t-and-f: 1600/mile conversions
i accidentally trashed the original before responding, but somebody was asking if x was the right conversion between 1600 and a mile, and cited the old 800/880 conversion. The problem is that there's not really a fixed conversion for any distance; the slower your final time the greater the difference. For the elite range of 800/880s that used to be dealt with a single number was fine, but if you want to do a detailed calculation, you multiply the 880 time by 0.9942 (or to go the other way, divide by that number). For 1600s to miles, the multiplier (at least as used in Big Green Book) is 1.0737. The range of values in BGB shows that a 3:38.7 for 1600 is a 3:40.0 mile (1.3 differential), and that a 7:46.8 (7:49.5 mile) is 2.7. At the speed most people care about, 4:00 mile, a 1600 is 3:58.6 (1.4 differential). The 1.4 holds true for miles from about 3:54.5 to 4:11.0, so it's a very good every-day figure for men's/boy's races. gh ps--you'll excuse the plug, but since this is a resource that many list member s would apparently be interested in, if you don't own a BGB, note that it has several pages of tables showing the equivalents of 1500/1600/mile (and also 3000/3200/2M) races. In ohter words, 4:00 mile = 3:58.6 for 1600 = 3:42.2 for 1500.
t-and-f: Selected results from Germany
The full results from Kassel, Nuremberg, Ratingen and Mannheim can be found at www.steeple.de. Frank Busemann injured his elbow when throwing the javelin and he is unlikely to compete at Edmonton. Regensburg, 16 June wJT: Nerius 63.72 Bad Langensalza, 16 June LJ: Meliz CUB 7.85 wLJ: Vaszi HUN 6.42 Gotha, 16 June SP: Buder 20.32, Bartels 20.30, Mertens 19.73 wSP: Kleinert-Schmitt 19.85, Kumbernuss 19.27, Beckel 18.02 Viersen, 17 June HJ: Chubsa BLR 2.25 Winfried Kramer Kohlrodweg 12 66539 Neunkirchen/Germany Association of Track Field Statisticians Editor of NATIONAL ATHLETICS RECORDS www.saar.de/~kramer
t-and-f: Field Event Announcing
In a message dated 6/1/01 5:39:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:46:37 EDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Oregon Abolishes High Jump Actually, Oregon has apparently gone farther than that and banned all field events. As with most meets on the planet (no matter how high the quality), field-event presentation remains absolutely abysmal. No better example can be given than yesterday, in which the decathlon PV started at 2:30, mHT final at 3:00. When 4:30 rolled around, the scoreboard had said "Welcome to Hayward Field" and nothing else for 2 solid hours. At no time during the first two days of the meet has field-event data gone on-screen,other than a next-day (or hours-later) recap of the top 8 in conjunction with the the victory ceremony for that event. And there's no indicator board at any event to tell you who the leader is. And we wonder why people stay away from our sport in droves. Garry For the California State High School Meet at Hughes Stadium in Sacramento in June, we had two announcers. I called the track races and Peter Jensen did the field events. I think Peter gave the field events very good coverage, considering the restraints put on us by meet management. We were only allowed two field spotters, since they didn't want alot of radio traffic. Keith Keith Conning 735 Brookside Drive Vacaville, CA 95688-3509 FAX: 707-448-7667 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keith Conning 735 Brookside Drive Vacaville, CA 95688-3509 FAX: 707-448-7667 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEB: http://hometown.aol.com/conning/myhomepage/index.html
Re: t-and-f: Nationals are Here !!! Aren't they ??
