t-and-f: No mail
Can you tell me why I am not getting mail from the list and why posts I have sent are not getting to the list ?? _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: t-and-f: women's 4 x 200 meters relay record
Now Uri ... That is not an East German record ... Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]- Original Message - From: Uri Goldbourt, PhD Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:29 AM To: Kurt Bray; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: women's 4 x 200 meters relay record How about the dope-drenched wind assisted 10.49 seconds over the 100 metersand getting that one of the books...UG__-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kurt BraySent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:16 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: women's 4 x 200 meters relay recordWell, maybe the photographic evidence wasn't so clear-cut and convincing.Either that or perhaps they chose to overlook a lane violation, that wasn'tcalled at the time by the officials, in order to get one of thosedope-drenched East German records off the books.Kurt Bray>From>In the June 28 issue of Athletics International last year they reported>this:>>"French ATFS member Jacques Carmeli has... photographic evidence indicating>that LaTasha Colander-Richardson stepped out of her lane (from 6 to 5)>after>taking the baton from LaTasha Jenkins at the start of the second leg in the>women's 4x200m relay [at the Penn Relays] on April 29. The US team>(completed by Nanceen Perry and Marion Jones) went on to break the GDR's>world record with 1:27.46, but M Carmelli feels the record should not be>ratified.">>The following was issued by the IAAF media and press this morning:>>14 February 2001 - MONTE CARLO - Monaco - The IAAF has officially ratified>the record time of the USA women's team for the rarely run 4 x 200 m relay.>>The American team of LaTasha Jenkins, LaTasha Colander-Richardson, Nanceen>Perry and Marion Jones established a new mark of 1:27.46 in Philadelphia,>USA on 29 April 2000.>>Their performance demolished the twenty year old record of 1:28.15 set by>the GDR team of Marlies Gצhr, Romy Mller, Bהrbel Wצckel and Marita Koch>on 9 August 1980.>>>Marty Post>Senior Editor>Runner's World Magazine>www.runnersworld.com>_Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f:lions and stretching and runners oh my!!
Mike wrote: > >Enough of the different species analogies. >You cannot compare humans to lions, if you did we all should be mating >with >our sisters(or brothers or mothers...) and on the Atkins diet. > >Here is an analogy you can use, do what Rob Decastella did when he was on >top >of his game. Study him and you'll learn most of what you have to know. > >Mike Platt Or how about Edwin Moses .. Who if my memory doesn't fail me was very meticulous in his warm up .. And was rarely injured .. Moses did a lot of running duringhis warm up .. Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Imperialist
Darrell wrote: Are you guys really nitpicking about a topic that is irrelevant? I do not remember anyone having a problem with conversions during September. More to the point who cares if it is 15'9 or 15'8 3/4? It will be 4.70, and that is all that matters. The officials are asked an imperial height they do their best to set the metric equivalent, that is all we can ask. If we are to debate the differences, then 4.69, and 4.70 are the same imperial height and/or distance. The difference was developed to pacify the stubborn American mindset. The time is approaching to let it go. We really do live in a metric world. > I think, more importantly we are discussing a metrically oriented sport .. Whether we Americans are imperial or metric is irrelevent as the "rules" governing the sport of track and field are metrically based .. Every sport has its parameters and its mesurements for statistics .. Which don't necessarily coespond to the "normal" world that we live in .. Baseball, for example has its batting percentages .. Football its quarterback rating numbers .. And college football its BCS rating system (or whatever the heck it is ) ... People learn these things and discuss them and spit them out backwards and forwards .. BEcasue they just learn them as they are part of the sport that they choose to follow .. While I can understand the need for conversions for the sake of placing results in newspapers and other media for the "common" folk (you know Joe six pack) .. Track "fans" should be reading the way of the sport ... Metrics .. I've learned basic break points in metric land and until I am totally familiar I have my "Green" book .. We have ot conform to the sport .. Not have the sport conform to us .. And "conversions" shold just be for the sake of trying to inform an otherwise uninterested public of what are athletes are accomplishing .. A centimeter here or there does not matter one iota to Joe Sixpack ... Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: world records
Shawn wrote: In an article on Yahoo News, it's now being said that Dragila's last"WR" at Pocatello was at a non-sanctioned meet, whatever that means.Anyway, has anybody ever considered the idea of only allowing marks atWorld Championships or Olympic Games to be eligible for a world record?That would get rid of the conspiracy theories and negative talk of shorttracks, El Paso, Chinese National Games, local influence of drug tests &rules, irregular runways, unsanctioned meets, etc. All other meets couldthen focus on the head-to-head competition and hopefully force the mediato place less emphasis on athletes missing a world record and focus onthem having won a quality competition. >>>>>> I agree with this in part ... But I think limiting to WC/OG competition is too limiting .. What would happen in those years when there are neither event to compete in .. And what happens at say the US Olympic trials where the potential for records is always there ??? Or other national trials ?? Or say the NCAA championships ?? Or the top European meets like Zurich or Oslo or several others ?? Perhaps something could be put in force where a meet had to qualify for world record status ... Ensuring to the IAAF that all is in order prior to competition .. Having to meet WC/OG criteria of some level .. Therefore if a meet promoter feels that there is a field (or individual) entered in a competition that has WR potential then certain things would have to be done and sancitions made by the governing body .. Perhaps even that representatives of the IAAF or say a "REcords" committee, or something of the sort be in attendance at the event .. Not sure of all the paramenters .. Just think that one meet a year .. or in some years no meet at all for WR purposes is not enough .. Records are not preditcable .. And there should be more opportunity to achieve them ... Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Imperialist
Looking up in Green Book ... :o) ... Conway - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 1:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Imperialist Conway wrote:>I think, more importantly we are discussing a metrically oriented sport ..Quick, Conway - a shot put weighs HOW many kg?Phil
Re: t-and-f: Imperialist
That would be 7.26 kg Phil :o) Conway - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 1:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Imperialist Conway wrote:>I think, more importantly we are discussing a metrically oriented sport ..Quick, Conway - a shot put weighs HOW many kg?Phil Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Terrence Tramell
Did anyone else get to watch this weekends sprint by Tramell in Pocatello ?? Was it just me or does his technique seem to be revamped ?? He rana very technically solid race and if his form in that race was any indication I would expect him to be the next sub 10 sprinter this year .. And with his height an leg length could we be seeing a return to the more angular sprinters of the 70's and 80's .. Any thoughts ??Conway Hill[EMAIL PROTECTED]Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Imperialist
I agree ... We should be competing at distances that qualify internationally for races ... While I understand that the genereal public in the United States relates better to the mile, individuals go to track meets not to watch "events" but to watch compeitors and competitions .. It doesn't matter whether we run the mile or 1500 meters if we do not have competitive individuals in it the event .. Is it any coincidence that our last great miler was Steve Scott and since his time there has not been much interest in the event indoors ?? Sooner or later everything comes back to the competition on the track .. That has to be there or peple aren't goign to watch .. NO matter what events you choose to run or waht gimicks you can come up with to try to attract people to events - indoors or outdoors .. Competition fills the seats and nothing more .. And here in the United States we seem to appreciate competitioin more when our own are involved (Look at how televesion covers the WCs and OGs) .. So when we are not competitive in events it really doesn't matter how we choose to run them ... Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Wayne T. Armbrust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Wayne T. Armbrust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Imperialist >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:13:45 -0600 > >Netters, > >While we are on this thread I'll take the opportunity to sound off about >one of my pet peeves, the indoor mile run. The mile run was retained as >the only non-metric, non-standard event when indoor track went metric >over twenty years ago , supposedly because it was thought that fans >wouldn't attend a meet that didn't include the mile. Well, It doesn't >seem to have worked too well. With only one or two exceptions, all of >the classic indoor invitational meets of twenty years ago have fallen on >hard times, with most having gone belly up. In fact, at least two of >the classic meets that had sell-outs while contesting the 1500 ( the >Cleveland K of C and the U. S. Olympic Invitational) disappeared after >going back (in the case of the former) or switching (in the case of the >latter) to the mile. It's obvious that the mile has not been the >salvation of indoor track in this country and it's difficult to see how >things could be worse if we ran the 1500 like the rest of the world. >The indoor mile is not quite (because it is recognized as a record event >by the IAAF) but almost in the same class as the truly wacky events we >run in this country, the 1600, 3200, and 8 hurdle 300 hurdles run in our >high schools which are contested nowhere else. > >If it were simply the fact that running the mile indoors put us out of >step with the rest of the world I wouldn't be nearly as concerned. >There is, however, a much more important reason not to run the mile >indoors: It makes qualifying for the Indoor World Championships very >difficult to do in the indoor season leading up to the Championships. >In fact, there are only two U.S. men qualified for the World Indoor >Championships who got their qualifying mark indoors, Paul McMullen and >Richard Boulet, and both got their marks last year en route to a mile >time. The closest any man has come this year is Alan Webb - off by over >a second. Looking at women's marks, there are four who have qualifying >marks made indoors, Regina Jacobs, Amy Rudolph, Sheri Kenah, and Debbie >Marshall-Grant. All but Rudolph's mark was made last year, and like the >men, all were en route times. Thus, we have a grand total of one >athlete qualifying with an indoor time from this year, and that with >standards that seem relatively soft. I never ran the 1500 or mile, but >I have coached a lot of people who have, and I know that qualifying with >a 1500 time en route to a mile is certainly doing it the hard way. What >is even worse, it seems that of all the major indoor meets, only the New >Balance meets run in New York and Boston over the two years even took >1500 times. > >I do realize that it is possible to qualify for the World Indoor >Championships with an outdoor time, but a person ought to be able to do >it indoors, in a domestic meet, and without having to run another 109+ >meters! > >-- >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) > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Entertainment (was Imperialist Throwing (Long)
Garry wrote: You betcha! And I think that the movie industry should stop catering to all those incompetent monolingual Americans and quit subtitling or dubbing movies. If you want to watch "Crouching Tiger," learn Chinese dammit, just like the bulk of the people in the world.OK, a ham-handed analogy, but Darrell, get serious. As you HSI people so well know, we're in the entertainment business here, and no entertainment I can think of has ever been successful that requred "educating the masses."Entertainment by its very definition is something that you do because it's fun; because you DON'T have to work at it. If Joe Sixpack wants an education he'll go to night school. If he wants entertainment, he's not going to go to some sporting event where for all practical purposes they're speaking Chinese.The clunk you hear every time some U.S. meet announces a field-event measure in metric measure is another fan falling off the bandwagon.>>>> I disagree ... The entertainment field is CONSTANTLY educating the masses .. Entertainment is dynamic - always changing .. Who are the new stars .. What is the latest jargon .. What is hot and what is not .. Star Wars created a whole new universe that everyone had to learn about .. And with each new incarnation adds to it .. Pop culture almost by definition is always in flux and changing .. And the general public keeps up .. Why ?? Because of the way it is all marketed .. If that US meet announcer gave the field event measurement in metrics AND THEN gave the corresponding feet and inches ... Over time Joe Sixpack would learn the conversions without even realizing it ... It is not incumbent upon the masses to learn what we want/need them to know .. It is incumbent upon us to teach them .. Nike gave away thousands of fans at the Olympic trials last year with the names of runners on them .. Why not give away thousands of fans with conversions on them ??? Why couldn't litttle charts be given away at the entrance of track meets .. Why can't announcers give dual measurements for a while ?? We look for too many reasons why we can't do things instead of ways TO DO THEM ... Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Track and popularity (was metrics)
Welch wrote: Picking up on points made by the G.O.A.T. and Glen McM:The biggest hurdle -- pun intended -- t&f faces is becoming relevant to theaverage fan. Track isn't the hardest sport to understand; it's the easiest.Who can run faster, throw farther, or jump higher than the otherguy/woman/whoever? >>> The various suggestions that were made in his post were on target as far as making sure that fans get theri money's worth during the course of a track meet .. But I think the biggest hurdle to making track more popular in the United States is to get the stars back on the track The "Big Meets" in the Untied States started their decline as track and field became less amatuer and more professional .. As money began to escalate in Europe and Carl Lewis, Edwin Moses and others began to spend more time in Europe where they were compensated and less time in the States attendance at major competitions began to dwindle .. Meets such as the Pepsi Invitational, Jack in the Box, Kinney Invitational and others finally disappeared .. And meets like the Fresno Relays, and Modesto Relays had to begin operating in scaled back forms .. Track and Field is entertainment .. And as in any form of entertainment eople come out to see the STARS .. The Olympic Trials sold out daily in Sacramento because people were guaranteed to see the stars .. Mo, MJ and Marion were there ... Where else in the US can you see the 3 of them in the same meet .. Yet they ruotinely appear in Europe at the same meets .. And I understand what Darrell was saying in an earlier post regarding the athletes not going to take too many sub pay days in order to compete here .. However, if things are going to get better here that may have to be the case initially .. Which comes first the chicken or the egg ?? Or in this case star athletes appearing at meets or the money ?? All I know, is that when moeny was not the issue and John Carlos, Tomie Smith, Jim Hines, JIm Green, Charlie Green and others went at it on a regular basis attendance at meets was not an issue .. But now when you hold a meet and the "names of the day" are not there then neither are the fans .. Would be like having a concert with just local bands or having one with NSYNC, Snoop Dogg, or Christine Aguilera .. Stars draw top dollars .. Non stars don't ... And until we can get our stars (and other country's stars) to compete here as well as Europe, then we can make all the improvements we want to the mechanics of track meets, Joe Sixpack will still stay home and wait until the olympics are next televised to watch it on TV .. BEcasue as unsophisticated as we like to believe Joe is he's smart enough to know that when he DOES watch a track meet he wants to see the BEST ... Because in America we'll spend a ton of money to watch sports and entertainment ... But we only spend it to see the best perform ... Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Stars
T. Jordan wrote: > >Conway Hill wrote about the 2000 Oly Trials in Sacramento: > ><can you see the 3 of them in the same meet>> > >All three have been at the Prefontaine Classic the past three years...but >that just proves your point, Conway. The Pre Classic has by far the >largest attendance of any invitational meet in the U.S., and you and Buck >Jones and others are correct: it is the STARS who bring in the >spectators. They don't even have to be track fans. Surveys taken at >three past Pres showed that 50% of those in attendance described themselves >as "general sports fans" rather than "track fans". If the athlete is a >big enough star, and there are enough of them, the fans will turn out. > So why is it that this aspect of US track and Field - getting the stars in the stadium seems to be constantly ignored when we discuss how to fix the sport in this country ?? We'll talk about leader boards and meters vs feet .. But no one wants to talk about the real issue - that Americans (fans or non fans) turn out to events to see the stars perform .. Is it becasueu the core of that issue is money ?? Big money .. Or do people really think that the sport can be brought back without having the stars on the track ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] (paragraphs for you GH) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: SRO
GH wrote: ><< Darrell pleads: > > >Standing is a sign of interest and excitement, do not kill that. > >Too late. It's mostly already killed, particularly for the Olympic Trials. >Because there the Fun-Not-Allowed crowd somehow managed to arrange to have >the actual Sacramento police enforce their aribtrary and highly-restrictive >notions of proper spectator etiquette. > >Imagine that at a baseball game: a certain group spectators with the >mentality of a bunch of fussy little old ladies somehow gets the city cops >to force all baseball fans to sit glued to their seats, even when the >pitcher is facing a tough jam with the game on the line, even when a >homerun >ball is sailing for the fence. For a fun sport like baseball the concept >is laughable. But in track it has somehow become the norm. It has even >taken on a patina of virtue. Incredible.>> > >Kurt, that's the most colorful writing you've ever done. So colorful that I >imagine that anybody who wasn't in Sacramento now has visions of a Roman >slave galley, with pitiful wretches chained to their seats while hulking >centurions wander the aisles with huge whips, rending flesh to the beat of >Gabe Jennings' drum. > >C'mon! I find it hard to believe there was a single instance where the >crowd was not allowed to perform like the living entity that all crowds >are. When there something soul-stirring happened, 20,000 butts rose as one, >and nobody had the mildest complaint. The cops weren't automotons; they >felt the emotion just like everybody else, and when the adrenaline rush >hit, they scurried to get the best vantage point just like everybody else. > >But they also did a good job of keeping sightlines clear at times when >there was no reason to stand unless you were rude and inconsiderate. >There's a clear difference and I think they did a great job of >distinguishing between the two. If errors are to be made, I'd prefer they >erred on the side of good manners. > >gh Have to agree with Garry here ... Sacramento was not that bad ... There were probably more people in the stands begging people to sit than "police" doing so .. And the reason for that was becasue of site lines in the stands ... Everyone wanted to see the action ... And the way the site lines were it was difficult in various parts of the stadium when people stood up to see .. The guards did do a very good job of keeping areas fairly empty when the track was empty so that the fans could see the other things going on in the stadium ... So I think Sacto has gotten a bad rap for trying to "take the fun" out of the meet .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: standing in Sacto
A big difference though is that track and field is often held in stadiums that were not designed for track meets but rather sports like football and soccer ... Where the viewing and site lines are very different ... Stadiums like Hughes Stadium in Sscto, or Edwards Stadium in Berkeley, or Ceritos College, Drake STaium at UCLA and others which were made for track and field provide excellent site lines ... and the need stand is greatly lessened .. Watching meets in venues like this is great because everyonen is able to see no matter what is going on (whether people occasionally jump up or not) ... These are the kinds of venues that track should be looking for whenever possible .. My only complaint with having the trials in Sacto was that Hughes is so much better a track venue .. But of course there are those that will complain about the parking and the area .. :-) Conway Hill >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: standing in Sacto >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:09:18 EST > >In a message dated Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:45:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ed & >Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ><< I know at least some of you don't favor allowing spectators to stand >throughout a track meet. Won't those same American fans who stand for >entire basketball or football games get disgusted and move to other sports >when they aren't allowed to do it at track meets? > >I know I sat next to a couple of different people in sacto who had not been >to a track meet before and whom I would categorize as fitting the general >stereotype of the football or basketball fan. Both of them were yelled at >by the "standing" police for standing and cheering, and I suspect neither >of >them will be back. > >Maybe that's not the kind of fans we want, but can we afford to be that >choosy? >> > >Terrible two-edged sword here. As a worst (or most-likely?)-case scenario, >allow the newcomers to stand and you'll simply lose a lot of the old-timers >(and I don't necessarily mean that in an age-related way). The old-timers >you could count on to come to meet after meet, year after year. Sacto was a >one-time spectacle (maybe about to be a 2-time?). Maybe those newcomers >don't come back whether you let them stand or not. Do we want to run the >risk of alienating the entrenched audience on the vague hope that we can >capture new people? > >As for these guys being "stereotypical football or basketball fans," let me >relate to my geographical area. > >Other than the crazies in the Black Hole, Raider fans spend most of the >game in their seats, as do Niners. And Giants and A's. Nobody goes to >Warrior games, so it doesn't matter. > >And then there's the only sport I go to regularly, which is hockey, where >if you persist in standing, the usher will gladly escort you from the >arena. > >In fact, for years, as part of the pregame video, they used to have one of >the Shark thugs come on screen and deliver a message somethign like, "don't >stand up or i'll ahve to come and break your face." > >As a final note, in my many years of announcing, whenever the crowd starts >standing for no reason (usually at the start of the 100), I'll frequently >say something like, "Now that you've all stood up, have you noticed you >can't see any better than before? If you all sit down, you'll all see just >the same, and you'll be more comfortable." Hundreds of such announcements >in many cities have never failed to get a rousing cheer from the crowd. I >have to believe that's the way the majority wants it. > >gh _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: another thought on standing (if you can stand it)
On Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:30 AM Dave Johnson wrote: At 12:08 PM -0500 28.02.2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>> The older fans were brought up in an era where sports fans actually went>to track meets. That means they remember a day when stands were>often/usually FULL (i know that's a hard concept to grasp these days). And>that meant that you had to be more respectful of those around you.>-The old farts are also those who were brought up in an era in which peoplewrote results in their programs, something much more easily accomplishedwhile sitting.>>>>> Wow ... I'm not an old fart and I remember when the stands were full at track meets ... AND I still write results in my programs (mine and the official ones) ... Conway Hill - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Enough Already!
