Re: Fw: t-and-f: huge NCAA news!
Bruce Lehane wrote: "I believe that, as in cross country, the regions will be of a geographic nature, meaning determined by what state institutions are found in, rather than what conference they compete in." If the regions are purely geographical, then wouldn't you have the odd situation where geographically-broad conferences could in alternating years send their conference champions to different regionals? Taking Heptagonals as an example, which regional its champions qualified for would depend year to year on whether those champions were from its New England or mid-Atlantic schools. Wouldn't this fluctuation make it logistically impossible to use placings in conference championships as auto-qualifying berths to the regionals? And wouldn't that therefore make it necessary to qualify for regional meets based purely on times? And wouldn't that therefore undermine the whole plan?--Not only would you sacrifice the quality of competition at the national meet by letting in relatively weaker regional champions, but you still have the obsession with qualifying times over good team competition that the regional system was supposed at least to mitigate. AGB
Re: t-and-f: Will this race be valid for record ratification?
It seems to me that all these special conditions for Runyan's race are not only illegal, but also absurd and detrimental to the sport. How can an athlete specify that he or she wants to run a race alone because he or she is more comfortable without other runners "interfering"? Isn't this what athletics is? I am sure that hurdlers would much rather that no one ran beside them in the 110H, but I am even more sure that such an event would cease to be athletics and no one should have any interest in the outcome. Why would anyone agree to arrange such a race for Runyan? Why would Runyan think that obtaining a particular time justify betraying the purpose of athletics? And should anyone care what the outcome is? AGB
Re: t-and-f: Khannouchi out of London
"Khalid Khannouchi has reportedly withdrawn from the April 22 London Marathon so that he can focus on the World Championships race in August." It occurs to me that Khannouchi is in a very exciting position, and may be calculating to take advantage of it. Though many astute listmembers have pointed out that adding Khannouchi to the US roster does not instantly cure its marathon woes, in some sense Khannouchi is poised to do just that: Even if American audiences know that he is an adopted foreigner, there is nothing like seeing the home colours come first to rejuvenate interest in a sport. Khannouchi's times and places at London may be little more than a temporary cover for poor American showings, but if he were to win the World Championships outright he might inspire a new generation of long distance runners. If this sort of thinking has anything to do with his withdrawal from London, then it is impressive to see someone selflessly carrying the torch for his country. AGB
Re: t-and-f: art imitates life?
There is a brief summary and details about the production of "The Long Run" at the following site: http://www.upcomingmovies.com/longrun.html Apparently, it centers on the Comrades Marathon in South Africa. A coach spends his life coaching Africans to run this brutal race, and just when he begins to lose his fire for the event he meets a young Namibian girl whose promise reinvigorates him. AGB -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:53 PM Subject: t-and-f: art imitates life? anyone know anything about a movie coming out in May called 'The Long Run' ?
Re: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
It seems to me that cross-country split times have two important functions: (1) during the race, they help runners to gauge their effort and strategize, and (2) after the race, they enable fans/statisticians/coaches to reconstruct the progress of a race, to see who had the most effective pacing strategy, and to appreciate things like spectacular mid-race surges and finishing kicks. Given those two functions--race pacing and race reconstruction--I can see why US races stick with mile splits. In terms of athletes pacing themselves, it shouldn't matter if they are receiving kilo splits or mile splits, but if it has to be a choice between 2k splits or mile splits, then mile splits are more frequent and therefore a greater aid. In terms of reconstructing the race, the same argument holds--splits every 1609 rather than 2000 mean that runners' strategies are more frequently monitored for later analysis. And, as an unintended fringe benefit, mile splits in a 10k mean that you also get a split on what is almost the last quarter mile of each runner, which is very useful in tight races, much like having the last 300 in a 1500. I for one would like to know the split for Kelly's last .2! AGB
Re: t-and-f: Masters records for 200, 400, 800, mile
Buck Jones wrote: Imagine a typical 800m runner (ie someone whose BEST event is the 800, ie Gray) whose best is 1:51 (Gray as of now). How many 1:51 half-milers do you know that can run 47.87 or 3:44/4:02? Three points: 1) The fact that Gray ran around 1:50 last season does NOT make him equal to a runner with a 1:51 PR. Gray has a huge advantage over such an athlete, having run significantly faster many times. 2) Regardless, a 1:51 runner ought to be able to run around :48, so :47.87 should not necessarily be out of reach. 3) And to boot, Gray has always been more of a 400-800 runner than a "pure" middle distance athlete. All three of those factors lead me to believe that Gray should be able to take the 400 and 800 masters records rather easily, but I don't believe he could ever get the 200 or mile-ish records. AGB
t-and-f: Hamilton Szabo
