The article title might seem to suggest we have evidence that cavemen were could throw further than our best Olympic athletes... Instead, the article content is bemoaning that we have a standardized javelin that isn't as far-throwing as can be. Thus, the world record javelin toss may never be beaten.
Yes, the permanent world record is a little unfortunate. But it has nothing to do with how cavemen would throw.
Standards must be made to judge fair competition among participants. Yes, they're a little bit arbitrary - the 100M dash could very well be a 106M dash. But that wouldn't make the athletes 6% more impressive. Likewise, we could improve our javelins every year to get further and further throws. But our global interest isn't on the throw, but the thrower.
> Yes, the permanent world record is a little unfortunate.
Why? The longer you keep records, the less likely it is that you can exceed the previous record. Why would we expect javelin throws to get longer over time?
Attainable goals are more motivating and meaningful than unattainable ones. It's in many ways a different event because the equipment is different, so why should a record for a different event stand.
> It's in many ways a different event because the equipment is different, so why should a record for a different event stand.
That's a completely separate concern. Once records are established for the current event, you still expect them to be more or less permanent. Turning in the best performance in all of history is not an attainable goal. You can't expect it to be one.
The reason for the permanent world record is in the article. The new standardization made the javelin fall 10% short.
> in 1986 the International Association of Athletics Federations' technical committee authorized a new javelin design. The center of gravity was moved 1.6 inches forward, the tip was modified to make the javelin less aerodynamic, meaning it would nose down earlier and land sooner, reducing average flight distance by about 10 percent.
The permanent WR is unfortunate in that it was engineered. It would be like moving the 100 m to an incline of 12% and calling it the same sport.
swimming technique and bicycle technically have improved a lot and all of the grading sports (gymnastics, diving) are constantly being changed since they were introduced into the Olympics. That is why so many of those records could be beaten. However it looks like Olympic archery does not allow a compound bow. I guess every sport decides if they want innovation or not.
Swimming rules have also been progressively eased to help keep the records falling. Flip turns in backstroke. Relay dives. More aggressive dive blocks. The new breaststroke kick. Lots of little thing mean constant trend, constant records dropping.
But restrictions on swimsuit material have gone the other way. There were a bunch of records set using non-permeable suits in 2008-2009 that will take year to break again after FINA introduced the "textile material" rule.
So what? Are people really not participating in a sport because there is no hope of breaking a WR? Sports are about fun and competition and sometimes exercise.
I’d also argue there is a difference between rules about equipment and rules about technique. Technique rules may have to be adjusted more often because if an athletes does something unusual that is within the current rule set but may be seen as advantageous, you have to make a decision.
With equipment you can just say no. Those Nike running shoes are banned, full body swim suits are banned. The javelin is just another ban. With equipment, it also effects athletes uniformly, everyone must change to the new equipment. So no one is unfairly penalised.
that's why I said part of - part of it is beating the people you are competing with right now but another part is beating the people who were there before you.
The rules are in place not to hold back speed, but to protect the image of cycling. A recumbent may be faster but it does not look like a bicycle to the average person and changes the image of the sport.
Things like better shifters, lighter frames (within reason) more aero parts (within reason) are still allowed.
The UCI's 6.8kg weight limit is much higher than what is achievable with modern materials. So much so that there are frame builders who can build you an "illegal" bike made out of _steel_: https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html
They do drop the limits over time. The reasoning is they want everyone to have very structurally sound bikes for safety. You _could_ build an ultra light steel bike but it might fail and cause serious injury.
With a minimum limit, no one feels the need to make their bikes less than perfectly strong. And when every OEM is making frames at perfect strength under the limit, they drop it.
Pro cycling is already a pretty dangerous sport, both on track and on the road. To mitigate those dangers a very important part is having a maneuverable bike. Recumbents are nothing of the sort.
I doubt that any pro-cyclist wants the speed advantages of one if it means that cornering is more difficult, veering into dangerous.
There are also clear safety advantages to recumbents, like harder breaking without flipping over and an unobstructed view without sacrificing aerodynamics, so I do not think they should automatically be considered less safe.
I am also pretty confident that the 'manoeuvrability' disadvantage is completely irrelevant for any individual track event. And do you think that it would be an important factor for time trials?