Phil wrote: >No kidding. I wasn't even watching today, being stuck on the road, but a >few weeks ago I was reminded of this when I was watching one of the other >participants to once again make his public "Mea Culpa". > >At this point, it's offensive. This reflects lazy interviewing, and shoddy >production. These guys are getting as bad of treatment as Ray Lewis, the >footballer who was involved in an effort to obstruct justice in a murder >case, and all they're guilty of is being stupid reflections of the current >solipsism that seems to have reigned supreme in our international athletics >over the last 20 years or so. > >Since the Moscow boycott, the US has revelled in a semi-obscene campaign of >national glorification during the Olympics that has been equally as >offensive as the childish mugging of the short sprinters in Sydney. And >before I sound too PC, I could with a little effort come up with a dozen >incidents in LA and Atlanta which, had they taken place under South Korean, >Spanish, or Australian flags in the other Olympics in that time period, >would have been soundly condemmed as offensive nationalism. > >But that critique aside, I'm just irritated by lazy interviewers. Let's >face it - if Mo or any of the other sprinters want to issue an apology >during any interview, they're welcome to bring up the topic. Anytime an >interviewer asks a question that can only have one answer, it's lazy. What >did they expect Mo or the others to do, say on camera "screw all you >prig-asses - we were happy, we don't owe you jack, and in 4 years when we >enter your consciousness again for a few minutes between headlines of Tiger >Woods finishing 7th in a golf tournament in Bali and some other lame >version of football played by 3rd-rate talents, you can cheer for us once >again to bring home a gold medal so the Red, White and Blue can fly during >the Star Spangled Banner on TV at the end of another telecast." > >I didn't like the mugging, I wouldn't have done it, and it reminded me too >much of the stupid antics of the "guaranteed-a-gold-medal" Dream Teamers, >but it's time to give it a rest. We should always remember Evans and James >in '68 for what they did on the stand, at some point we should only >remember the 4x100 Sydney team by what they did on the track. > Not only is it lazy interviewing, but it is a dead in the water issue .. Had absolutely nothing to do with the 2001 Indoor Championships .. And took away from an outstanding performance by Greene .. If they had time to kill they should have spent it showing the false starts that lead to his not breaking the record in the final ... That would have been helpful to the fans watching on televeision who may have thought his performance in the final subpar given that he tied the record in theh semi .. THAT would have been more to the point than bringing up an old dead issue ... Just another example of the media killing the sport instead of trying to lift it up ... Would have been better to NOT interview him at all .. Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: How to prevent the injury to Coby Miller
Keith wrote: >I watched the ESPN2 broadcast of the 200 meters from Atlanta today. >Shawn Crawford stumbled at the finish and crashed into Coby Miller. >Why don't we tell athletes to stay in their lane after a sprinting event? >You also see this happen outdoors in the 100 and 200. Some runners stay in >their lanes past the finish line, while others run straight into the outer >lanes. > Athletes are told to stay in their lanes following races .. However when the finish line is close to the start of the curve as was the case in this race, inertia will keep you moving in a straight line .. Even as you are trying to break .. Add the fact that they were leaning and off balance in a tight finish and those things are just going to happen .. Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: USATF Statement Regarding C.J. Hunter
I'm not into conspiracies either .. However, has not Marion herself stated on more than one occasion that CJ was innocent and that they would prove so through the proper channels ??? Is this not a reversal or did I imagine that Marion/CJ had said that previously ??? Conway >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: t-and-f: USATF Statement Regarding C.J. Hunter >Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:29:08 -0500 > >All: > >I'm staying out of this. Let the conspiracy guys (other than me) hash this >out. > >MJR > >_ > >USATF Statement Regarding C.J. Hunter >3-8-2001 >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > Contact: >Jill Pilgrim >General Counsel/Director of Business Affairs >USA Track & Field >(317) 261-0478 x341 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >INDIANAPOLIS - Mr. C.J. Hunter has today informed USA Track & Field (USATF) >that he has chosen not to contest the charges that were brought against him >by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) and USATF as a >result of the finding that certain urine specimens he provided had tested >positive for a prohibited substance, nandrolone. Mr. Hunter has confirmed >his long-held desire to retire from competition by submitting to USATF the >appropriate retirement form. > >As a result, USATF has imposed the mandatory two-year ban from the sport >that is required by its rules. > >Although he accepts the ban, Mr. Hunter "vehemently denies knowingly taking >any banned substance" and maintains that he is "the victim of an otherwise >legal, contaminated supplement." > >Under IAAF and USATF rules, an athlete is responsible for any prohibited >substance found within his or her system, regardless of how it got there, >and therefore Mr. Hunter's statement that he did not intend to take a >prohibited substance would not be a defense to a finding of a doping >violation. Because intent is not an element of the charge, USATF neither >endorses nor contests Mr. Hunter's denial of an intent to commit a doping >violation. > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: This is "our" sport?
Steve wrote: In the last few months I haven't been able to pay as much attention to a sport that I really enjoy which is supposed to be the subject of this list. What I've observed while trying to catch up and find out some results is greatly distressing. A couple of topics stickout: 1. During coverage of the US Indoor meet there was an interview with Mo Greene. I was watching the meet with my 6 year old and my wife. My son was impressed by the fact that he was the fastest man in the world. My wife was distressed by the subject of the interview (as was I) - a rehash of the Sydney celebration story. In the minds of both of us this was a non issue in the first place and should be to any American who also enjoys football, basketball and baseball and the celebrations that go on in those sports after every tackle, dunk and homerun. To read that it was suggested by a lister I find interesting at best. With the little that the sport is on TV let's get some real information, facts, and maybe even some events happening on the track and field on the broadcast. 2. I agree that the drug issue needs to be resolved one way or another but the continued posting (in some cases just to post something) of ideas and comments that are repeated ad nauseum is just a waste of bandwith and probably should be taken off line. One doesn't always have the last word to get a point across. In years past generally this list would go through a "downtime" when there would be some off the immediate topic postings. Generally these were during the non competitive period when nothing was going on in the sport. However this weekend there is the World Indoor Championships and the NCAA Indoor Championships and there has been virtually no comment whatsoever on this list. Does anyone care that LSU won the men's Indoor Champs or that the men's 1500 at the WIC went in 3:51. How about Regina finishing last or LoJo and Tye finishing 1-2 in the PV? The US has another 3:56 miler. Have all the people who really want to talk about the sport left the list? Where does the sport go if the fanatics can't pay attention? >>> I agree .. This past week and this weekend is a perfect example .. Coming off the US indoor championships and going into bothe the NCAA indoor championships AND the World indoors championships .. There has been little talk of either of the 3 ... Yet the topic of drugs has been alive and kicking ... Has anyone noticed Leonard Scott's melt down in another major sprint ... Florida Freshman Rickey Harris' win over 400 at the NCAA in what is not supposed to be his primary event ... The US going 1-2 in the PV at the worlds .. How about the US winning both hurdle races at the Worlds There are so many exciting things happeneing in the sport ... Would be nice for US to talk about them ... We are allowed to discuss mor than just controversy here aren't we ??? Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
I don't get it either ... Why change the false start rule ??? To copme into conformity withthe NCAA ??? They need to be more concerned with making sure that starters are less reliant on that "beep" in their ear, as eveidenced in last years Olympics and US Olympic Trials .. The one falsel start rule hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting ... And why on earth change the relay zones ??? This would necessitate an entire revision of the relay records/lists as the race would be tremendously altered ... Or at least should be given additional time to build speed through the zone ... Teams would still have to execute passes .. But the record in the men's race would definitely drop below 37.00 ... Does anyone know why these changes have been suggested ??? Conway Hill >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:45:07 EST > >Are these proposed changes for the speed of the sport? >I do not get it. >Reducing the pegs of the PV serves who? I see very little wrong with the >current state of the PV. What I do see is less clearances in the future. >So >what if the bar bounces and stays, that is part of the drama of the event. >There is nothing like the bobbing of the crowd with the bar, as it bounces, >not knowing whether it will stay or fall. Why minimize that occurrence? >The false start rule I see the point, but I honestly think the elimination >of >the competitors is not a good alternative. Yes, the sprinters need to stop >jumping, but no matter how many false starts, once the race is of no one >remembers who jumped or how many times. Further, there is no guarantee >that >this will solve the problem. A perfect example is the US indoor nationals. >The starter was holding an extraordinary amount of time, prompting some to >get their rule books out. The scary part about it all is that, after a >competitor jumped out of the race, the starter had a quick gun on the >subsequent start. As long as, a human is starting the race, and humans are >running the race we will have false starts. With one false start, you >could >conceivably have the elimination of the best in the field. In other words >the race is taken off the track. > >D' >Faith is a road seldom traveled _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Proposed rule changes-IAAF - relay zones
Mike wrote: >I believe the change in the 4x100 relay zones is not to add 10m to the >existing passing zone, but to combine the current acceleration zone (10m) >and passing zone (20m) into one 30m zone. In other words, there would be a >30m passing zone with no additional acceleration zone - the outgoing runner >starts from inside the passing zone and must receive the baton anywhere in >the next 30m, which would eliminate the possibility of passing too >early. It's not a big change, since this rarely occurs and is not often >seen or called even when it does occur, since the officials tend to >concentrate on the far end of the zone. Since there is no advantage to >passing early, it's probably not a bad thing to eliminate the penalty. > If that is the case then it would not be a bad change although I still think it would change the event slightly ... Getting the baton earlier in the Zone would allow the outgoing runner the ability to begin acceleration sooner which over 3 exchanges should (in theory) lead to faster times overall ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
Darrell wrote:>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > You hold the runners longer than they'd like and you throw them out if they > > violate the gun. QED > > > > gh > > > >This is the best reason to use an electronic starter, that is set to a timer. > When the officials begin to think they are bigger than the event itself, we >have true problems. The starter should be the least of the athletes worries, >but your comments Garry make you a factor. That was the problem in Atl. >After Torri's dq the starter had a quick gun. Adds a true element of >cheating. The starter could decide who he does and does not like, and work >at eliminating them from the race. A bad idea. >The starter by rule is to hold the gun until all runners are set, then fire >the gun. Not at his discretion, when they are set he is to shoot! > Agreed ... If the goal is to level the playing field I think that the starter should become less of a factor .. For example, how many times have you seen sprinters down near the starter in an attempt to learn his cadence ??? Is quite common ... Perhaps a system where the starter presses a button once everyone is set, but a machine randomly starts the race at somewhere between say 2 to 4 sec ... If you want to try to stop the slow starter from gaining an advantage by getting a good start (why this would be an unfair advantage I am not sure) I would think you would also want to prevent anyone from leaving the line early ... Give 1st false start to the field and then eliminate anyone who goes early after that ... Conway Hill Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules
Actually I believe that statement came from Darrell, not from me ... Conway - Original Message - From: Randall Northam Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:36 AM To: Conway Hill Cc: posting Subject: Re: t-and-f: field-falsie (was: Proposed changes in IAAF rules > on 15/3/01 5:15 PM, Conway Hill at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>>> After Torri's dq the starter had a quick gun. Adds a true element of>> cheating. The starter could decide who he does and does not like, and work>> at eliminating them from the race. A bad idea.Maybe they should adopt the idea of greyhound and horse racing. Put theathletes in a little box and they can start only when the door opens.Or better still have some razor wire extended across the start and elevateit when the gun goes. That would elimate false starts. And if it didn't itwould provide that element of blood and guts that it seems track and fieldneeds if it is to be popular in the US.Randall Northam Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Lurkers
Not sure that all those that care want the no false start rule ... While it may be of benefit to the running of the meet by speeding it up in some instances, I have yet to see anyone state anything that shows that it has any benefit to the athletes ... And most high level competitions are not over run with false starts (outdoors not indoors) ... I think the committee would be better served by looking for some type of "mechanism" to take the human factor out of the start (ie starter) than to further hinder the athletes themselves ... Conway Hill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lurkers In a message dated Sun, 18 Mar 2001 4:41:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:<< To all lurkers, and those that care. Now is the time to speak up about therule changes, especially the no false start. >>Sorry, "those that care" are the ones who WANT the new false-start rule.If there is a proposal that needs to be squelched it's the two-jumps rule in the verticals.gh Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Walt wrote: I've seen many a starter at high school and college meets use theirdiscretion to call up the runners if it appears that one or more is about tocommit a false start, especially in longer events where the start isn't ascritical to the outcome of the race. This is done at the elite level as well and is what should be the norm as opposed to what is occasionally done For example Tom Moore who has started the MOdesto RElays forever in addition to miriad other competitions is one of the best starters in the world in my humble opnion ... Tom is very consistent and instructs all athletes the same whetehr they are high school, college, or elite ... Tom allows no "tomfoolery" (pun intended) at the start of his races .. Any movement brings athletes up with a warning ... And his races tend ot go off as false start free as you can get ... Doesn't mean the athletes don't ever try to anticipate his gun ... Nor that they don't ocasionally get caught ... But you DON'T get the blatant trying to beat the gun that is what casues the probelms with "too many false starts" at competitions ... Better training of starters in this mold would mean you don't need the type of rule that is being suggested ... Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Steve wrote: I recall when first colleges and then high schools changed over to the one false start rule. Coaches saw this as some sort of apocolypse and thought it would totally ruin the sprints and hurdles. Needless to say, it didn't happen that way at all. Athletes, fans, and coaches all take it for granted by this time that one false start means disqualification and it isn't even a topic of discussion any more. >>>>> Maybe there was an apocolypse and no one noticed ... Case in point, There have been few additions to the all time high school sprint lists since the one false start rule ... The lists are dominated by athletes from the 80's (with a few lingering 70's names) ... And collegiate sprint times have failry mired as well save for the occasional super star that emerges ... So yes everyone has gotten used to "sitting there", but does that mean it has made the sport any better ... Everyone seems hung up on "making the meet run faster" ... Just what are we talking about here ... maybe 2 or three fewer false starts per meet ??? How much time is that ??? Maybe 10 minutes ... Then if you are going to try to come up with some rules to speed up the meet you better come up with a whole lot more than just the one Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
