete pools (like 10,000m runners and 1,500m runners)?

Yes, they have also talked about dropping the 50k for years because there are a lot of people within the sport who firmly believe that women should not be competing in the 50k RW, and they would rather kill the men's 50k RW than allow the women to do it. The only reason women are doing it now is because they lawyered up and threatened to sue USATF and the IAAF.

There is overlap between the 20k and 50k, but they are probably kind of like comparing the 3k to the 10k. If participation was bigger, you would see less doubling.