Walt wrote: Don't forget that Webb has one less day to rest after running 3:59.8 yesterday in the rain-delayed dmr in Raleigh---he runs the first round of the 1500 on Thursdayand I believe Gatlin is not running in Eugene. Not sure if it was ever posted to the list, but Gatlin won the 100, 200, and 110-hurdles at the U.S. Juniors. Wasn't aware that Gatlin is not going to be in Eugene ... Anyone know why ?? Hehas definitely been one of the top sprinters in the country through the Spring and would have excellent chances at making the WC team in at least one of the two sprint races ... Anyone know of his plans and why he is not participating at Nationals ??? I thought it somewhat interesting that he would have undertaken the triple he did at the US Juniors given the Sr Nationals was only a week later .. Also does anyone know - given his excellence at the sprints - if he plans to let go of the 110H or is he going to continue to run all three ??? Regarding Webb, it seems as if his choice of races and race patterns through the spring would have him prepared to be ready on Thursday as well as being able to run well through the rounds ... And so far no one else has really stepped forward to say that they are the one to beat this week ... I would bet that if Webb were a frosh or soph in college this past spring that many would want to make him the favorite ... And frankly in my opinion he has shown the best "race sense" of a domestic miler in many years ... I still say he makes the team .. ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Ryan Wilson
In a message dated Mon, 18 Jun 2001 4:33:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Michael Contopoulos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ryan Wilson, just 2 years ago at 25 years of age ran 13:19 (at Pre I believe) and 7:41 (in February in Australia). These times this year have given Goucher and Kennedy labels of bulletproof and a two-man show at Nationals. Where is Ryan? He seemed to have such a bright future in running... was part of Kim McDonald's training group with Komen and Bob... was popping some fast times, and was fairly new to the 5k having been a miler til his junior year at Arkansas. He was a 3k indoor Champ his junior year and I think got around 5th or so his junior year at NCAA Cross. Has he hung up the spikes? In addition, what about Jason Bunston? I think he came in 3rd in the 5k the year Godfrey Siamuyse won the 5 and 10. Any info would be greatly appeciated. Mike _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com As reported in the July issue of Track Field News, Ryan Wilson has retired. Dan Lilot Statistician Track Field News
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
Yes, but the way Berryhill runs, he will be out there pounding away at
3:36-3:38 pace. Now you throw in a huge kick and a race the last 400 and
Webb gets his qualifier.
M
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:46:03 -0400
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Nationals are Here !!! Aren't they ??
At 09:50 AM 6/19/01 -0700, Conway Hill wrote: Regarding Webb, it seems as if his choice of races and race patterns through the spring would have him prepared to be ready on Thursday as well as being able to run well through the rounds ... And so far no one else has really stepped forward to say that they are the one to beat this week ... I would bet that if Webb were a frosh or soph in college this past spring that many would want to make him the favorite ... And frankly in my opinion he has shown the best race sense of a domestic miler in many years ... I still say he makes the team .. Speaking of race sense... What impressed me most about Webb's anchor in the Raleigh 4X800 was the way he slowly reeled in Jefferson over the course of his first 400; and then having done so, attacked with a startling burst of speed at the bell going into the turn to open up a good 5-10 meters. Startling because it came after a 51-and-change first lap. His headiness in not trying to make up his 15 meter deficit all at once was in distinct contrast to what other runners did in Raleigh under similar circumstances-e.g., Jefferson in the DMR . Steve -- Steve Grathwohl * [EMAIL PROTECTED] One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important. --Bertrand Russell
t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
Re: t-and-f: Nationals are Here !!! Aren't they ??
In a message dated 6/19/01 11:57:09 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wasn't aware that Gatlin is not going to be in Eugene ... Anyone know why ?? If I heard correctly at Junior Nationals, Gatlin is going to summer school. If all goes well he will join the Junior Team for the meets in Great Britain. Andy Ferrara Eisenhower HS Houston, TX Track Team Power Ratings www.hstrack.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
But what if he wins? Is it then a situation a la the marathon trials where
the champion gets into the meet even if no qualifier? Can the champion who
runs 3:39 go to Worlds and block others who potentially posess the standard?
Better yet, who the hell cares, let the racing play itself out on the track
and worry about the ramifications later. Its that old cart before the horse
thing.
Grote
adiRP/MMRD
- Original Message -
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning
time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
RE: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
it would seem to be the same situation as 2000 Oly mens/womens Marathon
Trials if Webb wins
the WC B standard is 3:38.40, which he's already met with 3:38.26 so he
would be able to go to Edmonton if he wins no matter how slow
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Grote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:25 PM
To: Post, Marty; 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
But what if he wins? Is it then a situation a la the marathon trials where
the champion gets into the meet even if no qualifier? Can the champion who
runs 3:39 go to Worlds and block others who potentially posess the standard?
Better yet, who the hell cares, let the racing play itself out on the track
and worry about the ramifications later. Its that old cart before the horse
thing.
Grote
adiRP/MMRD
- Original Message -
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning
time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote:
Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last
qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a
3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q
time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the
BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin
Yes, but the way Berryhill runs, he will be out there pounding away at
3:36-3:38 pace. Now you throw in a huge kick and a race the last 400 and
Webb gets his qualifier.