GH wrote: i think it can be argued that most false starting IS unsportsmanlike conduct.>>>>>> Why ?? Because an athlete is trying to get an advantage over those he/she is competing against ?? Isn't that athletes do in sports ?? Try ot gain an advantage ?? BE it mental, physical, psychological or otherwise ??? ABout the only place you can do that in the short sprint is at the start of the race (psychologically anyway) ... So you want to take kthat away from the athlete to benefit whom ?? The fans ?? Is it unsportsmanlike for a basketball player to commit a legal, hard foul to gain an air of intimidation in the lane ?? Or for a linebacker in football to lay an incredibly hard hit on a running back the first time he breaks through the line ?? What is wrong with a sprinter trying to gain every fraction of a second he can in a race ?? Especially when faced with a Carl Lewis or Mo Greene or MJ lined up near by ??? You would consider that unsportsmanlike conduct ?? How about something more like fear and "this is my only hope" ! Unsportsmanlike would be if they could break early and NOT be called back ... That is why it is considered a false start .. Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Phil wrote: Conway listed the ways athletes can "cheat":>Why ?? Because an athlete is trying to get an advantage over those he/sheis competing >against ??They do that in training. >>>>> It is also done during competitions ... Why do you think distance runners who are clearly superior sit back and lay on someone's shoulder waiting to pounce ... Or the superoir pole vaulter passing strategically during the competition ... It's not all done in training ... There are things that are done during the course of competition ... >Is it unsportsmanlike for a basketball player to commit a legal, hard foulto gain an >air of intimidation in the lane ??It's not legal - it's a foul. Duuh. The opposition gets an advantage fromyour committing it.And it is unsportsmanlike - hard enough, and it draws a technical. It'sbasically chicken-s**t behavior that the athlete gets away with by maskingit as an unintentional foul. >>>>> Duh, I know its a foul I called it as such in MY post ... And I said legal NOT hard enough to draw a technical ... ANd while the opposition get the free throw they are also mentally looking for such other occurances to happen so there is benefit to the athlete committing the foul ... THAT's why its done ... DUH And if its chicken shit then the entire league is chicken shit since its done by every team during the course of every game ... But then purhaps you are not understanding the intracacies of sports and just would like to see them played in the purest form possible ... Everything by the book, rule by rule, no improvisiation, no deviation ... Which means there never would have been a Michael Jordan ... Nor Michael Johnson ... And definitely no Edwin Moses >Or for a linebacker in football to lay an incredibly hard hit on a runningback the >first time he breaks through the line ??That's not cheating. That's what football is about. >>>> And trying to gain a minuscule edge is what sprinting is all about !>What is wrong with a sprinter trying to gain every fraction of a second hecan in a >race ??Gain a fraction of a second by responding - good.Gain a fraction of a second by anticipating - cheating. >>>>> So tell me, was Armin Hary a cheater ??? How about Valeri Borzov ... Or maybe Mel Pender ... Was at a camp with Pender when I was younger and was told to pay attention to the starter ... Listen to his cadence .. Try to learn it .. Learn to anticipate it ... And this is something that thousands of sprinters are taught to do ... So are they all learning to be cheaters ??? Are all those coaches terrible terrible people who are raising a race of cheating sprinters to leash upon an unsuspecting public >How about something more like fear and "this is my only hope" !Well - they could always lay "an incredibly hard hit" on Mo or Carl or MJas the other one is getting into their blocks. That would certainly givethem an edge!Oh yeah - it would be cheating. And cheating is unsportsmanlike. >>>> Now THAT was smart ... Comparing apples to oranges ... I thought we were trying to have an intelligent conversation here >Unsportsmanlike would be if they could break early and NOT be called back...That's exactly what an athlete is trying to do by anticipation. And youknow what - they can still try it - just the penalty for a mistake becomeshigher!>>>>> NO what the sprinter IS doing is trying to be as accurate to the millisecond as he / she can at the start of the race ... There is risk, but there is also potential reward ... Just like there is with the pole vaulter who passes during the competition ... What I can't understand is why everyone is so afraid for a sprinter to get an advantage ... Should all pole vaulters have to attempt every height then ??? Should Carl Lewis have been made to take all of his long jumps in Los Angeles since it was his choice to be in the competition ??? Should ElG NOT be allowed to draft off others during a race ??? Shoudl rabbits be completely outlawed ... Should all rabbited races that have ressulted in WRs be erased from the books ???? But ya'll are worried about a false start ... Which GETS CALLED BACK IF IT IS ILLEGAL ! Therefore the sprinter isn't allowed to CHEAT anyway SO what's the problem Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Dave wrote: I can't let this slippery bit of logic get by without stickingup for Conway. He means that he can't think of a single DIRECTbenefit to the athletes. Everything Bray mentions is a secondaryor derived benefit. I think the original intent of Conway'sstatement was quite clear.>>> Thank you for the defense .. That was exactly my intent ... Those benefits as named are all secondary ... I am refering to the benefit to the athletes directly ... I am not sure that we should get into the game of changing the rules to benefit the fans ... That type of logic has turned professional basketball into a slow, predictable game adn professional football into Parity City ... If you want to chagne the rules to benefit the fans then lets start witha clean slate of world records (said tongue in cheek) ... Then you would have total excitement as record breaking would be rampant bringing millions of new fans through the turn stiles ... Yeah right ... IN seriousness ... The fans will come to see a quality product .. The rules should be made so that the athletes can compete maximally thereby providing a quality product .. Try to regulate the time of the running of the meet itself through rules aimed at the athletes has not worked in sports like baseball and football nor will it make a better product for track and field ... AS I have said umpteen times on this list you want to put fannies in the seats make sure your top performers are on the track/field ... People will come and they will stay and watch even if you do have half a dozen false starts ... I didn't see anyone leaving the stadium in Atlanta because of a few false starts ... And while some athletes reacted negatively to it I seem to remember medals being awarded for times of 9.84 (wr), 9.89, and 9.90 the fastest medal finish in history Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: has the NCAA rule hurt?
GH wrote: >Conway wrote: > ><occasional super star that emerges .>> > >I don't think so. Here's the all-time list of men's 100s as made in the >NCAA Championships. > > 9.92 Ato Boldon' (UCLA) 96 > 9.97 Olapade Adeniken' (UTEP) 92 (sf) > 9.98 Leonard Myles-Miills' (BYU) 99 > 9.98 Coby Miller (Aub) 00 (sf) > 9.99 Bernard Williams (Fl) 00 (sf) >10.01 Leroy Burrell (Hous) 90 (sf) >10.03(A)Stanley Floyd (Hous) 82 > 10.03Joe DeLoach (Hous) 88 > 10.03 John Capel (Fl) 99 >10.04 Terrence Trammell (SC) 00 (sf) > >Check out those dates: looks like the sprinters are getting better to me. > Nice premise, but if we are going to use times to compare we should be using a much larger pool of times since we are talking about 20 - 30 years of data (to include pre and post rule change times) ... The one thing that immediate strikes me however, is that half of those times were set in semis of the NCAAs .. Leading me to believe that perhaps these individuals felt that without the pressure of the final (actual team points on the line)they were better able to relax and deal with the gun (maybe even anticipating slightly)ending up with better performances than they were able to gain in the finals feeling the pressure of having to "sit" and not be knocked out of the team race ... the other thing that would be interesting once we are able to look at a pool of say 25 to 50 times is how many times were run in big dual meet situations ... Seems to me that no one runs fast in duals any more ... Is this from sitting in the blocks not wanting to get thrown out an lose team points ??? mid to late 70s through early to mid 80s big sprint times were consistent in major dual competition ... Guys like Hampton, Edwards, Lattany, Sanford, Foster, Roberson, Smith, Floyd and Gault ... Duals such as USC v UCLA had finals sheets that looked like national class competitions ... And low and behold there were SRO crowds as people came out to see high levels of competition ... And whether the list likes it or not fast sprinting brings people to a meet ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Kurt wrote: >Why not? Why not change the rules to benefit the fans? People seem to >forget that in pro track it is the ticket-buying, Nike-wearing, >Gatorade-drinking, Powerbar-eating, TV-watching FANS that, either directly >or indirectly, fund the entire enterprise. > >If all the track fans in the world somehow disappeared next Monday, all of >Maurice Greene's big shoe deals, appearance fees, and endorsement contracts >would be gone by Thursday. He could still train just as hard and run world >record sprint times if he wanted to, but without fans he'd simply be doing >it in obscurity and poverty. > >And in any event, it's not the pleasing fans, per se, that I'm interested >in - it's improving the sport. And improving the sport is what the proposed >false start rule seeks to do - that's why I favor it. > I am all for pleasing the fans where possible ... And for improving the sport .. But I do not think that the place to start to make changes for the sake of pleasing the fan is on the track/field tinkering with the events themselves ... There are all sorts of ways to makes structural changes within the meet itself to accomodate the fans ... There are two populations that we are talking about here .. The fans AND the competitors ... We could do all sorts of things to the athletes to make it better for the fans .. We could make lighter shot puts .. Springier runways ... All sorts of artificial things for the sake of the fans .. Doesn't benefit the athletes or the competition however .. And as of yet no one has shown where changing the false start rule will benefit the athlete .. And the only benefit being tossed about for the fan is a cut down in time ... And when that is mentioned it is said as if there is soo much time being lost at track meets due to false starts ... Can anyone give me a realistic time savings to a meet based on excessive false starts .. A real (has been messured) quantitative value ??? One that would neccesitate that SOMETHING BE DONE so that we don't keep dragging these meets on like this ... Not some "well false starts make track meets run too long so lets change the false start rule" ... Then you could show a true benefit to somebody ... But this knee jerk we don't llike sprinters to anticipate the gun and they make meets run too long is more of a preference and basically from non sprint oriented individuals .. Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: re: new rules
Darrell wrote: >where have all the advancements at the HS and >collegiate level gone? And contrary to reports o this subject the NFS has >been woefully detrimental to the Calif. HS sprinting. I have watched >athletes jump at their league prelims, and they were the favorites for >State. > I have watched potential State champions jump out of the races. Why? I >have watched Steve Lewis false start, complain it was a camera, and get >reinstated because, why? The FANS started chanting, "Let him run! Let him >run!" Imagine that, the fans wanted to see the star run. >There is very little benefit to NFS, as it pertains to the sport. It may >make you feel better, but I do not see great benefit to it all! And we >have >not gotten to the 2 attempts, yet! > Darrell makes a great point here ... In California it has become an annual rite of Spring for all the top athletes to NOT make it to the State meet ... Not becasue they were beaten in the race ... But because of the NFS rule .. And what is not fair is that I have seen many conferences among coaches where in some cases kids are put back in and in some cases they are not .. I was at the State meet at Hughes Stadium when Steve Lewis false started out of the race only to be put back in .. And I can tell you that the crowd, the fans that everyone seems to want to please, was ready to tear the place down becasue they came to see Lewis do his thing ... And I can't tell you how many times I have sat in the stands at a competition ... Watched a kid get thrown out of a 100/200 race for what was clearly NOT a blatant false start and listened to people throughout the stands say "why don't they just let the kid run" ... "What did he do wrong" ... "He/dhe didn't mean it " ... "What would it hurt if they let him/her run the race" ... So this is how we've improved the sport in California ... And as far as TV goes ... What do you do when you are at a meet and there is a false start ??? You turn to look at something else while everyone gets settled back for the start ... Why can't TV do the same thing ??? Instead of looking at it as the sprints NOT allowing for additional events to be shown becasue they are false starting too much , why can't the cameras/announcers do what any other intelligent track fan does - take a look at something else ... Watch a long jump attempt ... Get updated on the high jump standings ... We complain about TV then lets help them learn how to show our sport ... And it should be shown the way it is actually watched .. There is always somethign going on .. Small breaks in the action should be looked upon as a way to show this to the casual fan sitting at home instead of wanting to lambaste a sprinter because he broke from the blocks early ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
GH wrote: ><< Harden and Montgomery, the two NCAA-trained sprinters, sat patiently in >their blocks, were not charged with any false starts, and while everyone >else was playing these games, they just did what they were supposed to do. >They might have won the gold and silver anyway, but I had the impression >that their abstention from the beat-the-gun-if-you-can business gave them a >mental edge when it mattered.>> > >Harden confirmed this in the post-race interview aired as part of the ESPN >telecast. To paraphrase, he said, "I don't know what those guys were >thinking. You can't beat the blocks. It worked out to my advantage." > I would agree that Harden and Montgomery were better prepared for the false start situation .. The question is was it the NCAA rule itself or the subsequent training that prepared them ?? And the answer is the training ... Which is just an indication that the athletes need to be better trained in the art of starting, not change the rules to penalize them for the mistake ... The key here is coaching not rule making ... Now I am sure that you will argue that it was the change in rules that was the impetus for the change in coaching and in this case that may have been true .. But in so doing the change in coaching has shown the benefit (yes I will agree that a benefit has been shown in this case)that others can either incorporate and utilize to their benefit or choose to ignore .. A further changing of the rules at the elite level will provide no further inducement UNLESS several athletes are lost to major finals because of false starts ... I can tell you that if there ever was an inducement to do so it would have been Christie's DQ in the Olympic final .. The biggest race of them all .. But it hasn't changed anything ... Why ?? Because contrary to popular belief most false starts are the result of things such as nerves ... Heightened sensitivity to noises whereby sprinters often react to ANY noise that they hear ... Movement along the line as an athlete will see a flinch or other movement of a fellow athlete and react to it ... Obviously the clicking cmamera noises of the media whom we so want to attend our meets ... Block slippage ... And a mirad of other little things that happen to sprinters who wait to perform their 10 to 20 seconds of activity ... So tell me why you want to punish someone for an accident ??? Or how you separate accidental false start from "I'm trying to gain an advantage" false start ?? See in almost every other event you get the chance to make up for your mistakes .. Distance races there is always another lap (unless it is the bell lap) ... Field events you get to try again and again ... YOu can take another attempt ... Have another run up ... But you want to take the athletes who spend the LEAST amount of time on the stage and tell them YOU HAVE TO BE PERFECT ... First time ... Every time .. If not you don't even get to compete ... OK so let't take the high jumpers and pole vaulters and tell them pick your height .. Any height .. And take one attempt .. Period .. Hope you make it .. Its your one shot .. OR the throwers and jumpers to take just one .. And that is what you will be measured on ... Or olets make all distance races devil take the hindmost ... You have a bad lap and you're out buddy ... Because essentially that is what ya'll want to do to sprinters ... No mistakes allowed .. You blow it get off the track and try again another day ... Now I've seen a lot of posting talking about cheating and fairness ... You tell me where the fairness is in that .. At least with the rule the way it is if you blow it once you get a break, but do it twice and shame on you ... And still we don't allow them to compete .. Heck in the distances even if someone gets caught up and falls before they get around the first turn good the race can be called back so they can try again and have a good start ... And if you're talking about the fans when was the last time a meet was hyped to get the fans to attend using a cadre of distance runners ??? But even the casual fan can spit out the names of Maurice Greene, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Marion Jones, FloJo .. Heck even Ben JOhnson bless his soul ... And your big money makers on the circuit at who ??? Sprinters ... Why ?? Because around the WORLD they are the show ... Like it or not ... So you need to look for ways to get em to your meet ... And then try to keep em on the track when you get them there .. Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: reaction times