It depends but I don't think a recumbent bike is all that great when climbing or descending. I can't see cyclists wanting a recumbent if there are any significant elevation changes on the course.
Flipping over because of hard braking is not something that happens in pro-cycling.
[edit] And yes, for time trials recumbents would be nice, but already time-trial bikes are pretty different and unsafe, I don't think the UCI would allow even more risk.
The view from a recumbent bike becomes highly obstructed when you're riding in a tight peleton. The group road rides that I do don't allow recumbents for safety reasons. Traditional bikes have their dangers but at least your eyes are up higher to allow a good view around other riders.
Maneuverability is important for time trials. Most courses have several tight turns and crashes are common.
Even something like a small faring, like the little plastic windshield on a motorbike should increase speed. One concern though, is that it would mitigate the advantage of drafting and totally change the strategy of cycling as it exists today (eg. re. the pelotón and breakaways).
No, that's not why Hohn's record is not the world record any more than "Hohn is not the current world record holder because he never threw the current implement." Or that "Zelezny never threw the old one." The world record is set according to the latest rules of the sport, and Hohn's throw did not meet the standard by definition. You clearly have no idea what the level of outperformance is of Jan Zelezny's record. It is by some stats evaluations more of an outlier than Bolt's 100m record. For the record, I am a former national-class thrower who has trained with the national record holder and had the opportunity to work a former world record holder on multiple occasions.
Javelin is a bit of an outlier in the Olympics in that throws today are nowhere near the records, even after the changes discussed in the article. The winning throw this year was 87.58m, with only one other competitor managing even 86m. The world record, dating from 1996, is 98.48m, a full 10 meters and then some longer. Germany's Vetter, the one modern javelin thrower who has come within striking distance of that (96m), was off his game and couldn't even get over 85m.
So why are we so much worse than 25 years ago? The obvious explanation would doping.
From TFA:
“ Also, javelins were increasingly landing flat, instead of poking upright into the turf, making distance-marking difficult, so in 1986 the International Association of Athletics Federations' technical committee authorized a new javelin design. The center of gravity was moved 1.6 inches forward, the tip was modified to make the javelin less aerodynamic, meaning it would nose down earlier and land sooner, reducing average flight distance by about 10 percent.”
But it has been close? Johannes Vetter got a result of 97.76m under a year ago, that is only 0.72m shy of the world record. Also the reason he was underperforming in the olympics was that the surface of the run-up track was not able to take his weight on the final step and he would slip, making it impossible to perform on his normal high level.
My source for this was watching the final myself. When I watched the broadcast myself it was clear to me that this was the problem. Also the (Finnish) commentators were very knowledgeable in the sport and pointed out the problem many times.
I was unable to find a clip of his throws in YouTube, but here's a Google Translated article from a Finnish newspaper: https://bit.ly/3xvZWMk.
OP was talking about a record set 10 years after that change.
I suggest avoiding terms like "TFA", which can be taken to insult someone's reading comprehension. I'm sure that's not what you intended but it can easily be misinterpreted.
I think you deeply misunderstand the statistical nature of a world record. there is a piece out there somewhere about zelezney's record being a more significant outlier than Bolt's. But to be clear, you're insinuating that Jan was a cheat? I had training sessions with the former AR holder and numerous conversations with a former WR holder and threw at a high level. I'm quite familiar with the sport and I'm truly curious as to whether you're making this claim about JZ and if you could name 10 throwers without Googling it.
> I'm quite familiar with the sport and I'm truly curious as to whether you're making this claim about JZ and if you could name 10 throwers without Googling it.
What does his claim[1] have to do with knowing who the throwers are?
FWIW, I think that, if you look at a sport and find that the performance of athletes in that sport decreased significantly after the introduction of more comprehensive drug testing, then it is not unreasonable to assume the higher performance was due to drug-related enhancements.
[1] He's just making a point about the statistics. We don't need to know the name of the data points.
"FWIW, I think that, if you look at a sport and find that the performance of athletes in that sport decreased significantly after the introduction of more comprehensive drug testing"
The issue is the premise is incorrect. 11 of the top 20 throws ever happened since 2015:
I think you should spend some time plotting throws of the last 20 years using performances from top athletes the worldathletics website. You'll discover that you are mistaken.