M
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:46:03 -0400
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Post, Marty Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A qualifier. And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe. That's exactly what Coach Raczko said in Raleigh Sunday after Webb and South Lakes won the DMR in national record time. Raczko also said that even if Webb got the A qualifier at Eugene, it is not a certainty he would run at Edmonton. That would depend on an assessment of what's best in the long run.
t-and-f: another 15-footer
guess it's one of the better-kept secrets on the planet that Mary Sauer jumped 15-1 1/2 last weekend. gh
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
it would seem to be the same situation as 2000 Oly mens/womens Marathon Trials if Webb wins the WC B standard is 3:38.40, which he's already met with 3:38.26 so he would be able to go to Edmonton if he wins no matter how slow Unless two other Trials finalists break 3:36.20 afterwards, right? That is where tf is different than the marathon was. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
Netters Kristopher Rolin writes: On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote: Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a 3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin I noticed and I am not pleased. While many of you take the point that such things are good for the promotion of TF, a point I understand, I say again that the some animals are more equal then others approach is not the answer. Certainly the women's 10k standard was loosened by 10 seconds but that decision was made based on the numbers in the the field rather then any one individual. For the 1500 and the 5000 both fields were essentaily already full with with out loosening the standards. I might point out that on 3 separate occasions walkers who were very close to the standard in a event with very low numbers (12 or less) were denied entry into the U.S. Championships. There is no simple solution to this. Either you set a cap on numbers and fill them in in all events or no one with out a qualifier gets in. Should I remind you all of the whole debacle at the trials of the 1500 meter runner who was not allowed in (I can't remember his name but I recall he had won a medal at world indoors)- as a I recall there was strong sentiment that he not be allowed in.
RE: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
Bulletin: Life is not fair. In addition to promoting the sport, it is one of the missions of the USATF to develop the nation's promising talent. Note that no one was adversely affected by the decision to let Hall run. In other words, no one was denied entry who otherwise would have been accepted. USATF is providing the opportunity for one of the nations best-ever mile talents to run in a race at the level he has proven he can run. Either setting a field number cap or a strict time-standard to which the USATF is bound to adhere is narrow-sighted and close-minded, not to mention unreasonable. Though track is, almost intrinsically, a fair sport, the USATF is not governed by subjective concepts such as fairness, especially when the better good of the sport can be acheived. -Ryan W. Eckel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 3:57 PM To: Kristopher Rolin Cc: Michael Contopoulos; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton. Netters Kristopher Rolin writes: On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote: Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a 3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin I noticed and I am not pleased. While many of you take the point that such things are good for the promotion of TF, a point I understand, I say again that the some animals are more equal then others approach is not the answer. Certainly the women's 10k standard was loosened by 10 seconds but that decision was made based on the numbers in the the field rather then any one individual. For the 1500 and the 5000 both fields were essentaily already full with with out loosening the standards. I might point out that on 3 separate occasions walkers who were very close to the standard in a event with very low numbers (12 or less) were denied entry into the U.S. Championships. There is no simple solution to this. Either you set a cap on numbers and fill them in in all events or no one with out a qualifier gets in. Should I remind you all of the whole debacle at the trials of the 1500 meter runner who was not allowed in (I can't remember his name but I recall he had won a medal at world indoors)- as a I recall there was strong sentiment that he not be allowed in.
t-and-f: Division II information needed
Ok track fans, here's a teaser for you: Anybody got the name of a woman who ran for Humboldt State in spring 1999 after transferring from a juco, and won two events at Division II nationals that year? I have no idea if she stayed at Humboldt in 2000 or went elsewehere. First answer wins...my humble thanks. --Welch Suggs
t-and-f: Loosening Standards (was: something a lot longer)
I have a training partner who didn't submit an entry with his 3:42.53. He has some mixed feelings about Hall et al. being in the meet. Bottom line - he's gotten over it as it really does nothing to make his life worse, but he feels it would have been nice to know about this beforehand, y'know? Back when the airplane ticket and the entry didn't cost so much. It would be nice if USATF publisized what it's policy is going to be a little more clearly. Heck maybe they do, and I'm just an ignoramus. Cheers, Buck
Re: t-and-f: Medleys
I'm sure most of us will think of the record as "Webb's other HS record", and rightfully so since most of the credit for the final time goes to him. I agree that Richard Smith's 3:03 1200 was exceptional, but many teams could field a 50.2 400 runner and a 1:56 800 runner. But could many teams field a 1:56 800m runner for their third best 800m runner? A few could, perhaps, but not many. I don't particularly care for medley relays, either, except for the "short" sprint medley - 100,100,200,400. In that relay, handoffs become more important and while the 400m runner is obviously the most important, there's plenty of other variables. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: edmonton housing accommodations?
i'm volunteering in the media area for the world champs in august and was wondering if anybody had any tips on places to stay cheap in edmonton (since i'm covering all of my own expenses including travel) in town...in the past, i've even gone as far as camped out an hour away (in knoxville for the ncaa champs in '95), so i'm not picky... i've checked with the local hostel in town, but it's booked up with a long waiting list... the host web site (www.2001.edmonton.com) has a link to locals renting rooms, but the canadian $ prices are still fairly high, so if anybody has any suggestions or friends up there willing to work something out, or if you're in a similar situation and want to share cheap quarters, drop me a line sincerely, g Geoff Thurner Assistant Director/Publications Coordinator University of Oregon Media Services - Athletics Len Casanova Center 2727 Leo Harris Parkway Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541) 346-2250 Fax: (541) 346-5449 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.goducks.com GO DUCKS!! - GO DUCKS!! - GO DUCKS!!
