t-and-f: Test....
Is the server down? *John Beattie* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: test....
Is the server down? *John Beattie* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: test....
Check with King George. John Beattie wrote: Is the server down? *John Beattie* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: List Inactivity
Earlier today, John Beattie put up a test to ask whether the list server was down. From that, and Mike Prizy's response, obviously, it wasn't. Also, Zbigniew Jonik managed to put up the Zywiec Cup results. Otherwise, it must have been the least active Sunday I can ever remember for the t-and-f list. Fair enough, if nothing of interest is happening. I wonder, though, why there seems to be no interest in the U.S./RUS/GBR meet in Glasgow. I may just be feeling bitchy because my ancient Mac Performa consistently crashes before I can get any information about Dragila vs. Feofanova from the UK Athletics link of the Track and Field News website, or any other result except (surprise!) that Chambers, the UK rep, won the 100m. However, the way this meet has been organized and (non-) reported seems very strange to this old-timer. Forty years ago, the dual meets between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. were, in the perspective of American sports fans, the most important of all track and field competitions, with the possible exception of the Olympic Games, where interest still turned on the medal counts between the two. I would have thought that the best promotion of the Glasgow meet would have featured a renewal of this rivalry, even though USA/RUS must be admitted to be a less equal contest. I remember that, earlier, someone on the list questioned whether USA would field a true national team for this meet. If they didn't, that might explain the lack of public interest (for example, less TV sports mention than arena football or women's boxing!). If they didn't, the question still remains of why not. Subscribers will have noted the welcome increase in contributions by USATF communications staff to the list. Why did they basically pass on this one? Cheers, Roger
RE: t-and-f: List Inactivity
Cosmic unconsciousness, Shrimp Plate $1.99 malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Ruth Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: List Inactivity Earlier today, John Beattie put up a test to ask whether the list server was down. From that, and Mike Prizy's response, obviously, it wasn't. Also, Zbigniew Jonik managed to put up the Zywiec Cup results. Otherwise, it must have been the least active Sunday I can ever remember for the t-and-f list.
t-and-f: Dual meets between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.
Forty years ago, the dual meets between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. were, in the perspective of American sports fans, the most important of all track and field competitions, with the possible exception of the Olympic Games, where interest still turned on the medal counts between the two... I have thought that these meets provided the stimulus for the running boom of the seventies and not Shorter's Gold medal. I think the importance of a track meet between the powers that could destroy the world made track seem to me, Shorter, and our entire cohort, worthy. That and the inspiration of a high school kid, Gerry Lindgren, beating the Russians, made anything possible and all the difficulty of training worth pursuing beyond the usual age of retirement at college graduation. Tom Derderian - Original Message - From: Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:07 AM Subject: t-and-f: List Inactivity Earlier today, John Beattie put up a test to ask whether the list server was down. From that, and Mike Prizy's response, obviously, it wasn't. Also, Zbigniew Jonik managed to put up the Zywiec Cup results. Otherwise, it must have been the least active Sunday I can ever remember for the t-and-f list. Fair enough, if nothing of interest is happening. I wonder, though, why there seems to be no interest in the U.S./RUS/GBR meet in Glasgow. I may just be feeling bitchy because my ancient Mac Performa consistently crashes before I can get any information about Dragila vs. Feofanova from the UK Athletics link of the Track and Field News website, or any other result except (surprise!) that Chambers, the UK rep, won the 100m. However, the way this meet has been organized and (non-) reported seems very strange to this old-timer. Forty years ago, the dual meets between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. were, in the perspective of American sports fans, the most important of all track and field competitions, with the possible exception of the Olympic Games, where interest still turned on the medal counts between the two. I would have thought that the best promotion of the Glasgow meet would have featured a renewal of this rivalry, even though USA/RUS must be admitted to be a less equal contest. I remember that, earlier, someone on the list questioned whether USA would field a true national team for this meet. If they didn't, that might explain the lack of public interest (for example, less TV sports mention than arena football or women's boxing!). If they didn't, the question still remains of why not. Subscribers will have noted the welcome increase in contributions by USATF communications staff to the list. Why did they basically pass on this one? Cheers, Roger
Re: t-and-f: Duals/duels ... was List Inactivity
I would imagine that the end of the Cold War, coupled with increased professionalization of track in the late 80s and 90s pretty much put an end to mythical stature of these duals/duels. Isn't one of the US-Soviet Union matches from the early 60s still the record holder for the biggest crowd for a track meet in the US? 100,000 plus? USATF did send out a release on this meet on Friday. http://www.usatf.org/news/showRelease.asp?article=/news/releases/2002-08-16. xml Results of the US-RUS-GBR meet can be found at http://www.tilastopaja.net (you can always count on Mirko). Women's PV -- 1 Svetlana Feofanova RUS 4.62 2 Yelena Isinbayeva RUS4.50 3 Stacy Dragila USA 4.50 4 Mary Sauer USA 4.05 Larry Wade (13.24w) over Colin Jackson and Allen Johnson, easy win for Darvis Patton in the 200 (20.16), Stringfellow and Pate 1-2 in the LJ, Makarov 87.99 in the JT, Edwards 17.54 in the TJ, US men 3rd in the 4x100 and US women 2nd. -- | Bob Ramsak | *TRACK PROFILE News Service - Editor | http://www.trackprofile.com | *Race Results Weekly - Asst. Editor --- |Cleveland, Ohio USA |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Tel - 216-731-9648 |Fax - 216-731-9675 - Original Message - From: Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: t-and-f: List Inactivity Earlier today, John Beattie put up a test to ask whether the list server was down. From that, and Mike Prizy's response, obviously, it wasn't. Also, Zbigniew Jonik managed to put up the Zywiec Cup results. Otherwise, it must have been the least active Sunday I can ever remember for the t-and-f list. Fair enough, if nothing of interest is happening. I wonder, though, why there seems to be no interest in the U.S./RUS/GBR meet in Glasgow. I may just be feeling bitchy because my ancient Mac Performa consistently crashes before I can get any information about Dragila vs. Feofanova from the UK Athletics link of the Track and Field News website, or any other result except (surprise!) that Chambers, the UK rep, won the 100m. However, the way this meet has been organized and (non-) reported seems very strange to this old-timer. Forty years ago, the dual meets between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. were, in the perspective of American sports fans, the most important of all track and field competitions, with the possible exception of the Olympic Games, where interest still turned on the medal counts between the two. I would have thought that the best promotion of the Glasgow meet would have featured a renewal of this rivalry, even though USA/RUS must be admitted to be a less equal contest. I remember that, earlier, someone on the list questioned whether USA would field a true national team for this meet. If they didn't, that might explain the lack of public interest (for example, less TV sports mention than arena football or women's boxing!). If they didn't, the question still remains of why not. Subscribers will have noted the welcome increase in contributions by USATF communications staff to the list. Why did they basically pass on this one? Cheers, Roger