GH wrote: >i can't cite chapter and verse, but the IAAF had extensive studies at its >disposal when it came up with the guidelines on reaction times. There are >plenty of bad things that can be said about the IAAF, but I don't think >instituting a rule like this without some solid science behind it is a >trait they have ever exhibited. > >someone said the tests "were on military men, not athletes." That >presupposes that athletes have (or can be trained to have) the best >reactions. I'm not sure that's true. Again, I can't cite chapter and verse, >but I remember well a Soviet study from back in the days when they had a >huge sporting machine. They did reaction times on absolutely everybody, and >wouldyou like to guess which group was the clear winner? > >The chess players! It was suggested that there might be an intelligence >link to the whole thing totally outside the physical loop. I have no idea >if this was quack research or not, but the results, presented as fact, >always fascinated me. > I might be mistaken, but weren't the studies done on reaction times based on the sprint races conducted at the 1972 Munich Olympics ??? And the original basis for "fastest human reaction times" based on the averages of Valeri Borzov ??? (although I believe Alexander Korneliuk, his compatriot, had faster overall reaction times) Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Kurt wrote: > >Get serious. We are not talking about some sort of government subsidy >here. > We are talking about profit-driven companies run by unsentimental >businessmen. If track has zero paying fans you can be sure that shoe and >other companies would spend zero dollars on the sport. > >Consider the economics of a sport that actually has essentially zero fans, >let's say Modern Pentathlon or something like that. Do you seriously think >that the top stars in Modern Pentathlon currently get all the same deals >and >dollars that Maurice does? > >If there were no paying track fans, you can be certain that Maurice and all >the others connected with the sport beyond the college level would be >forced >to get day jobs. > Do you think the several thousand hard core track fans that religiously attend meets are supporting the payments to the athletes through their (our) purchases of tickets to domestic competitions ??? If so I have some swamp land here in California I would love to sell you ... Meet organizers in Europe gain enough revenue from their turnstiles to support the fees they pay their athletes .. But there is not a meet in America that is supporting payments to athletes through the turnstiles .. (and neither do the Europeans in total) ... Just like in other pro sports like basketball and footbal, stars get paid big bucks because they have name recognition and people want to wear what they wear ... And that was the point the Prince was trying to make ... MO gets the big bucks becasue he is the WR holder and has won 2 WCs (3 counting the 200)and an Olympic gold) ... Not becasue you or I bought a single ticket to any competition or sat our butts in the stands .. MO gets compensated based on his high level of performance ... Period ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: X-Men (was: Reaction Time
GH wrote: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: X-Men (was: Reaction Time >Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:09:51 EST > >In a message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2001 7:27:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, >"Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ><< I know, as Garry said, that there are physical limits to the speeds of >nerve >impulses, etc. But given the wide variability routinely seen in biological >systems, the same day we set some limit, some freak of nature is going to >come along and prove to be an exception.>> > >You can't make rules based on the premise that there's an X-Man out there >somewhere.Or MIGHT be some day. You make rules that fit what's known, and >from everything I've seen, the 0.100 (as does 6:1 epi ratio) gives great >benefit of the doubt already. > >If any athlete(s) truly believe they can react faster than the 0.100 i >suggest they set up a scientificallyvalid demonstration for the IAAF and >ask for a waiver. > >gh >ps--if there is anybody close to an x-man in this category, i nominate >Colin Jackson. >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps X-man (or X-men) have already been here and we din't know it ... The consistent measuring of reaction itmes is relatively new in the sport ... Which makes the pool of data being used relatively small .. And during the time that this measurement has been available there have not been that many truly fast starters ...Colin Jackson and Jon Drummond being the best in recent times ... And what about Mark McKoy and Ben Johnson (yes I know some of you cringe)?? But both Canadians were quicker off the mark than the oft mentioned Jackson ... Does anyone know what their "routine" or fastest reaction times were ??? Or how about some other hurdlers like Arthur Blake who was a very quick starter ?? And what of some of the great starters from yesteryear who were never clocked for reaction ?? How about a Houston McTear, Mel Pender, Armin Hary, Herb Washington, Alexander Kornieliuk (who was faster out of the blocks than Borzov, Ivory Crocket, Desai Williams, just to name a few that quickly come to mind ... These men were all as fast as they come - Hary and McTear seemingly more so than any others .. But we have n o data for them so are we to assume that since we have no data that they were not the X-men for the equation ??? My point being that what's known is a very small blip compared to what has actually already happened in the sport ... And that a Drummond compares much more slosely to a Hary or McTear than to his contemporaries .. Which means there is the possibility that sub .1 reaction is possible ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: reaction doesn't equal starting (was: X-Men (was: Reaction Time
GH wrote:>You're making the common mistake of assuming that the guys who are legendary in the first 5-10m have great reaction times. Some do, some don't. It's not the same set of skills. > >Reacting to a stimulus and initiating/completing a complex set of neuromuscular actions in a short period of time aren't necessarily related. Nor is reacttion time related to one's ability to overcome inertia. Is it? > Actually I am not assuming at all ... Quite the opposite .. I am saying that we do not know ... One way or the other ... Because we do not have the data ... Not having the data I am not saying that they were below the limit or faster than today's starters ... But NOR am I saying that they weren't faster either ... I am saying that the possibility exists that they could have been and that without the data we will never know for sure ... But that doesn't mean that we are to immediately discount the possibility ... Conway Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: X-Men (was: Reaction Time
GH arote: >In a message dated Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:55:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: > > >Perhaps X-man (or X-men) have already been here and we din't know it ... The consistent measuring of reaction itmes is relatively new in the sport ... >Which makes the pool of data being used relatively small .>> > >Not new at all, and I don't think the pool of data is relatively small. The PUBLICATION of such data may be only coming to the public consciousness, but given that complete data exists for Borzov in '72 (29 years ago) puts the lie to the statement that it's a new devlopment. As for "small sample," thousands and thousands of readings have been taken at WC and OG meets over the last couple of decades and I think the data tells a pretty consistent tale. > What I said was that the consistent measuring of such data is relatively new ... I knew they have been collecting data since the 70s .. Heck I am the one in an earlier post that said that the reaction time limit data was heavily based on research done on Borzov in the 72 Olympics ... A day be fore you looked it up in your archives ... I've known that since I was in high school when the data was first made public ... Having said that however, it has only within the past decade that it became common practice ... And while there have been thousands and thousand of readings taken, they have been taken on primarily the same pool of start quality athletes since there has only been incremental change in the finalists of major championships in the past decade ... We've really only turned over by maybe a full field maybe field and half in that time span ... My point was simply that as a result, we have missed readings aon many many top flight athletes and some of the best starters to ever step on the track ... THAT does dilute the pool ... Especially since most of the high level sprinters of the past 2 decades have been much better at finishing the race than starting it ... Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: X-Men (was: Reaction Time
GH wrote:>In a message dated Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:55:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: > > >Perhaps X-man (or X-men) have already been here and we din't know it ... The consistent measuring of reaction itmes is relatively new in the sport ... >Which makes the pool of data being used relatively small .>> > >Not new at all, and I don't think the pool of data is relatively small. The PUBLICATION of such data may be only coming to the public consciousness, but given that complete data exists for Borzov in '72 (29 years ago) puts the lie to the statement that it's a new devlopment. As for "small sample," thousands and thousands of readings have been taken at WC and OG meets over the last couple of decades and I think the data tells a pretty consistent tale. > What I said was that the consistent measuring of such data is relatively new ... I knew they have been collecting data since the 70s .. Heck I am the one in an earlier post that said that the reaction time limit data was heavily based on research done on Borzov in the 72 Olympics ... A day be fore you looked it up in your archives ... I've known that since I was in high school when the data was first made public ... Having said that however, it has only within the past decade that it became common practice ... And while there have been thousands and thousand of readings taken, they have been taken on primarily the same pool of start quality athletes since there has only been incremental change in the finalists of major championships in the past decade ... We've really only turned over by maybe a full field maybe field and half in that time span ... My point was simply that as a result, we have missed readings aon many many top flight athletes and some of the best starters to ever step on the track ... THAT does dilute the pool ... Especially since most of the high level sprinters of the past 2 decades have been much better at finishing the race than starting it ... Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: New rules
Brian wrote: > >A lesson followed for the young mantis: > >Miyagi: MOST IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER DANIEL-SAN: Race only about who win, and >how fast time. Not about start. > >Daniel: Yeah... but if I really studied the starter and could anti... > >Miyagi: Uht, UHHT! Only practice REACTING to starter. Most important >thing. > >Daniel: But, Mr. Miyagi, if I cleanly anticipate the gun, I could get .05 >to .08 on the fiel... > >Miyagi: UHT, UHHT! Race begin when gun go off ... not before. Grasshopper >win race by REACTING to GUN, accelerate better than others, reach highest >top speed, and hold speed longest. > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, the guys in the All-Valley Edmonton Tournament >are tough. Practicing to learn the rhythm of a starter to get out before >everyone else could maybe get me through to the finals for the second tim... > >Miyagi: UHHHT, UHHHTT! Rocket start only get Daniel-san through first five >meters of race ... 95 meters of race left in exhibition! Maybe Daniel-san >concentrate on making up perceived disadvantage to better starters by >working on all 100 meters of exhibition. Not just FIRST five! Too much room >for DQ, if Daniel-san put all eggs in "anticipation" basket. Daniel-san >work to get great start, nine out of ten times, NOT GREATEST-EVER start one >out of ten times ... this alway make winner over many, many year exhibition. > > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi, how am I going to beat the guys who are ACTUALLY >faster than me? > >Miyagi: Daniel-san , NOT GOING TO BEAT FASTER RACERS! Fastest runner most >time win exhibition, and get name on tournament cup most times over life ... > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi ... > >Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san ... try Miyagi way first and see what happen. > >Daniel: But, Mr.. Miyagi .. > >Miyagi: UUHHPT! Daniel-san! Miyagi's way work too well too argue point all >day. Should be spending time TRAIN! Miyagi way how Grasshopper Lewis >become Master Lewis. Grasshopper Lewis face Rocket-starting Mantis Warrior >from Northern Carribean Monastery. Sometime place 2nd. Still Grasshopper >Lewis keep eye on prize .. alway look EYES! Master Lewis triumph over >almost all Masters in many exhibition. Not worry about racing before gun go >off... worry about who first across finish line, NOT who first across >starting line. > > >Daniel: Mr. Miyagi, do you think they will institute the NFS rule before >the All-Valley Edmonton tournament? > >Miyagi: No. Too much at stake in Exhibition for fan. Only eight runner on >track, Edmonton Exhibition need all grasshopper at tournament to be success. >All Exhibition need all eight runner to be success. Without Master Greene >in Exhibition, evil monks at IAAF feel wrath of powerful HSI Monastery. > >No. Always two fall start allowed for grasshopper. Even one who can REACT >GUN in .1001 second. > >Now, back to important bisniss of Tournament. Training. Always training. > Cute story ... But even in the martial arts each grasshopper learns that he has to find the "system" that works best for him/her !!! What works for grashopper Lewis is not necessarily the same system that works best for grasshopper Cason or grasshopper Drummond ... This example worked well for grasshopper Lewis because he had long limbs and overall Speed = Rate (leg turnonver) X Distance (stride length) .. In reality grasshopper Lewis was never built/intended to be a fast starter so Miyagi worked on grasshopper Lewis' best attributes .. Once grasshopper Christie learned to better his start to combine with his strength HE became master over grasshopper Lewis ... Each one must work to his/her own strengths ... And for some the start is most important ... All cannot rely on same method, system or training becasue all are not the same ... Ask Michael Johnson ... If a very stiff Miyagi, as he has been portrayed, had been in charge of teaching MJ he would have had tolea! ve the sport before he got going because he was NEVER going ot fit into ANY classic sprinters mold ... And yet HE became totally dominant over grasshopper Lewis in the event that Lewis always swore he would break the world record in - the 200 meters ... And how did he do that ??? By mastering the start (first half) of the race Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: New rules
Brian wrote: >I can't win, so I am changing my name to: CCLANFS R. McEwen. >Pronounced: Clan-fiss Ahr Mac-yew-ehn. > >Stands for: Couldn't Care Less About No False Start Rule. > >It was a JOKE, Conway. Since I am apparently the only evil-incarnate on the >list I was making a little joke. > >If the Rule really is going into effect, shouldn't the ones among us who >oppose it put effort into stopping it? Instead of debating how fast we >could react to the gun, or a youth hockey test, or how corrupt judges are or >some such stuff ... put your feelings in writing and tell someone who is >making the decision. > >Write your senator or congressman or something, man. Really it was just a >joke about sprinting. I will say though, that the sprints are won by >sprinting, not starting. The Greek guy 200m winner (Kenteris? Kederis?) >proved that. > >Sure, if you are both 9.90 guys on your average day at your peak, you need a >great start to be the one to run 9.88 and beat the other 9.90 guys. Nothing >too crazy about that. But, you can get a great start most of the time by >reacting. > >I even said I don't like NFS. Conway, start to give me a break. > Not trying to pick on you Brian ... Just trying to get you to understand that the start is more important than you seem to think it is ... Not that it is THE race ... But for some it is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the race ... Just as for some the finish is the most important part ... To relate it to distance running, for some the penultimate lap is not important at all ... Because they know that they have the speed to contend over the final lap ... However for others it is important that they make their move 600 meters or even 800 meters out in order to have a chance against the big kickers ... Is no different in the sprints - which are under an even greater time crunch if you will ... The shorter sprinter that doesn't have the luxury of being able to open his stride and relax the same as a taller sprinter, is at the mercy of reaction, start, and trying to get ahead and hold off the fast finisher just as the distance runner who makes his move with 600 meters is trying to do ... I doubt you would say that extra early 200 meters for the distance runner is not a major part of HIS race would you ??? No because in many cases it is what determines the winner from the loser ... The same for the start of the 100 (and in some cases the 200) ... In races decided often by hundreths of a second you have ot try to shave them off where you can .. For some it is at the finish of the race ... For others the middle .. And for still others it is at the start ... That is why sprinters work on all phases during training ... To try to get better at them all ... And as far as "reacting" goes, you have ot be "anticipating" that something is going to occur in order to react to it optimally ... If you just sit there "waiting" to hear something you will get left every time ... You must be anticipating the occurance ... That makes for a very fine line ... Which is why I am totally against NFS .. Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: DI Regional Qualifying Discussion
What if a system were instituted whereby those individuals that meet the auto qualifying marks are automatically in the NCAA Championships ... And then the fields are filled through the REgional qualifying process ... Would ensure that the top individuals make it to the meet ... But also provide for head to head competition and the development of high level regional meets ... Which I do believe would be good for enhancing the fan base ... Conway Hill - Original Message - From: Ed & Dana Parrot Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:04 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: Re: t-and-f: DI Regional Qualifying Discussion Although it is correct that most all-Americans are qualifying anyway, evenif they are from bad weather areas, I suspect that every year 3-5 possibleAll-American distance runners fail to qualify. I've rarely run a track meetin New England before May, for example, where the wind wasn't a factor. Andthe colder weather can certainly play havoc with the sprints and jumps aswell.If it is marketed right, I think regional qualifying can only improve thefan support of collegiate track. Certainly some people will make it toNCAA's who maybe don't quite deserve to be there. But if you look at thatmost popular of collegiate sports, basketball, it's just that possibilitythat keeps people interested. The public can get excited about knowing thatthe top "x" places in a race will go to the nationals.On the other hand, I don't know if the relationship with existingchampionships has been properly addressed. I can't speak for other areas,but in New England, there are already too damn many championship meets -another thing that kills fan support and athlete motivation. By the time aschool was done with the conference, the New Englands, and the IC4A/ECACmeet, even the shorter distance runners have already had too much high levelcompetition. Some division 3 schools may even have two additionalchampionship type meets!When I was coaching 5-10 years ago, the existing coaches had been unwillingaddress this problem. Unless we get rid of all the championship meetsexcept the conference and regional/national NCAA, I don't think the regionalconcept will be good for the athletes. But I don't believe the current plan(with which I am not all that familiar) will result in this.- Ed Parrot Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Epilogue - persecuted?