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote: Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a 3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin Assuming this info is accurate, I say more power to them. I don't know how many entrants there are in the 1500m and the 5000m, so perhaps they are just filling the fields. Having just watched the U.S. Open in golf, it becomes clear how many things they do that would be good for track field to emulate. They are smart enough to leave open the possibility of offering exemptions to an athlete who's presence will benefit the sport - like Jack Nicklaus in past years. Instead of the contention that so often pervades anything like this in track and field, you get most of the other players, as well as the media applauding such a decision. And you also get guys turning down exemptions when they don't think they deserve it. And you never get guys ASKING for exemptions - they are respectful of the process and figure that if they are not asked, they don't deserve it. In fairness to USATF, the athletes have made it pretty clear over the years that they are not in favor of something like this. I think it would be great to have up to two allowed exemptions per event, granted by USATF or even better by the athletes advisory committee itself. But based on past history, there may never be the kind of mutual respect and humility between USATF and the athletes that the PGA, the USGA and the golfers currently have - without that, the exemption concept is probably doomed to failure. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
In a message dated 6/19/01 1:38:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what if he wins? Is it then a situation a la the marathon trials where the champion gets into the meet even if no qualifier? Can the champion who runs 3:39 go to Worlds and block others who potentially posess the standard? USATF's policy is to take as many people as possible per event. If Webb wins, and doesn't meet the standard in doing so (and doesn't chase it in Europe), then Michael Stember and David Krummenacker, assuming they run in Eugene, will go to Edmonton. (This is also assuming that Gabe Jennings doesn't run, and no else who finishes ahead of Stember and/or Krummenacker in Eugene reaches the standard before the deadline of July 23--got all that??). Here is the official policy from www.usatf.org(under Elite Athletes). The top three (3) place finishers at the selection competition (2001 GMC Envoy USA Outdoor National Championships) who have met the qualifying criteria will select themselves to the team. * All athletes competing in the selection competition will be ranked according to their order of finish at the selection competition. The Ranking List for each event will be compiled as follows: 1. Athletes will be ranked according to order of place finish in the event final. 2. Ranking outside the event final will be based on performance in the preliminary rounds, beginning with the semi-finals. 3. The top-performing athlete in the semi-finals will be the next ranked athlete, with ranking continuing according to performance through the semi-finals and into the preliminary rounds, if necessary. 4. Only the athlete’s performance in his/her last round of competition at the Championships will be used for ranking. * If any of the top 3 finishers in the selection competition do not meet the “A” qualifying standard during the qualifying period, the next athlete on the ranking list from the selection competition who has met the “A” qualifying standard will be selected to the team. * In an event where only two (2) athletes have met the “A” qualifying standard, only those two athletes who compete at the selection competition will be selected to the Team, regardless of their place at the selection competition. * In an event where only one (1) athlete has the “A” qualifying standard, the highest placing finisher at the selection competition with the “A” or “B” standard will be selected to the Team. * In an event where two or more athletes meet the “A” qualifying standard during the qualifying period (but after the selection competition) in an event where only one “B” qualified athlete has been selected to the Team (at the selection competition), the “B” qualifier will be replaced on the Team by the two “A” qualified athletes. Walt Murphy
Re: t-and-f: Division II information needed
In a message dated Tue, 19 Jun 2001 4:57:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, welch suggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok track fans, here's a teaser for you: Anybody got the name of a woman who ran for Humboldt State in spring 1999 after transferring from a juco, and won two events at Division II nationals that year? I have no idea if she stayed at Humboldt in 2000 or went elsewehere. First answer wins...my humble thanks. --Welch Suggs Trinity Davis won the 100 for Humboldt's only victory of the meet. gh
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
