Talk:Racewalking

Photo

Interestingly, in the photo, the lead walker has neither of his feet in contact with the ground. - Quirk 09:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted. I wonder if he was DQed later. Of course lifting is a reality of the sport and theyhave to have judges along the whole route to enforce it. Didn't one of the womens race walkers get DQ'ed in the stadium and consequently lost the gold medal? David D. (Talk) 12:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Now noted in the caption. —Michael Shields 06:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My father(Rael's Racewalker), who is a United States Masters Champion, has on many occassions pointed out that the specifics of the rules state it has to be visible by the naked eye. Here's an excerpt from the article itself, "...at any time at least one foot has contact with the ground (to the naked eye)". And as to the story of being DQ'd, I heard this one guy won a European race, and it was such a big deal, that he was on international television when the president of his country called him, and right in mid-conversation with him, a judge came and gave him a big Red warning that lost the entire meet for him. ON NATIONAL TELEVISION! Bummer... —photoactivist 16:02, 07 December 2005 (UTC)

it's not unusal for judges to lay on the ground to check for lifts

The second photos description is written in French. We should probably translate that to English being that the article is written in English. Using Google's language tools (http://translate.google.com/), I figure it should say "walker in the amateurs competition". Objections? crozewski 11:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the walker in front, seemingly lifting, is Jesús Ángel Garcia of Spain. 217.102.250.57 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only the lead walker is lifting: the 4th is too.--82.66.246.152 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the 4th has contact with their front foot, the guy in 5th though is lifting. 66.30.139.105 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Lifting must be judged by the naked eye. It's known that race walkers can have a very brief flight phase; they're ok as long as this phase is not visible to the naked eye. Mjz2 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This whole naked eye thing means there must be a judge every 10 meters all along the race course. What's the point? Just took a few screenshots of the 2013 world championships 5km event and those confirmed what my untrained naked eyes have told me, that is they are "lifting" all the time. No high speed cameras, just simple low quality tv broadcast. Really shamefully sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.158.140 (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Calories

I will take out this sentence: "Of course, the pace is slower than the same person could run the distance so time expended to burn the same calories is greater." There is nothing "of course" about this claim. Since walking at such high speeds is so inefficient, the calories burned per unit time could be higher than running at a faster speed. Further, it slips in a confusing reference to the same person running -- we don't actually know that race walkers are any good at all at running! If any of this material is re-introduced, it should be backed up by references, preferably including actual data about calories, walking, and running. -kd

The lead walker is probably the eventual winner, Francesco Fernandez of Spain. This was presumably taken early in the race when adrenalin was rampant in each walker's system and I'd say if you took footage of every walker here you'd see broken contact at some point, not because they mean to cheat or transgress but because this is a 'sprint' event and loss of contact with the leaders is critical. The arguable point, I'd say, is whether the contact loss is severe enough to be spotted by a judge - in which case it can be argued that unfair advantage clearly is being gained by the offender, since the amount of time needed for a judge's naked eye to register that contact has been lost would allow an offending competitor quite a long 'float' period. - StuC5 StuC5 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge power walking?

As far as I can tell, power walking just seems like a bad professional way of race/speed walking, like what jogging is to running. Would anyone be against it redirecting here and merging a mention of power-walking into the article? Or does it warrant something separate because of the focus on caloric expenditure and range of motion over speed? Tyciol 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Power walking is is not race walking. Race walking has two rules, as defined by the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) and ratified by its member federations. 'Power walking' and 'speed walking' are terms invented by someone else and propagated through the media. Mjz2 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Race walking vs Racewalking

Is there a space or not? Throughout the article there's no space, but the article itself has one. If there's indeed no space, suggest we move the article to racewalking? Tyciol 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a space. Mjz2 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Pedraza vs. Saville

Without getting petty about it I would have thought that the Saville incident was far better known. For one, it was a potential gold medal, for another, it was far more recent, and finally a disqualification is almost always going to attract more attention than a non-disqualification. --Robert Merkel 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"[Racewalking] is said to exceed the caloric requirements of running"

I marked it with {{fact}}, but the thing here is that the sentence does not make sense. What are we comparing exactly? Running and racewalking at the same speed? In that case, e.g. swimming tops both, and all these sports "beat" cycling. But that does not mean anything: it does not make cycling "easy" and racewalking "hard". GregorB 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even included in the section about Olympic racewalking? How is this sentence somehow related to the Olympics? This is silly and should not be included as is in the first place, let alone debating its veracity.18.244.7.56 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We are comparing calories burnt across the same distance, not the "hardness" of a sport/way of moving. I'd like to see some external source confirming the information stated in the sentence.

If a way of movement requires spending more energy to achieve the same result (same distance and same time) it simply means it is less efficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.158.140 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

History of racewalking

I came here wanting to know more on the history of racewalking, but there is not a single line on that matter. Can somebody provide some facts on the origins of the sport, the founder, if there is one (since I don't think this is such an old sport), the origins and changes of the rules etc. Anybody? --Vitriden 01:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. One common question for newcomers is: Why those two rules? I would think that a history of the sport would help answer that question. It would go some way toward addressing criticisms of the sport (at least implicitly). It also seems necessary to any adequately broad encyclopedia article. wbakker2 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

speeds

It's a bit silly that there aren't any average or record speeds given on this page. Average walking speed is 2-3 mph; how does race or speed walking compare?--24.19.59.78 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Average speeds vary widely, depending on the walker's age, fitness, and mastery of race walk technique. I've seen some walkers complete 10km (6.2 miles) in 60 minutes (a bit over 9 min./mile), while others can walk the same distance in 40 minutes, (6.45 min./mile) or better, and still others walk it in 1:10:00 (11.3 min./mile). These times are verifiable by looking at published race results for open, masters, and youth athletics. Mjz2 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms

I think this page needs a "Criticisms" section. Racewalking is one of the few sports which is effectively a handicapped version of another sport. I.e. given the task of getting from A to B, no one would actually racewalk unless it was mandated by the rules (running is obviously quicker and more efficient). This puts the sport in an unusual category of existing only because rules define it, rather than mimicking an everyday activity of some sort as most other sports do.