Mike wrote: > > Too often in sprint topics someone wants the thread to end, or be >handled off > > list... > >Not nearly as often as a walks topic! While I don't feel that I am persecuted for any of my posts on the list, the one thing that does bother me (as it does both Darrell and Mike) is the indifference shown to anything other than distance running ... Unless of course it is related to the topic of drugs in the sport ... While I realize that the list is dominated by distance runners, it would be nice to have discussions on the full spectrum of the sport without them being seemingly "poo pooed" by others ... While I am definitely a big fan of sprinting (not quite the fanatic that GH says I profess to be) I am a fan of the sport itself and can appreciate learning more about the walks as I have from reading Mike's various posts, as well as the things I have learned about distance running, drugs, the professional side of the sport and lots of other things .. Would be nice if individuals are not interested in a particular topic that they just delete the posts and move on without trying to impugn the subject simply because it has no interest to them ... After all this is a Track AND Field list ... Frankly I would love to see more topics related to the field events since we rarely have those ... We have subject lines which people use quite well to denote what the topics are about so if you have no interest just ignore ... And let those that have an interest discuss/debate ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Bruce wrote: > >If one accepts that the main reason for the change is television, >that reinforces the notion that the no false start rule will result >in a greater focus and popularity for the sprints. TV, being a >visual medium, is acutely sensitive to "the show". The no false >start rule creates a scenario that is nearly irresistible to watch - >the speed merchants being held to absolute stillness, on penalty >of disqualification, racing where victory or defeat is of the slimmest >of margins. That brings the spectator to the edge of his chair. > At the risk of extending this thread further I have to ask the question: does that mean you are willing to sacrifice the sprinters and hurdlers for the sake of a few ratings points ??? Would you then be willing to create other rules for other events that would create more excitement and thrills for the TV audience ??? How about Devil take the Hindmost Distance races ?? Let's try a mile where we start with a field of 12 ... And at the end of each lap we drop off the trailing 3 individuals ... They clearly aren't going to win anyway - and after all we are willing to not let sprinters run in the race at all ... When we get to the final lap we will have our 3 medallists fighting it out mano a mano to see who is going to get which medal !!! Talk about drama and suspense ... Everyone in the race would be fighting to maintain position from start to finish ... Should end those boring tactical races where everyone is waiting to kick .. There would be excitement on every lap as individuals would have to jockey before the end of the final lap to avoid being amongst the last 3 ... Would make the race much more exciting for the fans, and give TV a race that would keep everyone riveted from start to finish ... And who cares if we lose some athletes along the way and they don't get to finish the race ... After all it's not about them is it ?? Its about TV and creating excitement for the fans right ??? We could even do the same for the field events ... 8 Competitors ... 6 rounds ... Individual in last place at the end of each round is out .. During final round only medallists are left to duke it out for the medals ... Now THAT would have people watching the field events ... NO I am not advocating any of these things ... My point is that, YES I think we want to appeal to TV and new fans ... But I don't think that ANY athletes should be sacrificed in the process ... This isn't ancient Rome and the athletes are neither gladiators nor peasants to be sacrificed for the sake of the crowd ... The competition itself (given quality competitors) is riveting enough to bring the crowd to its feet ... From the closest of 100m races to the thrilling 10K at Sydney ... To an athlete fouling all but the final attempt in the long jump, yet pulling out the win on that last jump ... We have the excitement ... The 3 ring show ... We just need to look for better ways to present and promote it ... Without damaging the competition or sacrificing the athlete ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: What's next?
Excellent points to which I would hope the IAAF pays attention to Conway Hill >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's next? >Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:40:16 EST > >the start for the sprinter/hurdler is such a complex piece of the race...it >is the only event in track and field which symbiotically is linked with >another person, the starter (and how do we hold him accountable - as >mentioned earlier, iaaf/usatf rules differ) - these are the only events in >track and field where an athlete is prevented from competing (tossed out of >the meet) should they break the second timeall eyes are on the start of >the dash, when a mistake is made, it is signalled by a multiple series of >shots - yes, everyone knows a mistake was made (the long jumper fouls, for >example, and no gun shots call attention to the error!! - someone just >waves >a pretty little red flag and many people don't even see it), the >sprinter/hurdler has the greatest pressure on him/her at that set point, to >go from absolute stillness to explosive speed in a short distance, is >typical >to no other event in the program - not to mention the odd weight bearing >position that the athlete is in..so, before you call sprinters/hurdlers >cheaters and want to abolish the current rule...thinkit's not a simple >as >you make itif they break, they get called back - and now have to >approach >the start with this punishment added to the above...isn't that enough to >pay >for a break??? all other athletes are given 3 tries/warnings to correct >their >errrors...how many times have you seen an athlete looking up to the coach >in >the stands for the adjustment of their mark, for example...yes, the coach >helps them with their error from the stands prior to the next try!!! i just >watched this over and over at the indoor nationals are those athletes >cheaters and tossed out i could go on and on..but i hate to be >lengthy _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Track and Field on television
Since everyone is so concerned about TV and track and field, I am surprised that no one has takled about the ne TV deal struck by ABC and ESPN to cover track and field over the next few years ... AFter having NBC for the past couple fo decades, we are back to ABC which is where I first started watching big time track and field on television ... How does everyone feel about this ??? Better or worse for track and field ??? While ABC invented the Up Close and Personal thing, I think NBC took it to extremes ... Literally basing huge blocks of coverage on personal bios, etc ... Will the move to ABC bring a more focused approach to covering the competition ??? And who are likely to be the "personalities" covering the events ??? What does everyone think ??? On the topic of track and field on TV, I watched the NCAA telecast after I got home from work last night and must give two thumbs up for the telecast ... Larry Rosen was excellent as usual ... ANd the telecast itself was pretty top notch .. Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Track and Field on television
Walt wrote: > >In a message dated 3/23/1 2:52:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ><I >got home from work last night and must give two thumbs up for the telecast >... Larry Rosen was excellent as usual .>> > >It was Larry Rawson, not Larry Rosen, who was excellent. I apologize ... You are right ... I conbined the names of two outstanding track and field individuals ... Larry Rawson and MEl Rosen .. My apologies ... Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Most indy NCAA Titles ever? (distance)
Would be interesting, if someone had the information available without a lot of work, to see the top 3 or so NCAA titlists by discipline and gender ... Say field events, distances, sprints/hurdles ... And maybe top schools by relays ... Would also like to give kudos to Track and Field News which now has all time lists for high school athletes on its web site ... For those who were looking for that inforamtion a few months ago ... Conway Hill - Original Message - From: Mcewen, Brian T Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 9:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Most indy NCAA Titles ever? (distance) For the guys who are really strong in NCAA history ... ADD WHAT YOU CAN TOan NCAA title list for D. runners ... starting with:1. Suleiman Nyambui 15 (1 cross, 7 indoor, 7 outdoor)2. Gerry Lindgren 11 (?)3. ?4. ??I had been primarily thinking of Distance titles ... but 'Bui won titles at10k down to one mile ... so I guess any titles at 1500 and up can count ...WOMEN?1. Suzy Favor ??2. ??-Original Message-From: mike fanelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 8:43 AMTo: drew/armiger; malmo; Mcewen, Brian T; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: Most indy NCAA Titles ever? (distance)...and Suzy Favor (Hamilton)? I believe that sh has had the most NCAA titlesby a woman and that it nearly rivals in number the feat of Mr Nyambui...yes,I realize that they were primarily in MIDDLE distances...anyone with anaccurate Suzy NCAA count?-MikeMike FanelliSan Francisco Bay Area Real Estate Specialistprofessional representation of buyers and sellers[EMAIL PROTECTED]415.447.6254or visit my web site at:www.SFabode.com- Original Message -From: drew/armiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: malmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mcewen, Brian T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 8:49 PMSubject: RE: t-and-f: Most indy NCAA Titles ever? (distance)> i can verify that assertion. he won 7 indoor titles, 7 outdoor titles,and one cross title.>> --- "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote:> >> >One would have to believe that Nyambui has the most titles, hands down.> >> >> >>> >>> >> Who won the most individual distance event titles in XC, indoor,> >> and outdoor> >> in NCAA history?> >>> >> Reason I ask is: Kimani is just a soph. and he already has a bunch (1XC,> >> 2? -2000 indoor, 2 -2001 indoor) He stumbled outdoors last year ... buthe> >> still has SEVEN seasons to run ... should he choose to.> >>> >> The all-time most titles would have to include:> >>> >> Steve Pre 7 ... + indoor?> >> Ed Eyestone 4? 5?> >> Lindgren LOTS?> >> Virgin :-( how many?> >> Salazar 2? 3?> >>> >>> >>>> ==> "It is only in sorrow bad weather masters us; in joy we face the storm anddefy it.">> Amelia Barr>> _> Visit i-run.com and register for a $75 Road Runner Sports GiftCertificate - Monthly Drawing Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Stanford Invitational - JaWarren Hooker
I see that JaWarren Hooker is entered in all 3 sprints at Stanford - 100 / 200 / 400 ... Does anyone know if he actually plans to compete in all 3 or is he just going to try for a double in 2 of them ??? Conway Hill _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: un@#$@#^%!believeable!
GH wrote: >In a message dated Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:42:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dgs1170 writes: > ><< Someone make sense of this to me? So they re taking 18 athletes, many of whom will be doublers and not compete in the 200 m. Or are they going to have 3 semi heats, and take the unfair, top 2 and next fastest 2. Or is it the heat winners and the next fastest 5? >I do not see the thought process behind it all.>> > >How about a horror-scenario where they decide not to use the inner 2 lanes (becuase it wouldn't be fair for time-based qualifying) and end up with 5 heats, qualifying winners +3?! > >as for "thought process," all i can think of is that in these days of small squad sizes, coaches want to load up on sprinters who can run the 1, 2 and a relay, maybe both relays, without burning out. > This has got to be some kind of joke ... They would seriously consider any of the aforementioned options a form of qualifying ??? Why not just put em all on the track and from a scratch start let em run and first 8 go to the final ?!?!?!? How absurd ... All I can say is better be in the fastest heat because it will all boil down to heat seeding ... That and wind readings ... Hopefully the heats are not run during any gusty winds ... And I'm also guessing that the injury rate goes up which would be worse than the athletes having to run an extra round ... Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: better than Lindgren? (was: Ranking HS distance greats
GH wrote: >As for Pre vs. Lindgren, I had a far better personal relationship with the former, and if I were to make judgments based on that kind of bias, Pre would get my nod. Lindgren, as David Dallman pointed out, had a true impact on the world scene; the others weren't in the same league. Not sure I would dismiss Pre's impact on the world scene quite so easily ... Pre was a world record breaker/holder ... And I'm not sure anyone had as much impact in terms of shaping the outcomes of races as Pre did ... Pre made the 72 Olympic 5000 final the race that it turned out to be ... Had it not been for his untimely death, he was the only runner around that would have been able to run up to the level of the Africans as they were just coming on the world scene ... Lindgren did not have that type of competition to contend with ... Nor the Viren type ... Pre also did something that we are talking about today is needed in the sport (at least here domestically) and that is a charisma that brought the fans to the track ... And while that is not necessarily the equivalent of wins and loses it should count for something in terms of rating an individuals impact on the sport ... Conway HillGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Distance runners
Mike wrote: >Jeff beat me to this. George Young is indeed the most overlooked runner >in the U.S. And he is one of the runners that I point too as support for >my theory that the golden age of american distance running was 1964 >to about 1976 and that it was after the "running boom" and the rise of >the African nations that fortunes began to fall. > Question: With respect to the "running boom" did it perhaps make running too "recreational" in this country ??? And in so doing change the mindset of distance running/runners ?? I ask this as there has been no similar "boom" in any other aspect of the sport, yet the sector that got the "boom" is the one that has seemed to have fallen off in this country ... Just a question .. Conway Hill Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Distance runners
Malmo wrote: >Actually, the facts don't quite paint the same picture. From 1976-1985 more >Americans ranked in the world scene at distances than ever before. > But those athletes would have already been in the "system" so to speak ... They were trianing and involved in the sport prior to the "running boom" ... those athletes that grew up during the boom and beyond have done progressively and markedly worse ... These past couple of years of high schoolers with Webb, Ritz, Hall and others is the first truly brihgt spot in a very long time ... ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Greene and Moses/HBO
Brian wrote: ><<< Maurice Greene and Edwin Moses are scheduled to appear on Bob Costas' >show on HBO tonight at 11pm(EST). >>> > >I saw this last night, and I enjoyed seeing Moses. But, I could not figure >out why the show included Maurice Greene (by satellite). The only thing >they seemed to be going for is to try and embarrass Maurice "more" than the >world has already. > >Costas asked Ed Moses about his career and how important his style and >"grace" were and how/where he developed that ... then he discussed another >great sportsmen, Arthur Ashe. > >Then he "tunes" Maurice in on a TV screen ... and just kind of went to work >on him for something that happened SIX MONTHS AGO. It looked to me like an >"ambush". They even showed tape of Sydney. What crap. > >If I was Maurice I would have asked why I am going to be on a TV screen >while they Moses sitting right there. It seemed to me that the show only >brought Maurice on to contrast an example of bad behavior with supposedly >exemplary behavior (Moses). That is garbage and Maurice Greene deserves >better. > >Nobody would turn down appearing on HBO in prime time, but maybe this should >be a warning to other athletes. Costas (and his show) just seemed to want >to stir up some bitterness ... not talk about TRACK. > >A couple weeks ago Costas had Vince McMahon on the show and he took a few >shots at WWF Wrestling (and how it breeds violence), but McMahon was ready >with a lot of research, facts and discussion and Costas was under-prepared. >He made Costas look pretty bad, which is VERY HARD to do with a topic like >WCW wrestling. > >Too bad Mr. Greene didn't know what he was in for before appearing on that >screen. > >For those of you without HBO, don't buy it, unless you like Soprano's. > I watched this telecast as well and came away with the same impression that you did - that Costas went out of his way to try to embarrass Maurice ... ANd I do not think that MO was told in advance that that would be the topic of discussion ... Even MOses attempted to back up Maurice's statements regarding his apologizing to the fans and applauded him for his maturity ... Costas had a great opportunity to talk to 2 stars of the sport yet his focus definitely seemed to be to focus on the negative ... Conway Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Distance Runners