Except that unlike Golf in Track and field performance is paramount. There is room to let old duffers in in a golf tournament with nearly unlimited space to play, In track there is limited space. So though allowing a Steve Scott to run would remove a better runner from the field where as in Golf that doesn't happen. Are you kidding? Golf is just as bad as track. The first two rounds of the U.S. Open take literally from dusk until dawn to complete. They can't fit any more people, and when they have rain delays like they did this year, they end up not finishing on thursday and friday. Every exemption that is granted means that one less person can qualify, exactly like it does in track. The fact that 150 people can compete in the tournament doesn't mean that the 151st person isn't more deserving than others who got in through an exemption. Allowing exemptions would put these choices into the hands of people I and many athletes do not trust. I've said for years that either the athletes or the grass roots associations (which I am involved in) could control the organization if they wanted to. But both groups have chosen to fight amongst themselves instead. Hey, if you're opposed to exemptions, I can respect that. But why not have a subcommittee of athletes advisory determine possible exemptions each year? If the athletes were united, they could accomplish this. Tell me, aside from the marginal promotional value why a high school kid missing the 1500 mark by one second should be let in over a walker missing the 20k mark by 10 seconds. Marginal promotional value? If we were basing it on promotional value, there would be no walks, hammer throw or 10K. There is loads of promotional value in having Hall and Ritz compete. If that promotional value ends up not being talken advantage of - that's a different story. I would grant an exemption to Hall and not necessarily to an adult walker, sprinter, whatever, who missed the standard. It depends on what other reason the athlete had to be considered for an exemption. As I said, I certainly can respect the opinion that no one should ever be given an exemption - I just don't agree with it. That said, I agree that the kind of sliding of the standards that appears to have happened here has some problems. It needs to be part of a more formal and public process - I actually don't know who made the decision or what process was used, so maybe there is some official procedure regarding this. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Loosening Standards (was: something a lot longer)
Netters Soon I will go back into hiding but int eh meantime Buck Jones writes: I have a training partner who didn't submit an entry with his 3:42.53. He has some mixed feelings about Hall et al. being in the meet. Bottom line -he's gotten over it as it really does nothing to make his life worse, Does nothing to harm him? A good race at nationals could =help a guy get some shoes or even give the motivation to train harder. It would be nice if USATF publisized what it's policy is going to be a little more clearly. Heck maybe they do, and I'm just an ignoramus. No Buck, they don't and you are not. Your friend is a perfect example of what I have been saying though apperently some on this list who have never qualified, been ranked or even close to this level of competiton seem to think they have a better idea about this is all about. But the I never ran 15:30 for 5k so I can't possibly know what it takes. We have a trials system to pick our teams - its called self selection by performance - it prevent by and large politicl apointments to teams. We have a system to get into the trials (Nationals too) which involve standards made up with the input of athletes coaches and adminstrators. Again, I am not against the idea of these guys running I think its great, I just think some - no - I know others are harmed by this and that there has to be a better way that is equatable to all. Mike
Re: t-and-f: Selected results from Germany
Busemann unlikely to compete in Edmonton??! That's new to me; he didn't say a word about that in the interviews during and after his qualification in Ratingen. Additionally, his elbow was hurt already before the decathlon. He just did whatever he could do with that injury in the javelin to qualify for Worlds. Best wishes, Larissa Kleinmann University of Arkansas http://www.larissa-kleinmann.com Original Message Follows From: Winfried Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Winfried Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Selected results from Germany Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:31:52 +0200 The full results from Kassel, Nuremberg, Ratingen and Mannheim can be found at www.steeple.de. Frank Busemann injured his elbow when throwing the javelin and he is unlikely to compete at Edmonton. Regensburg, 16 June wJT: Nerius 63.72 Bad Langensalza, 16 June LJ: Meliz CUB 7.85 wLJ: Vaszi HUN 6.42 Gotha, 16 June SP: Buder 20.32, Bartels 20.30, Mertens 19.73 wSP: Kleinert-Schmitt 19.85, Kumbernuss 19.27, Beckel 18.02 Viersen, 17 June HJ: Chubsa BLR 2.25 Winfried Kramer Kohlrodweg 12 66539 Neunkirchen/Germany Association of Track Field Statisticians Editor of NATIONAL ATHLETICS RECORDS www.saar.de/~kramer _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: 1600/mile conversions
Almost every runner accepts GH's conversion as being most accurate. gh ps--you'll excuse the plug, but since this is a resource that many list member s would apparently be interested in, if you don't own a BGB, note that it has several pages of tables showing the equivalents of 1500/1600/mile (and also 3000/3200/2M) races. In ohter words, 4:00 mile = 3:58.6 for 1600 = 3:42.2 for 1500.