This suggestion is related to to for why the claim matters, which is familiarity with the sport (as represented by the ability to name its participants). As a longtime participant in track and field, athlete, coach, and fan, I have invariably found that people reduce perceived phenomena to doping usually have no idea what's actually going on in the sport and aren't involved in it in any substantive way. So, "show your familiarity" is a jabby heuristic to prove the point.
Mistaken about what? That the assumption of doping is not unreasonable? After all, I didn't say the assumption of drug-use was likely correct, I said that the assumption itself is not unreasonable.
> So, "show your familiarity" is a jabby heuristic to prove the point.
Being involved in the subjects (say, by following their career?) is evidence of bias when drawing conclusions from data points.
In other words, the heuristic is actually the other way around - if you're "familiar" with the subjects you're the wrong person to be drawing conclusions from the statistics.
It's why we insist on double-blind trials for some things - the researcher has to be ignorant of the subjects involved. Being familiar with them means the conclusions are invalid.
It is quite possible that compounds that were legal back then are no longer legal. So someone could have legally used them and therefore would not be considered a "cheat".
> Javelin is a bit of an outlier in the Olympics in that throws today are nowhere near the records, even after the changes discussed in the article.
This isn't true.
There are 10 different athletes who have thrown within 7m of the world record[1] and Johannes Vetter has thrown over 94m 4 times[2].
> So why are we so much worse than 25 years ago?
We aren't
> The obvious explanation would doping.
Zelezy was a freak - as can be seen by his progression[3].
That kind of long-lived high performance (82m in 1986, 86m in 2006) is rarely because of doping - there are too many chances to get caught, and it's too hard to transition between doping types (eg steroids to HGH), and historical testing catches out too many people.
The Men's discuss OTOH... This is what a suspicious progression looks like[4].
Specifically what do you think was Zelezny's completely different revolutionary technique? Because if you're talking about "wrapping", it was not new. Zelezny did not radically change the technique of the event. I'm very curious to know what you think Zelezny did that was something like what Fosbury did... I can tell you what I think Zelezny did better but that's not the same as what he did completely differently.
It's not really an outlier, there are plenty of sports where there are long standing world records, some of them have been broken recently but stood for a long time. It's just the nature of having so many sports, not every sport will attract as much talent resulting in having a much bigger impact when that world class talent appears (Zelezny). Usually these sports are technical in nature and thus harder to dominate through sheer improvement in nutrition and muscle power.
Take for example Usain Bolt, he competed in the sprint but if he focused his career on some other less popular athletic sport he probably could have been WR holder there as well.
If you combine this with the fact that it's possible there was more doping in the past (especially 80s), you can get these incredible world records that stand for decades.
> So why are we so much worse than 25 years ago? The obvious explanation would doping.
Looking at the list of furthest throws[1] this doesn't really seem that obvious at all.
The top two are quite large outliers, with a 4 metre gap to #3, and people in general don't seem to have been throwing much further in the past. Indeed, the difference between #1 and #25 is almost 10 metres, or 10% of the record. That's quite the difference!
Johannes Vetter seems to be in the same league as Jan Železný; Vetter is 28, Železný established his record at the age of 30. It's entirely possible that Vetter will manage to break the record in the future.
So either both Železný and Vetter are exceptionally talented athletes in their field, or they're both doped to the gills without being caught. It's not like there wasn't any attention to this in the past, see e.g. [2] from 1989. There sure is more attention to this now and I suppose it's possible that Železný used doping, but that Vetter exists in the same league as Železný demonstrates that Železný didn't have to be a doping user to be so good at it.
So in short: it's not all that obvious to me looking at the data. It's not like cycling/Tour de France with a long history of doping use (which is partly, I suspect, because what's being asked of riders borders on the inhuman).
I'm struggling to understand the argument. Zelezny undoubtedly threw farther than any prehistoric thrower, and he undoubtedly killed fewer meals with a spear, too. As a former have thrower I used to wonder what Jan would have done with the old jav...
Actually, no. Neeraj Chopra trained with Uwe Hohn until 2019, but then (Chopra) asked for a change. His coach over the last 2 years in the run up to the Olympics has been Klaus Bartonietz.