Th the risk of being jumped on by the distance crowd here on the list I am going to make an observation ... The one thing that all of the great distance runners that have been mentioned so far (from Ryan and Lindgren and Pre to Padilla, and Nenow, Salazar and Marsh) that has seemed to be missing from our distance runners for say the past 15 years or so is "fire" .. Compeitive fire ... Killer instinct ... The will not to lose ... With the exception of Kennedy, most of our distance runners over the past decade and a half or so have seemed to be in races to "do their best" ... But not necessarily challenge for the front - to win ... Look in their eyes and you see no "fire" ... Almost as if they are resigned to losing even before the race has gone off - and without the intent to try to do anything about it ... A Padilla or Marsh or Salazar (let alone Lindgren, Ryan or Pre) would have latched on and stayed with the leaders until they literally would have dropped ... But our modern runners seem content to watch the leaders pull away as if they are waiting to unleash some kick from hell that never materializes ... Even guys we've had with great talent -Scott or even Holman - have seemed to be ok with letting people just run off from them without mustering a challenge ... Is this because: The running boom facilitated the idea of "just do YOUR best" ?? We've become totally intimidated by the opposition as presented by the "African's" ?? What would it be ??? Or am I totally off base ??? Have others made the same observation or am I just seeing things ??? Conway >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Distance Runners >Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:31:09 EST > >In a message dated Thu, 29 Mar 2001 2:22:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: > ><< At 01:51 AM 3/29/2001 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote.. > >Jeff beat me to this. George Young is indeed the most overlooked runner > >in the U.S. And he is one of the runners that I point too as support for > >my theory that the golden age of american distance running was 1964 > >to about 1976 and that it was after the "running boom" and the rise of > >the African nations that fortunes began to fall. > > > >Mike > >I would extend that period to about 1982 or 83. Liquori gave Yifter a run >for his money in the 77 World Cup, and the Americans never got a chance to >demonstrate how much they had improved in 1980 at the Olympics. The US was >very competitive through the 1983 World Champs and Salazar had some great >10ks in there. But the wheels came off in 84 at the Olympics, and we've >never recovered. > >Richard McCann > > >> >I would amend that by saying that the wheels BEGAN to fall off at that point (1984). The U.S. was still very competitive for a few years following. Bickford and Nenow went 1-2 at the DN Galan 10K in '85, with Bickford ranking #1 in the world that year. The next year Nenow pushed Aouita to the edge in Oslo and then ran 27:20.56 at Van Damme. > >Also in '85, Doug Padilla won the overall Grand Prix (the first ever) and ranked 2nd in the 5K behind only Aouita, and Henry Marsh ranked #1 in the steeple. The U.S. also placed third in the World Cross (behind Kenya and Ethiopia) in both '85 and '86, with top ten finishes by Bickford (10th '85), Pat Porter (6th '86) and John Easker (10th' 86). > >And I won't even mention Steve Scott. >sideshow > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Greene and Moses/HBO
Randy wrote: >Try on the relationship of Jesse Owens and Luz Long for size. That's >what the public wants. > >Warning: anything that smacks of such a scene being crafted by >'handlers' will have the opposite of the intended effect. > Is it what the "public" wants or what the Media wants ... We've pretty much already confirmed on this list that the "public" doesn't care about the sport one way or another ... That the "public" only really tunes in once every four years to see the spectacle called the Olympics and to see the stars shine .. Would it be the Media then that is looking for something to sell in between time ??? I put it in this fashion as I find it somewhat ironic that while the Media will use to ad nauseum the music, clothing, and style of the "hip hop" generation to sell anything and everything under the sun they don't find the celebrations of the same group to be appealing enough to try to use to sell sport ... Not that I am either condoning nor condemning what the 4x1 personnel did in Sydney ... But if they couldn't find something to "sell" why couldn't they just let it go and move on to the next "sellable" moment ???Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Distance Runners
Brian wrote: >Conway wrote: ><<< We've become totally intimidated by the opposition as presented by the >"African's" ?? >>> > >We have? I thought it was just too hard to beat a 2:07 marathoner when you >are a 2:12 marathoner .. and too hard to hang with 62 second laps when you >cover 5000m at 64 a lap ... > Exzctly And my point is why are our marathoners only 2:12 marathoners ... Especially given that in the past we produced 2:08 and 2:09 marathoners at a time when THAT was competitive ... Why have we gone backwards instead of forwards ??? You are absolutely correct, it is too hard to hang when you're only running 64 a lap for 5000m ... So whay are we only running 64 a lap ??? >Suggesting that your mentality is what allows you to stay at the top in >distance running today is like saying, > >"Why can't Maurice Greene just hold top speed longer and run 9.60?" > >"Why can't Nelson just push REALLY HARD and throw 75 feet?" > >Stop saying the "Running Boom" did it or I will pull out THE BIG GUNS and go >to work on proving THAT THE RUNNING BOOM WAS NOT TO BLAME ... with a lot of >boring running history and anecdotes. > Actually mentality is what has enabled Greene to run 9.79 and Nelson to throw over 72 feet ... And it is the reason that Greene is the only man alive right now talking about running 9.6x It's what has put them both at the top of the heap in their respective events ... On the flip side why are our distance runner not talking about running 62s for 5000m ??? > > >WARNING: >Don't lump Steve Scott in with the lazy-flabby-babies of the 1990's. He was >squarely a 1980's runner! His Mile AR still stands 19 years later. > >He is also still in the top-FOUR U.S. all-time in the: >1000m, 1500m, Mile, 2000m, 3000m ... 20 years later. > >Q: How many sub-3:53.00 Miles did all 285,000,000 Americans accomplish in >1998-1999-2000? (indoors and out) > >ANSWER: 1 (Steve Holman - 3:52.73) > >Q: How many sub-3:53.00 Miles did Steve Scott accomplish in his career? > >ANSWER: 27 > >If there was one person who represented US distance running really well >15-20 years ago it was likely STEVE SCOTT. > > My disappointment with Steve Scott lies presicely in the stats that you list ... Scott was the fastest, losing distance runner that I have ever seen ... Talent up the wazoo ... Fast as all get out ... Just couldn't even seem to get in front of anybody at the end of races that really mattered ... Would be like Greene running all of his sub 10s as he has done and coming up short in the medal races in 97/99/00 ... If he had done that you wouldn't even come close to calling his career great ... As a matter of fact, during debates on this list on the subject of greatest sprinters of all time, most that participated said he needed to win MORE big ones before being mentioned in the same vain as some other sprinters So yes, Scott was as fast as they have ever come in this country ... Is why his coming up empty is such a disappointment ... ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: better than Lindgren? (was: Ranking HS distance greats
I would submit that after reading Tom Dederian's post I have a different appreciation for Mr. Lindgren ... :o) >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: better than Lindgren? (was: Ranking HS distance greats >Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:34:03 EST > >In a message dated Wed, 28 Mar 2001 4:57:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: > ><> > >Actually, no, he wasn't. > ><> > >Au contraire! I suggest you go back and read T&FNs from 64-65 era (a time before I had even heard of the magazine, nor met Lindren, so it has nothing to do with me). You'll be blown away. > > Lindgren reached out and grabbed races like the balls as well or better t han Pre (or anyone else) ever did. This was a 17-year-old high schooler, thrown into a race against Ron Clarke, the fastest distance runner in history and Lindgren tried to run away from the sumbitch! > >[snip]. > ><> > >Again, if you had lived that era live, you'd realize that Lindgren made a FAR bigger national splash into the national consciousness than Pre ever did. He had an unfair advantage in that this was still a time when the U.S.-Russia meet meant something, and both days got televised, live--usually with Jim McKay in there somewehre, as i recall--and the U.S. had never won the 10K against what was then the deepest nation in the world. When Lindgren--again still as a prep--won that race the whole country knew about it. > >If Lindgren hadn't done his thing in '64, there wouldn't have been a distance-sensitized public to even care who Steve Prefontaine was. > >gh Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Marion shooting for WR in 300 at Mt. SAC?
Randy wrote: >Secondly, didn't this list just go through a pretty long thread that >suggested that one of things that put high schoolers in the 60's >ahead (namely Ryun and Lindgren) was their willingness to put it >on the line against the very best in the world (and I mean the >then-current world record holders). > >If a sign of greatness is the willingness to 'stretch your boundaries' >by gutting it out against whoever is the acknowledged 'best', >then is doing the OPPOSITE a sign ofwellsomething a whole lot >less than great? > >Or are the rules different for sprinters? >If the latter is true, then it means sprinting is more genetic inheritance >combined with trash talk, rather than physical contest combined with smart >strategy and tactics (I for one don't believe it's ALL genetics & trash >talk)- >so why do our nation's best H.S. sprinters seem to believe it? > >Ryun would not have been great had he not been willing to lay it on the >line against people like Peter Snell, lose and learn from it. > >I don't get it. Is losing to a world record holder that big of >an ego-killer for sprinters? > I can not and will not try to speak for Monique ... Although I will say that she did run the Olympic Trials last year which put her against the best that the US had to offer .. It was her first shot at the "Big Girls" and was done shortly after she herself reached that level by running sub 51 and setting the HSR at the CA State meet ... As for sprinters in general, historically High Schoolers who reach that elite level have not been shy about running against the best in the world ... During the 70's there was first Marshall Dill and then Houston McTear, Johnny Jones and Dwayne Evans who ran against the best in the world just as Ryun and Lindgren had in the 60s ... As a matter of fact McTear ran against as much open competition as he did HS running all over the country and running against the likes of Steve Williams, Don Quarrie and Harvey Glance ... And made the 76 Olympic team in the 100 as did Dwayne Evans in the 200 ... And when McTEar had to pull out due to injury next in line was HSer Jones who made the Olympic 100 final .. Evans also made the 300 final and was bronze medallist .. The 80s saw the emergence of Roy Martin, Henry Thomas, Clinton Davis, Joe DeLoach, and William Reed ... With Martin and Thomas having the most open competition .. Martin making the Olympic Trials final and Thomas running his 400 PR of 45.09 in Europe after having running primarily the sprints during the HS season and then having hernia surgery ... The 90s were not as kind to HSers on the top end as they were not as fast nor consistent as their predecessors and so did not get the opportunity to compete on the same stage .. My point however is that just as with the distance runners, High School sprinters at the elite level have stepped into the fray against the worlds elite and have competed well ... So the rules are no different for the sprinters .. Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Marion shooting for WR in 300 at Mt. SAC?
Scott wrote: >Well, gang, let me say it again and set the record straight again. Marion >is >not getting any money from Mt. SAC and there is no bonus money for a WR. I >simply thought it might be a good idea to inquire about the possibility of >adding Monique to the field for the local interest angle. Thought it might >be good for some publicity and thought it might help the meet and maybe >even >generate some real fan interest. I am so sorry that I have stirred up such >a >hornet's nest by trying to make the race interesting. Monique is not >running >in the race and, by the way, I sure as hell won't be saying anything else >to >anyone regarding the other entrants. Again, excuse me for trying to >generate >some interest. >Scott Davis >Director - Mt. SAC Relays For what it's worth, I think that your idea is a good one ... NOt may opportunities for women to make "WR attempts" ... Especially in the sprints ... An attempt like this in a major meet should generate a lot of interest ... So I don' think you should have ot apologize for trying to do something spoitive in teh sport ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Marion shooting for WR in 300 at Mt. SAC?
Now wouldn't that make the Mt Sac 400 interesting ... Have Marion and Monique and others in the race wiht an attempt at the 300 record in route !?!?! ... My thought being that Marion could possibly get 2 records in the race ... First the 300 record which I think she would be capable of ... But also the AR at 400 since that quick a 300 would set her up nicely for a sub 49 ... Would be the incentive needed to get our women to run a little quicker first half of the race for 400 ... Maybe we could even get more than 2 American women to break 40 in the same race ... Conway - Original Message - From: THOMAS,Graham Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Marion shooting for WR in 300 at Mt. SAC? Althouth Peter's excellent site lists Kathy (Smallwood) Cook's 35.46 as beston record for 300m, it's probably worth remembering that Marita Koch wastimed at 34.1 for 300m in Canberra in 1985 en route to her 47.60 for 400m.Regards - GT - http://homepages.go.com/~oztrack/-Original Message-From: Peter Larsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, 2 April 2001 17:55To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: t-and-f: Marion shooting for WR in 300 at Mt. SAC?An all-time 300m list can be found athttp://www.algonet.se/~pela2/wtrack/w_300ok.htmRegards - Peter Larsson> 1) Who is the wrh?>> DarrellNotice:The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files maybe confidential information, and may also be the subject of legalprofessional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised. If you have receivedthis e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mailand delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Marion shooting for WR in 300 at Mt. SAC?
GH wrote: << Althouth Peter's excellent site lists Kathy (Smallwood) Cook's 35.46 as beston record for 300m, it's probably worth remembering that Marita Koch wastimed at 34.1 for 300m in Canberra in 1985 en route to her 47.60 for 400m.>>Yeah, that's what T&FN considers the "world record." As for how good the mark is, consider that if Marion cruises through a 23-flat, she still needs to tack on a running-start 11-flat to break it by a 10th. Shows you just how good that 47.60 is! >>> Couple of questions ... Are any 100 meter splits available for Koch's mark .. Also are there any splits available for Kratochvilova's 47.99 ?? And finally how does Koch's record compare to other WRs (Men & Women) Like the 19.32 or 10.49 ... Portuguese tables or some other measure ?? ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Marion shooting for WR in 300 at Mt. SAC?
Marty wrote: >Some interesting splits were taken during Koch's 47.60 WR. > >Times by her coach (and future husband) Wolfgang Meier were 10.9 - 11.5 >(22.4) - 11.7 (34.1) - 13.5 (47.6) > >The split for the 1st 100 which went around a curve was probably off and >likely at least a few tenths slower. > Given these splits ... The relative ease that Marion has shown in running low 49 ... And given Marion's PR's at 100 & 200 ... Does anyone else think that Marion's best shot at a WR might actually be in the 400 ??? Marion has all the attributes of a great Q-miler in the mold of say a Quincy Watts - great speed, relaxation, long fluid stride ... Does anyone else think this would be possible or am I out there ??? ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Record duration
And wasn't Owen's LJ record over 20 years in duration ??? >From: Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: t-and-f: Record duration >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:27:48 -0700 > >Well, of course we have gh and others on the list with the specifics, but >men's world records that come to mind in the last 40 years or so are: > >Evans' 400m >Beamon's LJ >Mennea's 200m - was it close to 20 years? >Clayton's marathon >Coe's 800m > >I've always been impressed by Clayton's time because it was way ahead of >anyone else at the time (not that Beamon and the others weren't!). Having >read his book on how he trained, it's not hard to see why he ran so fast on >2 or 3 occasions - 140 miles per week, over 100 of it at near marathon pace. >He also was often injured and had difficulty peaking because he just ran >hard all the time. > >- Ed Parrot > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Records
When you look at the high school lists, the records as they currently stand are pretty outstanding ... Most seem fairly unapproachable ... The following (along with the marathon) I would say may never be broken at this point: SP - 81'3.5 - Mike Carter 1979 4 x 400 - 3:07.40 - Hawthorne 1986 10,000 - 28.32.7 - Rudy Chapa 1976 5,000 - 13.44.0 - Gerry Lindgren 1964 2 Miles - 8:36.3 - Jeff Nelson 1979 Mile 3:55.3 - Jim Ryun 1965 400 - 44.69 - Darrell Robinson 1982 Conway >From: Tom Jimenez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Tom Jimenez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: t-and-f: Records >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:26:33 -0700 > >Marathon Jr. record: Gompers - 2:15:28 / Dec 83 > >Prep record that will last: > >Marathon; Clancy Devery (S Salem HS) - 2:23:05 / 1977 > >T Jimenez >Salem, OR. > >BTW- I played baskteball with Clancy in 1978 and while he could >get to every rebound tirelessly, he wasn't a very good shot. But >a great guy. > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Records
Maybe ... Must remember that the 2 most prolific teams ever were the Roy Martin teams of Texas and the Thomas anchored Hawthorne teams ... Both of these kids ran sub 45 anchors in high school ... Hawthorne's "average" is under 47 ... Hawthorne also had Mike Marsh who was state 200 champion in Thomas' absence (hernia surgery at the last minute) in 20.80 ... as well as a 36.xx 300 hurdler ... It was really the equivalent of an all star team ... The likes of which may never be seen again at a single school ... Now a Texas or California all star team could certainly give it a push ... But will be very hard for a "regular" high school to do ... Conway > ><< 4 x 400 - 3:07.40 - Hawthorne 1986 >> > >Conway, > >I think this one can go down if some of the Texas and Cali teams geared >toward it. Obea Moore and crew approached it several times but just >couldn't >get it. I remember them running 3:08-3:09 at Penn with two injured runners. > > >Larry A. Morgan, Sr. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Records
Ed wrote: > >To me, the shot put and the 10,000 are the two records that are most out of >reach on that list, with the mile and the 4 x 400 next. I think there's >every chance that we'll see the 2 mile and 5K fall in the next 5 years, >while the 400m is the type of event where I can see some stud coming along >and scaring the record. > >As for the marathon, there have definitely been high schoolers capable of >the record, it's just a question of whether it will ever be run by someone >of that caliber again. Certainly Ryan Hall's sub 50:00 10-miler is >indicative of the ability to run 2:23. > >Out of curiosity, what do 2nd and third places on the all-time 10K and shot >put list look like? > On the 10,000 list 2 & 3 are also from 76 and #4 is Lindgren #2 28:55.0 - Eric Hulst #3 29:06.8 - Bill McChessney #4 29:17.6 - Lindgren As for the shot put #2 is 76'2" by Brent Noon from 1990 ... I was fortunate enough to be at the Golden West when Carter set that record .. When he let the ball fly it went past every flag laid out (meet record, national record, etc) and just looked like it would sail forever ... Was one of the most awesome sights I have seen in track AND field ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: more on prep records...