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
USATF's policy is to take as many people as possible per event. If Webb wins, and doesn't meet the standard in doing so (and doesn't chase it in Europe), then Michael Stember and David Krummenacker, assuming they run in Eugene, will go to Edmonton. This is also assuming that Gabe Jennings doesn't run, and no else who finishes ahead of Stember and/or Krummenacker in Eugene reaches the standard before the deadline of July 23--got all that??). Does Stember have the A standard? I thought he made the Olympic A standard but not the world A standard - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Medleys
At 02:30 PM 6/19/01 -0500, Beard, Cory wrote: If someone loves medleys, please tell me why. Maybe even a little history would be nice. If we have medleys just so we can run another relay (or let milers run in something more interesting than a 4xmile), why not do a 4x600 or 4x1200? Well, I love the medleys, and, in a sense, I couldn't care less whether you do; but I do know that my HS team didn't have 4 half milers for a 4X880; nor did it have 4 milers. Come to think of it, we didn't even have 4 quarter men, because I (a miler) had to run the mile relay. But we fielded a sprint medley team that set a record at the Queen City Relays in Charlotte, NC that stood for 15 years or thereabouts. Maybe that's why I love medleys. Steve -- Steve Grathwohl *[EMAIL PROTECTED] The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology. --H.L. Mencken
Re: t-and-f: Medleys
To have 4 guys who can run 50.?, 1:56, 3:03 and 3:59 is insane. That's a decent collegiate team. Corey, no offense, but I don't think your earlier post made any sense. The great thing about a dmr is that you take 4 mid distance guys and stretch them out to see how strong or how fast they really are. It makes perfect sense to me... I think its the best relay on the track. M From: Steve Grathwohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Steve Grathwohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Medleys Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:08:10 -0400 At 02:30 PM 6/19/01 -0500, Beard, Cory wrote: If someone loves medleys, please tell me why. Maybe even a little history would be nice. If we have medleys just so we can run another relay (or let milers run in something more interesting than a 4xmile), why not do a 4x600 or 4x1200? Well, I love the medleys, and, in a sense, I couldn't care less whether you do; but I do know that my HS team didn't have 4 half milers for a 4X880; nor did it have 4 milers. Come to think of it, we didn't even have 4 quarter men, because I (a miler) had to run the mile relay. But we fielded a sprint medley team that set a record at the Queen City Relays in Charlotte, NC that stood for 15 years or thereabouts. Maybe that's why I love medleys. Steve -- Steve Grathwohl *[EMAIL PROTECTED] The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology. --H.L. Mencken _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Jason Bunston
Jason can speak for himself because I think he is a lister but here is a slightly out of date website. I'm pretty sure he is involved in the Toronto 2008 bid. I think he has been fighting a few injuries of late. http://webhome.idirect.com/~jbunston/schedule.html Regards,MartinDate: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:24:58 -0400From: "Michael Contopoulos" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: Ryan WilsonRyan Wilson, just 2 years ago at 25 years of age ran 13:19 (at Pre I believe) and 7:41 (in February in Australia). These times this year have given Goucher and Kennedy labels of "bulletproof" and a "two-man show" at Nationals. Where is Ryan? He seemed to have such a bright future in running... was part of Kim McDonald's training group with Komen and Bob... was popping some fast times, and was fairly new to the 5k having been a miler til his junior year at Arkansas. He was a 3k indoor Champ his junior year and I think got around 5th or so his junior year at NCAA Cross. Has he hung up the spikes? In addition, what about Jason Bunston? I think he came in 3rd in the 5k the year Godfrey Siamuyse won the 5 and 10. Any info would be greatly appeciated.Mike_
Fwd: t-and-f: Medleys
The thing I like about medley relays is that many teams do not have 4 good 800m runners or 100m runners and often have to take people from other events to make a team. But many teams can get a decent 800 runner and a pretty good 400 runner and find two other sprinters to fill in the other legs. In our state meets often a team can come out of nowhere to win the SMR. As for the South Lake's record just being another of Webb's records, that is not true. Just make a comment like that to Alan after he broke 4 for a 1600m and lost at Penn Relays to a team from Ireland. It took his 3 teammate to put him in position to to pull off the victory at National Scholastics. Congratulations to South Lakes... what an awesome team. Marty Ogden To have 4 guys who can run 50.?, 1:56, 3:03 and 3:59 is insane. That's a decent collegiate team. Corey, no offense, but I don't think your earlier post made any sense. The great thing about a dmr is that you take 4 mid distance guys and stretch them out to see how strong or how fast they really are. It makes perfect sense to me... I think its the best relay on the track. M From: Steve Grathwohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Steve Grathwohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Medleys Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:08:10 -0400 At 02:30 PM 6/19/01 -0500, Beard, Cory wrote: If someone loves medleys, please tell me why. Maybe even a little history would be nice. If we have medleys just so we can run another relay (or let milers run in something more interesting than a 4xmile), why not do a 4x600 or 4x1200? Well, I love the medleys, and, in a sense, I couldn't care less whether you do; but I do know that my HS team didn't have 4 half milers for a 4X880; nor did it have 4 milers. Come to think of it, we didn't even have 4 quarter men, because I (a miler) had to run the mile relay. But we fielded a sprint medley team that set a record at the Queen City Relays in Charlotte, NC that stood for 15 years or thereabouts. Maybe that's why I love medleys. Steve -- Steve Grathwohl *[EMAIL PROTECTED] The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology. --H.L. Mencken _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Medley