Just to settle a debate that has hopefully already died... Here is a photo of Szabo chasing Hamilton out of the final turn at Pre. It doesn't look like Suzy had 30m to me! AGB http://www.collegerunning.com/images/pre00/premilef1.jpg
Re: t-and-f: Suzy Hamilton William of Occam
Doesn't this post finally say that we have carried the discussion too far? John Lunn "P. N. Heidenstrom" wrote: In trying to explain Suzy Hamilton's fall in the 1500 at the Sudney Olympics, someone suggested: Apply Ocham's Razor, which states that in nature the simplest explanation is most often correct. That's simplistic. SNIP Actually, I think that P. Heidenstrom's is by far the best post on the topic of Suzy Hamilton, because it (1) makes no unfounded speculation, (2) conveys a wealth of accurate and useful information (albeit about a medieval theologian rather than a runner), and (3) should serve notice that much of the "fact" and "logic" bantered about on this list is nonsense. Arguing about racing strategies and how to overcome problems faced by many milers is one thing; to argue whether SFH's shoe contract is worthwhile or precisely how great was Prefontaine doesn't really further our purpose of discussing athletics and improving the sport, does it? I, for one, am more excited by reports on the Chicago Marathon or cross country, or even athlete rankings, than half-baked explanations of SFH's mental state at 1400m. Perhaps I don't belong on this list, but my general preference is persistently to hope that everyone runs fast and has a brilliant career, no matter how many times he or she falls. AGB
Re: t-and-f: Comment from list member
Mr Rohl and fellow listmembers, Though I have great sympathy for the harassment you have suffered as a walker on a list composed largely of very immature distance runners and a few precious honest athletics fans, I think that your personal message to Mantis--whether private or shared--was completely out of line. There are many ways of dealing with harassers, and becoming one yourself is not included within those options. If Mantis' harassing actions, whatever they may have been, were immature and offensive, yours appear to be criminally malicious and inexcusable. Is it somehow more reasonable that it was sent privately? To me, that makes your threat even less acceptable. I write to the whole list to make the point that I hope our list will never degenerate into a web of personal vendettas. Nary a post goes by without at least two or three people responding negatively, often with no pertinent information on the topic other than, "your athlete is doped and your event is stupid." Just witness the responses to Mr Hunt's assessment of Suzy Hamilton's fall--you may disagree with Mr Hunt's assessment, and you may think that he is short of information. But almost all of us are certainly even shorter of information, for many of us have never been elite coaches, or even athletes, and the number of people on this list who have mastered physiology seems quite small. I am humoured by the responses to Mr Hunt's diagnosis, which (a) state that he is too far removed to explain Ms Hamilton's fall and then (b) offer an explanation. My point is, I joined this list four or five years ago with the intent of reading a wide array of results and hearing what experts and other honest fans had to say about the world of international athletics. I did not join it to be susceptible to the kind of silly answers most posts receive, or the violent vendettas of disgruntled members. A G Beaver
Re: t-and-f: Poor Sportsmanship at OG may cost endorsements for athletes
I, for one, am very glad that the American 4x100M relay team enjoyed themselves on their victory lap, especially if it hurt their "earning potential." True, it is not in the Olympic Spirit these days to make important decisions without your agent and accountant at hand, but their celebrating and grandstanding was thus even more clearly real elation at having won rather than shameless self-promotion. Contrast their "boorish" behavior with Dick Ebersol's proud boast that the Olympics are still the #1 television draw, and then think hard about who is really showing more of the proper Olympic Spirit... AGB
Re: t-and-f: Capel
Capel broke no rules - had he applied pressure, he would have been called for a false start. He just messed up his starting technique. The starter's job is to get them away within the rules. It's NOT his responsibility to make sure it's a nice even break. Capel just blew it. It's his fault alone. This is an interesting but quite flawed way to define the starter's responsibility. Naturally, it's not his responsibility to make sure everyone has a good start. But it IS his responsibility to visually confirm that the start is fair. If an athlete is wavering in the blocks, even without applying pressure to the footpads, the starter is obliged to call the athletes up. Would you have the starter close his eyes and just listen for a beep? There is more to the starter's job than to obey the blocks (which, as we have been hearing, aren't accurate anyway). The starter's own judgement is more important than the pressure gauges. Capel did blow it--but his penalty should have been a recalled start, and not a medal. I have no doubt that if the same had happened to D. Campbell, the British press would have been screaming bloody murder! AGB
t-and-f: Longo the Bruiser?
As for the M800 -- I don't know what NBC showed, but Longo's body check was quite significant and did send Bucher onto the infield for about 3 steps. Bucher was very lucky that he was able to step back on the track with relatively little interference, but he could very easily have been boxed into the infield, or even fallen if he had not shown such deft footwork jumping the curb, etc. I'm surprised nothing happened to Longo, given how blatant and serious the straight-arm was. AGB