GM wrote: >insignificant as this discussion must seem to our non-U.S. listers, it does >raise some interesting discussion! > >some other HS marks that may be tough to beat: > >--Roy Martin's 20.13 for 200m; the closest someone has gotten in the 16 >years >since it was set? 20.46 in 1990 by Henry Neal. > I thought about putting Martin's 20.13 on the list ... But a Texas kid, Brendan Christian, set the indoor record this year at 21.02 and is only a junior ... He ran 20.78 last year as a soph .. So I would say barring injuries he would have a chance to break it in the next two seasons (this one and next) ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: more on prep records...
Justin wrote:
>Hi All
>
>While US HS records may be of peripheral interest to me (not that that
>should curb the discussion in any way), Roy Martin is a name which conjures
>up some memories.
>
>Didn't Lorenzo Daniel run 20.13 in the same year ('85), so the two of them
>equalled the WJR?
>
>Also, didn't Roy Martin run an amazing prelim at the '84 OT, comprising the
>worst bend in 200m history and one of the best straights ever?
>
>Another impressive US HS record is the 10.13 from 1986 of..damn, name
>escapes me (I'm at work, no reference books). And he didn't even win the US
>Jnr title that year.
>
>Then came Steve Lewis with 43.87 in 1988. And Quincy Watts, William Reed,
>Joe DeLoach, Mike Marsh, Dennis Mitchell, Andre Cason. The mid to late 80s
>was a great time for US junior sprinting.
>
Martin ran awesome straights ... His runs in the US Olympic Trials in 84
were awesome ... Still have them on tape ... That 100 record is held by
Derrick Florence and took down the 10.16 that was set by Houston McTear in
1976 ... Course McTear was teh most prolific high school sprinter ever as he
was able to run in the 10.30s or better just about every time he set foot on
the track ... He was legitimately world class ... And I would agree that th
e80s were the most prolific period for high school sprsinters in US history
...
Conway
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: more on prep records...
Does anyone out there have the 85 sprint lists handy ?? >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: more on prep records... >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:29:39 EDT > >Justin: > >I believe Derrick Florence is the name you are looking for (10.13 100m) > >Does bring back some memories, indeed. In particular, of the magical nights >at the Texas State Meet in 1985 with Roy Martin, Joe Deloach and Stanley >Kerr >cranking out some of the best prep deuces in history... in different >divisions! Anyone else there that night who is willing to share their >recall? > >By the way... the only non-Texan to crack that group on the '85 national >list >is also the only one still active as an elite athlete... name, anyone? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: more on prep records...
I would have to guess Mike Marsh ... Although at 20.80 he was a little off the pace of the others ... Imagine .. 20.80 and off the pace Now THAT was a list ... Conway >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: more on prep records... >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:29:39 EDT > >Justin: > >I believe Derrick Florence is the name you are looking for (10.13 100m) > >Does bring back some memories, indeed. In particular, of the magical nights >at the Texas State Meet in 1985 with Roy Martin, Joe Deloach and Stanley >Kerr >cranking out some of the best prep deuces in history... in different >divisions! Anyone else there that night who is willing to share their >recall? > >By the way... the only non-Texan to crack that group on the '85 national >list >is also the only one still active as an elite athlete... name, anyone? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: koch wr
Steve wrote: >However,to see this World record was awesome. I think the only person who >could >have a chance of challenging the womens 400 record would be Marion Jones >and >she may have to run it in a similar way ...really hit it hard early and use >her huge strength to maintain form in the straight. > I have a question .. Prior to Irena Szewinska women ran the 400 like a non sprint - more paced .. Irena brought the 400 to the land of the sprinter .. The E. Germans followed (Brehmer, Koch, Wockel, and others) ... And through the 80s and early 90s there was some true "speed" in the event (primarily Perec with some forays by Torrence and Privalova) ... Why is it that sprinters left the event ??? I mean Freeman has ok speed but nothing on the level of the others ... Breuer sprinted early in her career but has not since her return from suspension (and frankly I think is why she isn't the dominant Q-miler she should be) .. And even using Breuer as an example .. She runs so much better in the relays .. Primarily becasue she is behind and has to "sprint" during the first part of the race... Have female quartermilers abandonded the "sprint" philosphy of the quarter ??? And if so why ??? It is definitely a race in stagnation ... And I would not put it all on "drugs" as there definitely seems to be a chaneg in the race strategy itself - for the worse .. Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: koch wr
Darrell wrote: > >From what I have observed over the years the stagnation has been rooted in >the misconception hat women cannot handle the race. Coupled with the >unwillingness of the current crop of sprinters to accept the challenge of >the >race. >I see the talent out there, but they are running the 100 and 200. And >there >are a few men that fit that description also. If you are a woman that runs >11.2 and 22.5, you should be running the 400. If you are a man that can >run >10.1 - 10.2, and 20.2 - 20.3, you should be running the 400. > I would agree with that assessment ... Men and women ... On the women's side I think we've gotten away from the days when Merlene Ottey was running the 400 (in addition to the short sprints)Eveleyn Ashford ran some 400s .. FloJO when she was just Florence ... And the eastern bloc sprinters ran all 3 sprints ... Even here in the States Chandra Cheeseborough and Valerie Brisco moved UP to the 400 ... And almost 20 years later are still the top 2 US Q-milers ... Pam Marshall in a brief attempt before being struck down by injury broke 50 and would have surely been great at the distance .. It has been shown that times around 11.00 and 22.00 make for the best Q-milers .. Am surprised that some sprinters would rather never have a shot at any kind of medal in teh 100 or 200 than move up a notch and have a true chance ... Same on the men' side ... The 2 best of the last decade, Watts and Johnson were both sprinters with good 100 speed but injury prone who made the long sprint(s) look like cake walks ... A guy like Obikwelu for example who may never have a true shot at 100 glory due to his late get a way .. Coould be awesome at the 200/400 double ... I know it hurts some ... But not enough to forgo the opportunity that presents itself to some of these athletes ... Or maybe I am wrong ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: more on prep records...
Jack wrote: >Here is the '85 list of "legal" HS 200 runners. Remember some of these >names? > >20.13 Roy Martin (Roosevelt, Dallas, Tx) >20.24 Joe DeLoach (Bay City, Tx) >20.61 Floyd Heard (Marshall, Milwaukee, Wi) >20.4Stanley Kerr (Snook, Tx) 6/19/67 > Henry Thomas (Hawthorne, Ca) (+20.69) >20.76 Michael Timpson (Miami Lakes, Hialeah, Fl) >20.82 Michael Marsh (Hawthorne, Ca) >20.97 Danny Everett (Fairfax, Los Angeles, Ca) > > Talk about a class: Martin - 1988 Olympic team Deloach - 1988 Olympic gold medallist - 19.75 beating none other than Carl Lewis Heard - a #1 world ranker, NCAA champion and made the 2000 Olympic team in the event -- and there is the answer to the previous trivia question ! Thomas - an NCAA champion Marsh - 1992 Olympic champion - 20.01 (19.73 semi) Everrett - 1988 Olympic Bronze medallist at 400 - 44.09 with 43.81pr Has any class in any event ever been as successful ??? NCAA champions, Olympic champions and medallists .. And as of last year Heard and Marsh were still going strong at or under the 20.00 level ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Records
Darrell wrote: >This discussion has brought up an interesting question. Why has the 10k >been >run so infrequently over the years? It seems as though in the 70's it was >run at a regular rate, but now it is almost none existent. > Good question .. Maybe it is my lack of knowlege on distance running, but I don't see many races outside of the 2 mile, 3200 meter range ... I was in high school in the 70s so maybe it more in my consciousness, but guys like Virgin, Hunt, Hulst, Williams, McChesney seemed to be running a lot more of the 5,000 , 10,000 type races ... Is that true or just a figment of my imagination ??? Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: more on prep records...
Darrell wrote: > >Speaking of great HS 200's, anyone recall the 1988 CalHi version? I know I >do, although I think the LA City Championship that year was more stunning. >But to see Quincy and Brian Bridgewater battle down that home stretch was >astounding. Has there ever been a fast 1-2? I know there have been faster >1's, and maybe 2's in separate races, but I believe the times these 2 >posted >were amazing for a HS meet. If memory serves me correctly they ran 20.55 >and >20.60 respectively in that race, correct me if I am wrong someone. >Also, that probably marked the biggest mistake in Quincy's HS career. He >should have run the 400 in that meet because he was coming off of a >hamstring >injury. He had just set the City record of 46.66, but chose the 200 at >State. > That was one of the most classic 200s in CalHi history ... I don't remember the times specifically and am not home to look em up ... But sounds really close ... And I agree that Quincy should have run the 400 instead ... Oh well, he eventually did and the rest is Olympic history ... As for Cal state meet 200s another that sticks in my mind is the 77 and James Sanford stretch run against David Russell from Patrick Henry of SAn Diego ... Then the 400 and 200 were back to back and no one was trying that as a double .. Sanford was the state leader in both and did attempt the double ... He easily won the 400 in 46.60y (46.33 I believe is what it was converted to) ... And then with only the womens 200 as a rest came back to try the 200 ... Russell had won the 100 earlier and so the race pit the 2 sprint champs against easch other ... Russell was out fast and ran one H--- of a turn .. Coming off the turn quite clear of the field Russell looked to be heading for an easy victory .. But Sanford (initially sluggish from the 400) put on a burst of speed unlike few I have seen in any race (HS, colegiate or open) .. Russell was forced to lean at the finish .. Anxiously awaiting what seemed like forever (early accutrack days) Russell was the winner 20.97y to 21.00y (20.85 to 20.88 converted) if my memory is correct .. Not quite as fast as Bridgewater and Watts, but anyone that was in teh stadium will attest to the electricty and awe at Sanford's move down the stretch ... And that after about a 20 minute rest from an outstanding 400 ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: All-Star High School Team
Conning wrote: >In a message dated 4/4/01 9:22:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >Conway Hill writes concerning Hawthorne HS of Hawthorne, California: > > > It was really the equivalent of an all star team ... > > > >I think it is quite possible that we will see a team like that again. >Just look at little Modesto Christian in basketball. They had ex-49ers >Bubba >Paris' son plus three players from England. A school of 200+ students won >the Northern California Division I (large schools) basketball title this >year. >It is much easier now to go to another high school, rather than your >neighborhood school. >Watch out for St. Mary's of Berkeley. They are building quite an >outstanding >team and coaching staff. Plus they added Rod Jett, who was ranked ninth in >the US in the 110 hurdles in 1992, and Richie Boulet, who was ranked fourth >in the US in the 1,500 in 1998, to their coaching staff this spring. >Senior Halihl Guy (St. Mary's, Berkeley) won the 110 hurdles (14.75 2.3) >and >400 hurdles (54.16) at the Stanford Invitational last Saturday with the >coaching of Rod Jett. > True Modesto Christian did do that ... Underwent a lot of scrutiny however, and everything had to be perfectly in place ... But if I were going to see it done (at least in N CA) it would be in Berkeley ... There has always been a lot of questions there regarding attendance lines and who should be at what school ... Even back in the Pete Richardson, Kenny Robinson, Sharon Ware days when they were ruling the state ... And the CIF doesn't like that sort of thing too much ... So it can be done ... And St Marys may be doing it ... But when the complaints start to come (and they will) I hope everything is in order ... Even at that finding 4 teens in the same general community to average under 46.8 per leg ... Hard under any conditions ... The Harrison twins came with 2 from the same house and were only 3:13 or so ... Berkeley's all star squad (star sprinter, star half miler, star hurdler) smashed what was the previous record and "only" ran 3:08.94 ... Muir had another star laden team with Obea Moore and Sultan McCullough and "only" went 3:08.66 ... Roy Martin's teams with him running 44 sec anchors never broke 3:09.00 ... The 3:07.40, along with Carter's 81'3 and a few discussed distance marks are almost other worldly Conway Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: 1988 200 m
Darrell wrote: > >Who took the bronze in that race? And what was the time? I know Joe and >Carl, but who took third? > I believe that was Robson DaSilva in 20.04 ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Most venerable records
We have had discussion recently on prep records and how venerable some may or may not be ... There has also been past discussion on how much record breaking we may or may not see on the world scene ... Looking at the current world record list, there are some awesome marks ... What mark would folks say is the "most secure" record at present .. And by that I mean the record which should last the longest before being broken (all records are eventually broken right??) ... I'll stick my neck out and say Jurgen Schult's 243'0" discus on the men's side ... And FloJo's 10.49 on the women's side ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Records
Brian wrote: ><<< << but guys like Virgin, Hunt, Hulst, Williams, McChesney seemed to be >running a lot more of the 5,000 , 10,000 type races ... Is that true or >just > >a figment of my >imagination ??? >> > >tis true. Take '72 as a typical example-- 13 under 14:30 at 3M (but only 2 >under 15 at 5K), 20 under 31:50 at 6M, 8 under 32:30 at 10K and 28 under >2:45 in the marathon. Today one has to really search to find more than one >or two performers under 15:00 (5K), 33:00(10K) and 3:00 hours in the >marathon. > >Jack Shepard > > >Looking at Jack's message above reminded me of the comment that the >"running >boom" has spawned the generation of HS girly-men we have seen from roughly >1985 to 1999. > >Some say the "running boom" started in 1969 or so when Bowerman published >the booklet "Jogging" ... and then took off in earnest in 1972 when the US >watched Frank Shorter stick it to them in Munich in the Marathon, live on >TV. Either way, look at the above stats. This kind of 3M/6M/Mar. running >by HS'ers continued for many years later ... in fact most of the HS >all-time >lists at 2M/3M/5K/6M/10k are full of seniors with a '76, '77, '78 or '79 >after their name. > >So, my question is: > >Were they great because they were RAISED IN THE 60's? and therefore NOT >corrupted by the "boom"? > >OR, was it the "boom" from 1969 to 1984 that spurred these guys on to 100 >mile weeks and 4:10's/8:50's? > > > >* > >I graduated HS in 1985 and noticed a SEVERE drop-off in commitment and >depth >in my state (and community) in 1984. It has NEVER made it back to the >level >it was in the 70's. > >Personal Experience: >In 1983, I was a 10th grader, I ran 9:50y to place SIXTH at my conference >meet. I ran 9:55 at my Regional meet, and was not even remotely close to >qualifying for the State meet. > >In 1984, a 9:50m WON THE conference meet ... and 9:50m took second at >Regional to qualify my teammate for State Meet. > >This was in MI, who was WAY behind MOST OF THE country back then. > >Like many have said, it was like the wheels FELL OFF almost overnight, at >least in my state. > For what its worth, I went to high school in the 70's ... My high school track team was very distance oriented as we had a cross country team that was undefeated for 3 years in a row and a very good distance coach ... We had several milers during the 70s that ran under 4:20 with a best of 4:12 and several in the 4:15/4:16 range ... Our 2 milers as I recall were in the 9:05/9:20 range ... Our guys did a lot of distance training off the track ... Fartlek work when they were on the track ... The two names I heard most often during that time with respect to their training was Lydiard and Prefontaine (actualy just Pre) ... And being in California they were training to try to make the state meet and compete against the likes of Eric Hulst, Rich Kimball, Thim Hunt and Ralph Serna, among others ... Our guys were not interested in "recreational" running/training but were running hard every day ... Cause that is what they felt it would take to get to where they wanted to be ... And as long as guys hung around town and "mentored" new kids AND the coach stayed there, the tradition and training continued ... Once the coach left (early 80's) and the older (graduated) guys started "getting their own lives" and started attending practices and meets less the drop off began ... By that time (my own opinion) the "new regime" of coaches and athletes coming in were defniitely more influenced by "running boom" mentality ... And much like with the previous post the distance program hasn't been the same since .. Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Most venerable records
Elliott wrote: >Michael Johnson's 19.32 >Going to be a looong time before someone even comes close. With Frankie >Fredericks and Michael Johnson out of the picture there will be no-one to >pull the others under 20.00 ... I am predicting that the next decade will >see the return of 20.00 as a very respectable 200m time. > >Elliott > How can you say that ... Last year there were 5 sprinters that ran under 20.00 and none of them were pulled by either MJ or Frankie ... And there were 5 others under 20.05 ... The list has been fairly solid now for the past few years and neither Frankie or MJ has been a major factor ... And most of those running at this level are 25 years old and under ... The 200 is in good shape as far as quality of competitors ... GEtting them all togehter to compete may be difficult since all the money seems to be in the 100 ... But I think guys like Boldon, Greene, and Obikwelu have the potential to get close as they all have better pure speed than MJ .. Now whether they do or not is another story ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Record duration
Ed wrote: > > > It is roughly equivalent to 27:45 10k running. > >I'm not sure I agree that 2:09 is equal to 27:45, but let's say it is for a >second. 27:45 was 26th on the 2000 annual list, while 2:09 was 27th. Maybe >the marathon is MORE competitive than the 10K. If you believe that a 27:45 >10K is "common", then you are right about a 2:09 marathon being common. It >is all a matter of semantics. > I've been following this thread and found the use of the term "common" for the 26th/27th times on a list ... So out of curiosity I looked at the sprints over the last two seasons and here are the corresponding #25 performers (a relatively round figure) for each season ... 100 200 400 2000 10.09 20.26 44.99 1999 10.09 20.34 45.15 1998 10.10 20.40 45.05 I'm not sure I would call these times "common" They are very good marks ... And in most situations (ie non WCs or Olympics) would place you in the top 3 in a given competition ... But I wouldn't say there would be another 100 people out there that could produce these marks or better ... On the contrary ... These are definitely elite performances ... The other thing that strikes me with respect to the 200 meters is that the appearance is that the competition is rolling much more rapidly in the diraction of the WR ... ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Texas Relays 4-200 Whos Running?