Another way to look at how impressive the South Lakes DMR is: In how many state meets would the combined time of the 400m winner, the 800m winner, the 1600m/mile winner and an extrapolation of the 1200m from the 2nd place miler or 800m runner beat the South Lakes time? Certainly in California (and Virginia) but would there be more than 10 states that could field such a DMR out of the whole state? Few states have a state mile champion under 4:10, which pretty much eliminates any chance of the record. Yes, the event is weighted heavily in favor of the miler and I find a 4x100 or 4x400 more exciting, but what South Lakes did was pretty impressive. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
In a message dated 6/19/01 6:34:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does Stember have the A standard? I thought he made the Olympic A standard but not the world A standard Stember ran 3:35.11 in Monaco last year. (The A standard is 3:36.20) Walt Murphy
t-and-f: HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY PLACED ON PROBATION, WOMEN'S TRACK AND FIELD RECORDS VACATED
HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY PLACED ON PROBATION, WOMEN'S TRACK AND FIELD RECORDS VACATED INDIANAPOLIS---The Division II Committee on Infractions has placed Humboldt State University on probation for two years, required the university to vacate its team record for indoor and outdoor women's track in 1998-99, and has imposed a show-cause order on the former head women's track coach for two years for violations of NCAA legislation governing recruiting, extra benefits, ethical conduct and institutional control. A show-cause penalty requires any NCAA institution that employs or is seeking to employ the individual to appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine whether the individual's athletically related duties should be limited for a specified time. The violations primarily involved the former head women's track and field coach, who is currently employed at another Division II institution, and a female track and field prospect who later enrolled and became a student-athlete at the university and won two individual national track titles in 1999. Most of the violations included provision of free housing, meals and transportation as well as impermissible tryouts and exceeding the permissible number of evaluations and contacts allowed. The violations were discovered by the university and self-reported to the NCAA in late 1999. More specifically, during the 1998 fall semester, the student-athlete, then a prospect who was enrolled at a local community college, regularly participated in scheduled practice sessions with the university's men's and women's track teams. She participated in drills, received individualized instruction and participated in an organized weight-training program. The prospect also resided at the personal residence of the head track coach and received meals and transportation. The young woman continued to live at the residence of the head coach while enrolled at the university in spring 1999. The committee found that the former coach knowingly provided recruiting inducements and extra benefits and acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct. The coach disagreed with the findings of the committee and contended that he did not participate in impermissible recruiting activities, did not provide improper inducements or benefits and did not violate the ethical conduct bylaw. The Committee on Infractions also found that the university demonstrated a lack of institutional control because the former coach failed to ensure compliance with NCAA legislation, did not adequately educate himself or his staff about rules and did not properly maintain recruiting efforts. The university failed to monitor the actions of prospective student-athletes living in the community and did not follow its own procedures for investigating possible rules violations. University officials concurred with the institutional control finding. The committee concluded that the track and field program received considerable recruiting and competitive advantages because the actions of the track coach. Four secondary violations involving the track and field program also were reported, including impermissible recruiter, an eligibility violation, a recruiting inducement and extra benefits. The university imposed a number of corrective actions, which were considered by the committee. Among the actions, the university: Placed the women's track and field program on probation for two years. Reduced the number of expenses-paid recruiting trips to two for the 2001-02 academic year for the women's track and field team. Reduced the number of official visits to two for the 2001-02 academic year for the women's track and field team. Will place a reprimand in the file of an assistant coach for violations of NCAA recruiting regulations. Will develop and implement a comprehensive recruiting process for the men's and women's track and field teams. These procedures will be approved by the compliance coordinator and adherence to these procedures will be reviewed monthly for one year. Will assign the director of athletics and the head track and field coach to jointly
t-and-f: Declared Entry Lists
The list of declared athletes for the GMC Envoy USA Outdoor Track Field Championships is now posted on our eugenechamps.com website. Tom Jordan Barbara Kousky Co-Meet Directors eugenechamps.com
t-and-f: Oldest Competitor Ever?