There is absolutely no such thing as "permanent record holder" in track and field. The structure of records in track and field is a very specific thing, and the current world record holder, which record is set in accordance with the current matrix of regulation and ratification procedures, is canonically considered the superlative all-time performance. Uwe's throw, while astonishing, is a now a sidenote and asterisk.
The temptation to compare athletic and sporting performances between different eras, is doomed to disappointment.
Whilst we could standardise a javelin, we can’t recreate the culture, diet, stadia etc of bygone epochs, so the comparisons will always be qualified or debased.
It is frustrating that we don’t have time machines,but perhaps that’s a reason to think further about what it is that fascinates us about athletic and sporting contests.
It does mention the ankyle, a leather strap that served a similar purpose by increasing the effective length of the throwing arm. I guess some cavemen used ankyles and others used atlatls?
Javelin is one of the sports that is limited by venues. That is area limited inside 400m running track. Where inside we simply do not want them throw too far.
We could easily design javelin that travels much further, but choose not to, due to safety concerns and limitations venues...
> Lots of athletes come to the Olympics hoping to be the Best Ever. But not javelin throwers. They've been told to dream smaller dreams ("Best Since 1984!") and I think that's a bum deal.
> Why not take this event away from crowded arenas, go someplace safe, design the best flying spear possible, throw it as far as you can, and then whoever breaks the record can say to all spear throwers going back over the ages, "Now I'm Number One, in the truest sense — mine flew further than all of yours!
> That would be true Gold.
Maybe the best design would use a rail-gun as a booster.
And if the goal is to make it go as far as possible, you might want to consider throwing it outside the atmosphere.
> Maybe the best design would use a rail-gun as a booster.
And pitch-o-mat 5000 was just a modified howitzer. I agree though, a line should be drawn otherwise you can end up with things going a bit absurd. It's similar to hoe stock-csr and forumla 1 racing draw lines about what things are allowed to be done to the cars.
India just had its first gold in track and fields in 100 years in Tokyo 2020, in Javelin throw, and What might be the intention to post this blog from 2012 now ? Its offensive.
Weirdly pointless article to have on the front page. the author literally gives the explanation in the first paragraph- with throwing events absolute distance has to be weighed against safety of officials, other athletes running on the track and spectators in the stadium beyond.
Very unfortunate timing unearthing this right now too given that a great throw by Chopra and the inability of the favourites to perform under the conditions has just given India their first ever olympic gold medal in track and field.
I don’t get the point of this article. Maybe it’s satire? What else does the author want? Boxing without gloves? Fencing with real swords? Perhaps the ancients won’t be so impressed with the absence of blood drawn? If a caveman is unimpressed by how far the modern javelin travels we could just hand one to him/her see how far they can throw it?
The idea of "freeform" sports competition is interesting. It shouldn't be a replacement but rather a addition to current sports.
By freeform here I mean that you remove most of the rules. For example for biking you could allow whatever vehicle the competitors choose so long as it is powered entirely by the cyclist.
Not sure what a reasonable "freeform" ruleset would be for javelin, at some point javelins stop being javelins and start being model airplanes, but I can see some entertainment value in "throwing model airplanes as far as possible"competitions too..
You might find development class sailing interesting. For example, the Moth started off as a fairly normal dinghy and is now a really fast foiling boat: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moth_(dinghy)
I’m not sure if there are similar things in other sports, but with Moths and foiling boats, there are plenty of people who say this isn’t real sailing. Fun to watch, though.
95 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 174 ms ] threadYes, the permanent world record is a little unfortunate. But it has nothing to do with how cavemen would throw.
Standards must be made to judge fair competition among participants. Yes, they're a little bit arbitrary - the 100M dash could very well be a 106M dash. But that wouldn't make the athletes 6% more impressive. Likewise, we could improve our javelins every year to get further and further throws. But our global interest isn't on the throw, but the thrower.
Why? The longer you keep records, the less likely it is that you can exceed the previous record. Why would we expect javelin throws to get longer over time?
That's a completely separate concern. Once records are established for the current event, you still expect them to be more or less permanent. Turning in the best performance in all of history is not an attainable goal. You can't expect it to be one.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/29/olympic-...
