****Breaking records and the reasons behind them ****

[is that my watch]

should when breaking records be under the same conditions and the reason behind them be as important as the record themselves.

I give you two examples taken from an article like the sub two marathon ..

two of the year’s records in particular stood out as once-in-a-generation human achievements that set new benchmarks for previously perceived limitations on endurance. One of which, of course was Eliud Kipchoge running an incredible 1:59:40 marathon back in October, shattering the long-held belief that the mythical “sub-two” was simply not humanly possible. Granted, Kipchoge’s time can’t be officially counted as a world record as it was run on a special closed street course in Vienna, Austria, and not as a formal marathon event, plus it was achieved with the help of an experimental Nike shoe and a rotating team of Olympians running in formation around Kipchoge to keep him on pace and shield him from the wind.

to me it seems wrong as the condition was different and he was being given an unfair advantage to get that score and even with these un-fair conditions it only got them 20 seconds ..but lets see how nike will twist it to make it pay them loads so was it done for anything more then greed and self promoting ..their is nothing for the greater good .

now on to one that truly disgusted me.

Just a few short weeks later in the same month of October, another incredible long-standing endurance record fell – perhaps lesser-known, but a mammoth in the global mountaineering community and no less of a remarkable achievement. This one would be broken by Nirmal “Nims” Purja, a Nepalese mountaineer who summited all 14 of the world’s “Death Zone” mountains above 8,000 meters (26,246 feet) in just six months, shattering the previous record of eight years. On his wrist for each of those fourteen summits, a white-dialed variant of the Bremont S300 Supermarine dive watch, but we’ll get into that in a moment.

now why was this done and for what reason i can only think of one they are trying to get the old smiths / rolex fame I think this act is the worse one i have seen or is it just me ...


these triumph of men and women pushing themselves to the limit seem cheapen when they are now being turn in to just marketing ploys and it takes it away from something good and wholesome in to the realms of seediness .

or is that just my view of the world ?

[geoffbot]

now on to one that [/COLOR]truly disgusted me.

...

[a white-dialed variant of the [/FONT][/COLOR]Bremont S300 Supermarine dive watch, but we’ll get into that in a moment.

Not a bremont fan huh?

Look, I hate capitalism probably more than the next man which is ironic as I work in sales and love buying shit. TV adverts infuriate me - I can't watch them, and greedy chasy salespeople disgust me. However, the above seems perfectly reasonable to me - collecting funding for such incredible achievements (the mountaineering, not the marathon which probably didn't cost much) is necessary - probs cost over £200k, and if you can get it from Bremont just for wearing one of their watches to the summits then why not - you gotta wear something. Presumably they're not suggesting that it in any way aided the achievement per se.

You mention hilary's smiths or rolex - you wouldn't know about this were it not for marketing, and it's fun to talk about - doesn't bother me either.

Bremont have done waaaay worse - pieces of aeroplane wing in the dial yuk. And Nike sells running shoes to help people go fast - what better way to do so than this?

I actually think this sort of marketing is kinda cool. I would put money (lol) on the athlete's ambition to break records not being motivated much by cash. But hey if, it is that's literally their job.

[is that my watch]

yes and no the mountaineering one I see both side in away I see the point of it possible from the climber but still why did it take eight years before and only six months this time funds of course but still the effort involved for the reward seem some how wrong .. not knocking the climber in any way more power to him..

but just seems less of an achievement when you got a big backer and don't know just seem lacking that way maybe .. maybe just my old world vote for the underdog way of looking at it

as for bremont as i said one of the reason i dislike them is their marketing approach ...

but these two where just examples.. the point i was trying to make is how can you compare modern records with old with the advancement in tech we now have a lot of average people doing what was specialised training condition took to do for those who first done it ..

so should we forget these achievements we do our selves a disservice ..

so my applause would be more if they did it under the same condition and then beat them time distance what ever ...

[tribe125]

Happy New Year ismy!

It all looks perfectly innocent to me.

[happyscrappyheropup]

They crushed the previous record. Did the summits shrink somehow so they didn't climb as far?

but these two where just examples.. the point i was trying to make is how can you compare modern records with old with the advancement in tech we now have a lot of average people doing what was specialised training condition took to do for those who first done it ..

so should we forget these achievements we do our selves a disservice ..

so my applause would be more if they did it under the same condition and then beat them time distance what ever ...

[is that my watch]

They crushed the previous record. Did the summits shrink somehow so they didn't climb as far?

well yes and no it's hard to explain in a way yes they did it in six months compared to 8 years but the reason is more my point and the fact of better equipment more funding etc seems to take away the challenge in it's self does it not ...

my point was how more then what take the runner it was done in a control way not a really marathon so it was all design to give him the optimum chance of winning so how can that be a record breaker when under different conditions to how the record was done .. ok it has been deem as it did not break the record ..but in every thing since then they come across as they have in marketing ...

the summits one to give a proper look into it I would need to do research but it was how it was done who was with them and what was used as the first person to this was reinhold messener with out using supplementary oxygen is quite a feat the second of these Jerzy Kukuczka also did the same from what i remember then in 2010 the first women to do this was Edurne Pasaban so the problem I have is that their is no there is no precise definition of the criteria used to assess independence and other aspects it's hard one to call depend as I say who what when ... as the Eight-thousander is pretty open to take many ways special as their is talk of another 20 mountains being consider as options.

point I was trying to make is two fold .


1) how they are broken and also the bigger reason why ....


and how company's use these result in marketing do they sully the achievement I suppose is my point

[Egsise]

Well.
I value iq more so I don't care.

[OrangeSport]

So, the marathon seems ok to me as it didn't break a record due to the conditions. It showed what is ultimately possible and such events are generally sponsored.

The climbing one is tougher because I know so little about it. Did he smash the record due to better support etc, or was it just nobody else has tried? I cant believe a record fell by that much if people had been trying to break it on a regular (ish) basis.

Didn't Rolex do something similar with some girl swimming the channel (redoing it with a watch after having done it before)?

[OrangeSport]

https://m.rolex.com/about-rolex-watc...1926-1945.html

[boatme99]

All sporting are events are sponsored somehow. No big deal.