Declared Entries - 2001 GMC Envoy USA Outdoor Championships Women's 20,000 Meter Race Walk Sunday 06/24/01 at 8:00 AM RANK COMP# ATHLETE TEAMSEED TIME = === = === 1 673 Michelle Rohl Moving Comfort RT 1:31:51.00 2 783 Teresa Vaill Unattached 1:33:23.00 3 507 Debbi LawrenceAIM USA1:33:48.00 4 833 Jill Zenner Miami Valley TC1:34:50.00 5 739 Sara Stevenson Unattached 1:35:22.00 6 284 Joanne Dow adidas 1:36:17.00 7 732 Sara Standley Unattached 1:38:38.00 8 223 Sam Cohen Parkside Athletic Club 1:42:47.00 9 118 Amber Antonia Unattached 1:43:38.00 10 408 Victoria Herazo Unattached 1:43:45.00 11 128 Ali Bahr Parkside Athletic Club 1:44:09.00 12 431 Deborah Huberty Parkside Athletic Club 1:45:59.00 13 397 Heidi Hauch World Class Racewalking1:47:26.00 14 460 Gayle Johnson* Unattached 1:50:12.00 *DOB 12/24/48 Looks like they're letting anyone in the meet :-) I almost fell out of my chair when I got the call saying that my petition for her entry had been accepted. Anyone know of anyone older ever competing in this meet? -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated... - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
t-and-f: BERRYHILL, LUNN, WEBB and HESCH @ 1500
...your 1500 team with first alternate,,,you heard it here first!! -MF
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton
Ryan Eckl wrote: In addition to promoting the sport, it is one of the missions of the USATF to develop the nation's promising talent. Note that no one was adversely affected by the decision to let Hall run. In other words, no one was denied entry who otherwise would have been accepted. USATF is providing the opportunity for one of the nations best-ever mile talents to run in a race at the level he has proven he can run. Try this hypothetical...12 runenrs advance from the preliminaries to the finals...say Webb/Ritz/Hall finish 13th and fail to qualify for the National Championship Final in their eventshould the USATF grant them an exception and advance the high school phenom to the final...they have already given them (not Webb obviously) special treatment to advance this far, why not give them a free pass one round further??...under the arguments that I have read in support of the special treatment presented on the list, nobody would be harmed if the USATF just allowed an extra person into the final (or would someone be harmed?) If Hall or Ritz do advance to the Final in Eugene then there will be people who will be harmed; the first person who does not qualify will be harmed. What if that extra runner qualified for the World Team?? If it is good for promoting the sport to allow a runner that does not meet the qualifying mark into the meet, then it MUST be good for promoting the sport to advance this same runner to the final??? On another note, it can easily be believed that runners like Hall and Ritz have about 10 more years of National Championships ahead of them in their futuresthen why do they need to receive special treatment to gain entry to the National Championship meet at this stage in their career?? They have plenty of years ahead to gain the valuable experience of racing in high caliber meets like the USATF Championships. Do you find it funny/ironic that these runners will not (I hope) receive this same special treatment next year or any other year in the future? Yet next year, at this time, they will still be America's future of distance running. Should these same runners get special treatment in attempting to to qualify for the NCAA championships or USATF Championships next year? Where is the line drawn?? And yet another point where this whole situation has opened Pandora's box was the timing in which Ritz was told that he would be allowed into the National Championships with a non-qualifyinbg mark. John Chaplin was quoted in SI 2 months prior to the final qualifying date that he would be admitted into the meet. That fact alone DOES do harm to other runners in that while Ritz was able to plan/train knowing that he need not attempt to run a qualifying mark, any other runner in that same situation would be forced to train and plan their race schedule accordingly to give them the best chance to obtain a qualifying mark. This topic hits home for me very much. Last year my wife missed the 5,000m qualifying mark for the Olympic Trials by .01 of a second (we have the finishlynx photo to prove it; arms across the line, knee across the line, but not the torso). We went through the process of appealing to get her entry into the meet. Did she deserve to get in? No. Would she have run if she was granted entry? YES. I do take exception to anyone who believes that the USATF should be able to choose which of the athletes in this situation are allowed entry based on subjective standards. But I at least applaud the USATF for being consistent in 2000 with staying true to their stance across the board. However, in my opinion, ANYONE who argues that the exceptions made this year were to accomodate field size is sadly mistaken. My 2 cents worth, Daniel Niednagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