> in 1986 the International Association of Athletics Federations' technical committee authorized a new javelin design. The center of gravity was moved 1.6 inches forward, the tip was modified to make the javelin less aerodynamic, meaning it would nose down earlier and land sooner, reducing average flight distance by about 10 percent.
The permanent WR is unfortunate in that it was engineered. It would be like moving the 100 m to an incline of 12% and calling it the same sport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#Marketing_and_result...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_X-Glide#Controversy
I’d also argue there is a difference between rules about equipment and rules about technique. Technique rules may have to be adjusted more often because if an athletes does something unusual that is within the current rule set but may be seen as advantageous, you have to make a decision.
With equipment you can just say no. Those Nike running shoes are banned, full body swim suits are banned. The javelin is just another ban. With equipment, it also effects athletes uniformly, everyone must change to the new equipment. So no one is unfairly penalised.
Why do the records need to fall?
part of the competition part would be breaking records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle
Things like better shifters, lighter frames (within reason) more aero parts (within reason) are still allowed.
The UCI's 6.8kg weight limit is much higher than what is achievable with modern materials. So much so that there are frame builders who can build you an "illegal" bike made out of _steel_: https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html
With a minimum limit, no one feels the need to make their bikes less than perfectly strong. And when every OEM is making frames at perfect strength under the limit, they drop it.
I doubt that any pro-cyclist wants the speed advantages of one if it means that cornering is more difficult, veering into dangerous.
I am also pretty confident that the 'manoeuvrability' disadvantage is completely irrelevant for any individual track event. And do you think that it would be an important factor for time trials?
[edit] And yes, for time trials recumbents would be nice, but already time-trial bikes are pretty different and unsafe, I don't think the UCI would allow even more risk.
Maneuverability is important for time trials. Most courses have several tight turns and crashes are common.
So why are we so much worse than 25 years ago? The obvious explanation would doping.
I was unable to find a clip of his throws in YouTube, but here's a Google Translated article from a Finnish newspaper: https://bit.ly/3xvZWMk.
His 97.76 was in 2020 in Poland.
I suggest avoiding terms like "TFA", which can be taken to insult someone's reading comprehension. I'm sure that's not what you intended but it can easily be misinterpreted.
What does his claim[1] have to do with knowing who the throwers are?
FWIW, I think that, if you look at a sport and find that the performance of athletes in that sport decreased significantly after the introduction of more comprehensive drug testing, then it is not unreasonable to assume the higher performance was due to drug-related enhancements.
[1] He's just making a point about the statistics. We don't need to know the name of the data points.
The issue is the premise is incorrect. 11 of the top 20 throws ever happened since 2015:
https://www.worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/thr...
This suggestion is related to to for why the claim matters, which is familiarity with the sport (as represented by the ability to name its participants). As a longtime participant in track and field, athlete, coach, and fan, I have invariably found that people reduce perceived phenomena to doping usually have no idea what's actually going on in the sport and aren't involved in it in any substantive way. So, "show your familiarity" is a jabby heuristic to prove the point.
Mistaken about what? That the assumption of doping is not unreasonable? After all, I didn't say the assumption of drug-use was likely correct, I said that the assumption itself is not unreasonable.
> So, "show your familiarity" is a jabby heuristic to prove the point.
Being involved in the subjects (say, by following their career?) is evidence of bias when drawing conclusions from data points.
In other words, the heuristic is actually the other way around - if you're "familiar" with the subjects you're the wrong person to be drawing conclusions from the statistics.
It's why we insist on double-blind trials for some things - the researcher has to be ignorant of the subjects involved. Being familiar with them means the conclusions are invalid.
This isn't true.
There are 10 different athletes who have thrown within 7m of the world record[1] and Johannes Vetter has thrown over 94m 4 times[2].
> So why are we so much worse than 25 years ago?
We aren't
> The obvious explanation would doping.
Zelezy was a freak - as can be seen by his progression[3].
That kind of long-lived high performance (82m in 1986, 86m in 2006) is rarely because of doping - there are too many chances to get caught, and it's too hard to transition between doping types (eg steroids to HGH), and historical testing catches out too many people.