There is also the issue of judging. Because the rules on having a foot on the ground are extremely difficult to police at high speed out on the roads there is considerable ambiguity in some circumstances. The rigour of judging can vary hugely, and getting pulled or not for "lifting" can often be a matter of luck. Lifting itself is a factor of the above point - there are few sports where a rule exists to specifically prevent the body doing something it naturally wants to do in order to improve efficiency. Fig (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Race walking is a very different physiologically than running so it is not "just another version". You have more room to criticize hurdling as just a handicapped version of another sport.Litch (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurdling adds another element to running. Racewalking is just dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.139.105 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this "sport" seems really stupid to me.... Why is this in the olympics and something like softball is going to be eliminated?? I would guess the only reason they allow it is because they can use all the track and field/marathon facilities. 66.30.139.105 (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The stupid here is the two utterly ignorant commenters above. Racewalking is an endurance sport and they should bloody well try it sometime [if they are up to it which I suspect they aren't] before sounding their mouths off. At the ultra distances, it's gruelling both physically and mentally. ALL sport is artificial. That's why it's sport and not life.

217.44.116.145 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that super slo-mo cameras have shown that they run, the IOC's credibility is on the line. It just has to kick this nonsense out of the Olympics, or at least change its name to "the running race for people who pretend to walk well enough to fool dozy judges who refuse to use technology to do their job properly." Alex Middleton (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules

In the section on rules, rule number two (racewalker must not, at any point in the competition, perform any movement that would be defined as "athletic") seems a bit odd. From what I understand from watching racewalking on tv, there are only two rules. Am I wrong? Also, the cited link doesn't seem to work. 76.226.6.193 (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. You understood correctly. The added "rule", now reverted, appears to have been vandalism, or perhaps a poor attempt at humor. As can be seen in the valid links replacing the dead link, there are only two rules (or one definition with two provisions) after all. Racewalkers are athletes. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

added "Development" section

I added a "Development" section, basically the pre-history of the sport, as I came to this page earlier looking for this information. I went out a researched it and wrote the Pedestrianism article. Folks who work on this article should feel free to integrate this into a broader History section (or not), as i don't know enough about racewalking to do it myself. T L Miles (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Top Performers

The line for Nathan Deakes' record reads as follows:

1:17:33 Nathan Deakes Australia Cixi City April 23, 2005

However, this is problematic as Cixi City is in China, not Australia. Could someone verify if his record was set in Cixi City, China, or in Australia, and if the latter, what city was it in?

Thanks, Frimmin (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)frimmin

Did you overlook the column headings? His nationality: Australia, Venue for record: Cixi City. No problem. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Why doesn't the "Popular Culture" section include mention of Peter Lovesey's crime novel, "Wobble to Death", which has quite a high profile in pop culture? The book has received both Crime Writers Association and Mystery Writers of America "Top 100" honors.

66.208.239.142 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

World record

IAAF punished Morozov, 2 years and no record, see here, the world recordman is Vladimir Kanaykin, again ;-) --Kirk39 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

is the World Record section BS?

I can't reconcile the table with data given elsewhere on wikipedia. For example, the supposed women's record holder apparently didn't run the recrod race: [1], and [2] gives a younger record, and also claims Ivanova walked her record at a different date and in a different place, and in a marginally longer time! HMallison (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made a clarification note. Needless to say, it's an utter joke that these times are accepted on any level when there were only people of the same nationality present. (Note to self: install all-British diving judge panel for 2012 Olympics). SFB 01:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

awesome, thanks! HMallison (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 50 miles race walk

Seems no need to have a separate article for one distance; needs to have the 50miles walk mentioned in the main article where it is not mentioned at all at present. Combine the articles. PamD 07:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I looked further and found there were several other articles for race walks of different distances. But they weren't clearly linked from this article, other than those linked in the lead. I've added a "distances" section with links to the various distance articles - not sure if this is ideal, but there needs to be something like this. PamD 11:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pam. I agree with your second thought on the matter, and believe your addition was a good one. I've fleshed it out with an additional sentence and with refs and an image. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Racewalking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100322195801/http://www.iaaf.org:80/community/athletics/racewalking/ to http://www.iaaf.org/community/athletics/racewalking/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714000654/http://www.iaaf.org:80/WRC09/index.html to http://www.iaaf.org/WRC09/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hsrw.net/main
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610102155/http://www.iaaf.org:80/wrw08/results/eventCode=3657/sex=M/discCode=50KR/combCode=hash/roundCode=f/results.html to http://www.iaaf.org/wrw08/results/eventCode=3657/sex=M/discCode=50KR/combCode=hash/roundCode=f/results.html#det
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://walking.about.com/od/music/a/rwonscreen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

35km has replaced 50km

The article needs to be updated to say that 35 km has replaced the 50 km, and give the reasons why. Adpete (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)