The Men's discuss OTOH... This is what a suspicious progression looks like[4].
[1] https://www.worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/thr...
[2] https://www.worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/thr...
[3] https://www.worldathletics.org/athletes/czech-republic/jan-z...
[4] https://www.worldathletics.org/athletes/germany/jurgen-schul...
One day his record will be broken. But the density of his high performing throws will always be amazing.
Sergey Bubbka is perhaps the closest analogy, although his record was recently - finally - broken.
Take for example Usain Bolt, he competed in the sprint but if he focused his career on some other less popular athletic sport he probably could have been WR holder there as well.
If you combine this with the fact that it's possible there was more doping in the past (especially 80s), you can get these incredible world records that stand for decades.
Looking at the list of furthest throws[1] this doesn't really seem that obvious at all.
The top two are quite large outliers, with a 4 metre gap to #3, and people in general don't seem to have been throwing much further in the past. Indeed, the difference between #1 and #25 is almost 10 metres, or 10% of the record. That's quite the difference!
Johannes Vetter seems to be in the same league as Jan Železný; Vetter is 28, Železný established his record at the age of 30. It's entirely possible that Vetter will manage to break the record in the future.
So either both Železný and Vetter are exceptionally talented athletes in their field, or they're both doped to the gills without being caught. It's not like there wasn't any attention to this in the past, see e.g. [2] from 1989. There sure is more attention to this now and I suppose it's possible that Železný used doping, but that Vetter exists in the same league as Železný demonstrates that Železný didn't have to be a doping user to be so good at it.
So in short: it's not all that obvious to me looking at the data. It's not like cycling/Tour de France with a long history of doping use (which is partly, I suspect, because what's being asked of riders borders on the inhuman).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_throw#All-time_top_25_...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1989/06/18/in-...
1. https://sportstar.thehindu.com/olympics/tokyo-olympics/neera...
2. https://thebridge.in/athletics/tokyo-olympics-neeraj-chopra-...
3. https://www.newindianexpress.com/sport/olympics/2021/aug/08/...
Whilst we could standardise a javelin, we can’t recreate the culture, diet, stadia etc of bygone epochs, so the comparisons will always be qualified or debased.
It is frustrating that we don’t have time machines,but perhaps that’s a reason to think further about what it is that fascinates us about athletic and sporting contests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower
Sounds like they just used it to wrap around the javelin to give it a spin like you would a spinning top with a string.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amentum
We could easily design javelin that travels much further, but choose not to, due to safety concerns and limitations venues...
> Lots of athletes come to the Olympics hoping to be the Best Ever. But not javelin throwers. They've been told to dream smaller dreams ("Best Since 1984!") and I think that's a bum deal.
> Why not take this event away from crowded arenas, go someplace safe, design the best flying spear possible, throw it as far as you can, and then whoever breaks the record can say to all spear throwers going back over the ages, "Now I'm Number One, in the truest sense — mine flew further than all of yours!
> That would be true Gold.
Maybe the best design would use a rail-gun as a booster.
And if the goal is to make it go as far as possible, you might want to consider throwing it outside the atmosphere.
And pitch-o-mat 5000 was just a modified howitzer. I agree though, a line should be drawn otherwise you can end up with things going a bit absurd. It's similar to hoe stock-csr and forumla 1 racing draw lines about what things are allowed to be done to the cars.
Very unfortunate timing unearthing this right now too given that a great throw by Chopra and the inability of the favourites to perform under the conditions has just given India their first ever olympic gold medal in track and field.
By freeform here I mean that you remove most of the rules. For example for biking you could allow whatever vehicle the competitors choose so long as it is powered entirely by the cyclist.
Not sure what a reasonable "freeform" ruleset would be for javelin, at some point javelins stop being javelins and start being model airplanes, but I can see some entertainment value in "throwing model airplanes as far as possible"competitions too..
The World Human Powered Vehicle Association [1] oversees such competition, on land, in water, and even in the air [2].
[1] http://www.whpva.org/
[2] http://www.whpva.org/hpv.html
I’m not sure if there are similar things in other sports, but with Moths and foiling boats, there are plenty of people who say this isn’t real sailing. Fun to watch, though.