Found the following on the Nando Sportserver site: Greene demonstrated his conditioning with a strong anchor leg in the invitational 800 relay. Although HSI's time of 1:20.44 seconds finished second to team Octigan's 1:20.42, Greene nearly made up 12 meters on Rohsaan Griffin in the final stretch to make it close. Octigan's Shawn Crawford, Obadele Thompson and Milton Campbell provided Griffin the lead that he nearly lost. "I have held Maurice Greene off before," Griffin said. "As long as we had the lead, I knew we were fine." Conway >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: t-and-f: Texas Relays 4-200 Whos Running? >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:30:01 EDT > >Saw this on the Texas Relays site. > > >1 OCT Octigan 1:20.42 > >2 HSI HSI 1:20.44 > > >Anyone want to fill us in on the runners and running order. Splits would be >great! DGS or someone else at the meet can hopefully fill us in. > >David Donley _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Lekote 1:44 @ Duke
Saw the results on the Duke website this morning ... They had his time listed as 1:44.76 ... Didn't realize he was only a freshman ... That is very impressive Conway >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: t-and-f: Lekote 1:44 @ Duke >Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:29:40 EDT > >Haven't seen any mention of it but freshman Otukile Lekote of S. Carolia ran >1:44.? yesterday at the Duke Invitational. Sitting in the stands it looked >very impressive especially given that it was a negative split. He came back >a couple hours later and split 45.? on the 4x400. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Texas Relays 4-200 Whos Running?
Darrell wrote:>This is the worst moment in list history. >I come back to discussions of curbless tracks, slander, and the ever popular >topic of my signature. Meanwhile, Texas relays is going on and some of the >nations and world's best are competing well. >In the 4x100 m JW North ran 45.79 to lead the nation, and the race was not >close. Met a couple of the girls, and they are sophomore's! TCU ran a >respectable 38.94, and Kim Collins felt they should have been running in our >race. The HSI team of JD, Bernard, CJ, and Maurice posted the 4th fastest >time ever on US soil, 37.88. And it wasn't close. Octagon had a team of >Oba, Terrence, Shawn Crawford, and KST, in that order. >The race was over after the first exchange, as Bernard ran away from >Terrence, and Shawn took off early never to receive the baton. >In the 4x200 HSI ran the same 4 men, but CJ ran 1st, JD 2nd, Bernard to >Maurice. A mixed team of Shawn C., Oba, Darren Campbell, and Rohsaan G ran >against us. The race was over from the gun, but did not lack excitement. CJ >had a tight hamy, and it showed as he came out of the hole in 21.5. By the >time he handed the stick to JD, Oba was halfway around the bend, and flying. >JD was clocked a 19.3, I suspect Oba was something similar. But I do not >know their splits. Bernard received the stick, and cut a good 8-10 meters >off of Darren C, drawing the his second "Wooo!" of the afternoon. But >the Octagon team still had a good 10 meter lead by the time Maurice and >Rohsaan hit the straight. This is where the loudest "W!" came, as >Maurice proceeded to erase the entire deficit down the straight-away, falling >.02 short. Bernard and Maurice split 20 flat, and 18.8 respectively. The >wind was blowing fiercely down the backstretch all weekend. >In the 4x400, the most impressive run was by Long Beach Wilson, 3:40.88(?). >LaShinda Demus lived up to billing as she put the race away in powerful >fashion. > I've been checking the list all day for something like this ... :o) ... Sounds like the meet was great as usual ... Especially the relays ... Which brings me to an old question/issue ... What are the parameters going to be for relay selection for this year's WC ??? And are there any thoughts or considerations to the idea of creating national squads ... I ask not so much because HSI is running so quickly so early .. But moreso becasue of what happened to the women at last year's Olympics ... Injuries aside, the US still had a chance at gold had the handoffs been better ... They were attrocious all the way around ... And while Marion quickly said in their interview that they didn't need any more work and that all teh girls ran their butts off, they did need more work and Marion was much farther off the pace than she should have been ... Practicing once everyone shows up for the meet (men or women) just doesn't cut it any more .. The rest of the world is right there ... ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Outside the Lines -- Supplements
Did anyone else see the ESPN show Outside the Lines yesterday ??? The topic was very on target with some current discussions as the focus was vitamin supplements ... Without getting into detail unless folks want to discuss it they basically were saying that a lot of the positive tests that are occuring out there are NOT the fault of the athletes ... And that there are lotsof problems with the supplements as far as things such as mislabeling, inconsistencies in manufacturing ... etc, etc ... And that most of the problems lie with the manufacturers and the Food and Drug Administration .. Anyone else see the show ??? Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: China and the Olympics
Does anyone have any knowledge of how the current "rift" between the US and China affects China's "bid" to host the Olympics ??? Will pressure develop to not hold a games in China ??? And if so who becomes the focal point for Olympic hosting ??? Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: 4x200 splits
Does anyone on the list keep/have a list of splits for the 4x200 ??? I know they are hard to take and not all races have them available ... The 18.8 by Maurice Greene is an awesome time and I was wondering how it compares against others historically ... What is the fastest split recorded and have their been many faster or as fast ??? HOw many have been recorded under say 19.5 ??? Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: 4x200 splits
GH wrote: > >T&FN quit trying to keep track of 4x2 splits manyyears ago because of the >unreliablity of split-taking in an all-lanes race. > >Assuming that one knows where and when to take splits (and a surprising >number of otherwise-well-informed track folk do not), there's the problem >of trying to get a vantage point which allows you to find the proper spot >from across the field, since the exchange and the finish are diametrically >opposed and couldn't be farther apart. > >Add a plethora of people on the infield and your ability to find a small >white line out in lane 4 or 5 gets pretty iffy. > >We so so many incomprehensibly fast anchors reported over the years we >chose not to publish them unless we were very certain of the circumstances >under which they were taken. > Agreed ... Is very hard to do ... When I am at a meet where the event is run with a quality field I usually try to get a vantage point near the top of the stadium ... And even then it can be difficult ... But if there are any lists available that anyone has would be fun to compare ... I remember Clancy Edwards and MIllard Hampton splitting 19.1 and 19.3 once in a race ... And thought Carl Lewis split 19.0 or 19.1 at Penn one year ... Have heard of several splits in the 19.7 - 19.9 range ... Just curious as to how good a race MOs may have been .. Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Outside the Lines -- Supplements
Randy wrote: > >#1. This is old news. > >#2. The mislabeling and manufacturing inconsistencies are common >enough knowledge, and have been "broadcast" to the sports world enough >of the last couple of years, that I can't believe any elite athlete >hasn't heard it. > >#3. To continue to take such supplements, knowing the risk, is >foolhardy. > >My personal conclusion: >Any adult who should know better, who sticks their hand inside >a beehive to grab some honey, and then whines that nobody told >them that bees sting, is an idiot. If you don't want to get stung, >don't stick your hand in a beehive. > >Forget protection by the FDA or anybody else. Take care of YOURSELF. >Unless you have a doctorate in lab analysis and can test every pill >yourself, throw them in the toilet. > >I know, I'm gonna hear again that you can't win at the elite level >without supplements. Well I for one don't believe it. Take Marion >Jones off supplements for one year, and let's see if she starts losing, >or if her times start dropping off. > >Athletes of the last 15-20 years have been brainwashed by the >supplement industry and coaches who have bought into the whole >pill-popping game. > >Eat your fruits and vegetables instead. > After watching this show I am almost inclined ot agree ... It even had Frank Shorter discussing the situation from his "oficial" capacity ... Would like to hear from DArrell or some of the coaches on the list regarding thier views on supplement use ... From the show I gathered that they are not safe ... That the FDA does a terrible job of checking/research regarding them ... And that there is great uncertainty in what is being distributed ... If all that is the case why is there such wide spread use ??? I don't remember the exact numbers used at the moment but it seems that it was in excess of 80% of collegiate and elite athletes that use them ... And that the numbers may be similar in high school but without a drug testing program it is hard to determine ... Seems it makes for an extremely fine line between winning a medal and being banned ... And we are not talking about individuals that are "trying to cheat" but are testing out by accident ... I'm sure the athletes are aware of the risk ... My question is are precautions being taken ??? And if so how ??? Or is it truuly a game of roulette Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Supplements and The list
Funny ... I started this thread because I saw the show on television and saw it as an opportunity to say that "people in the sport are not cheating" ... And that a lot of negativity that has fallen on the sport in the past couple of years may have indeed been misdirected ... But somehow we continue to find a way to put things in a negative light when it comes to the sport of track and field ... I think we all know that athletes get much more exercise, are under much more physical stress, and place much more burden on their bodies than the average person ... As such the "average daily requirements" that the average slug American needs are going to be inadequate for a high school athlete, let alone a collegiate or elite athlete ... What I would like to know - from someone on the list with more medical/nutritional background - is just how much more vitamins, minerals, etc does the elite athlete need ... And what would be the best / optimal method of obtaining them ??? Like "the force" this list can be used both positively and negatively ... Let's try to stay away from the "dark side" of the force and use the force for good ... Conway >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: t-and-f: Supplements and The list >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:22:22 EDT > >Actually you agree with me. Your argument is full of what if's. The facts >are opposite of what you write. If people ate fresh foods. If they did not >eat fast foods. People do eat processed foods. They love fast foods. >I will take it a step further, anyone ever travel on the European circuit? >You ever eat the food they provide? If for no other reason than to make it >through the circuit, athletes need to supplement their diets. > >But here we are. Fresh off of Texas relays, and the hot topic is >supplements, and the possibility that athletes may be trying to cheat by >taking them. Is there a real interest in track on this list? ( And no I am >not leaving, that is the way of weak people) > >DGS >Faith is a road seldom traveled >Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, >the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2 > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Track and Field web sites
At the end of the year several individuals listed their "wish lists" for the new year (2001) ... One of my wishes was that there would be greater access to information via the net ... With the hope that there would even be a one stop web site that would link to all major competitive sites/results sites ... Over the past couple of weeks as the season has gotten under way I am finding that instead of getting easier, it may be getting harder to find information ... At least on the collegiate and elite levels ... While the high schools seem to be getting better with the likes of dyestat and california track and runnings new's prep site as well as texas', there seem to be "fewer" sources for college and elite ... The sub 10 site is gone ... Just shut down one day ... Same for TrackandField.com ... A great site that just stopped after the Olympics ... CNNSI used to have a great Athletics section that one day disappeared with track stuff now jumbled together with a bunch of other stuff here and there ... ESPN still has its track section with Mike Hollobaugh (sp?), but it is updated infrequently ... GH and TFN do provide links to 4 or 5 critical sites each week, but there is so much more going on ... Trackwire has changed to having important info now in a memberhsip section and I really don't mind joining if it will help preserve the site and provide good to great information on the sport ... Sportsserver is there there and reliable ... But is limited too ... Am I missing something ... Are there sites out there that I am not aware of ??? Was hoping this would be easier in the new millenium ... ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Track and Field web sites
Ah .. But when you go to the cnnsi site and go through the process of trying to get to the "athletics" page ... You never get there ... It has been combined with something else >From: "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track and Field web sites >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:10:29 > >The CNN.SI Athletics site is still up, although not updated very >often during the off-season: > >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/athletics/index.html > > >Kurt Bray > > > > ><< message3.txt >> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Why we question Chinese marks (was Kristiansen's 'clean' doubt)
Alan wrote:
>It's not the fast time that makes us question these marks. It's the
>out of
>nowhere appearance that makes us question these marks. Most of these
>Chinese
>marks ('93, '97) were set at their Chinese Games by women who
>weren't big on
>the world scene beforehand and then disappeared for the most part
>after the
>record setting performances. Granted in the Chinese society they
>probably
>think more of the their Chinese Games than the Olympics or World
>Champs, but
>they have to know that with these shot in the dark marks that people
>are
>going to question them. I think that all the top marks could be
>questioned,
>but that is just the nature of the sport. It has been that way for
>30
>years...at least. You can't run a fast time without it being
>questioned. If
>the "powers that be" wanted to have a foolproof method of testing
>for
>certain drugs then they could. It is quite funny how once they have
>a test
>for a certain drug another drug has already popped up as if the
>"powers that
>be" are alwasy one step behind. World record performances and very
>fast
>individuals sell tickets and attract sponsors. Drugs make these fast
>and
>world record performances more common. They should just legalize it
>all,
>that way no one would question the validity of the mark because
>everyone
>would be on the juice. Although it would scar the sport in the
>public's eye,
>but aren't the rumors doing that already?
>
OK ... I'll probably open up a can of worms here but I'll speak my peace anyway ... To say that a mark should be questioned because the individual setting it didn't compete near the level before nor after would put a large percentage of records set somewhat in question ... Maurice Greene, for example, is the rarity in track and field - the individual who sets the wr and comes near it again in competition ... MO has run 9.79, but then came back and ran 9.80, and would probably been close again save for the conditions in Sydney ... Still running an excellent 9.87 in those conditions ..
The Chinese aside, which of the following would you also like to question (since they didn't compete at the level before or since:
Donovan Bailey - 9.84 wr but next best of 9.91 was in '99 at WC
Bob Beamon - 29'2.5" wr was almost 2 feet further than he would ever jump before or after and lasted for 23 years
Mike Powell - 29'4.5" wr finally took down Beamon's record but was almost a foot better than his next best mark, before or after
Carl Lewis - 9.86 wr was Carl's only mark under 9.90 ... His PR before was 9.93 and he never broke 10.00 after
Michael Johnson - 19.32 wr PR at the start of the year was 19.77 ... Ran 19.66 and 19.32 at Trials and the Games ... Best mark since 19.71A
Kevin Young - 46.78 wr no where near before and coming closest at 43.18 a year later
Butch Reynolds - 43.29 wr ran high 43s (43.9x) before and after
Sebastian Coe - 1:41.71 wr (also ran 1:42.33 same season) Never again close running closest in 1985 (record set in 1979) at 1:43.07
Am I calling any of these individuals into question ??? ABSOLUTELY NOT !!! My point is simply that the running of world recors is not a regular occurance ... It is something that happens when everything is just right for that individual ... Everything comes together for a season or a month or a week or just a day ... That one moment in time ... And then "woosh" something for the ages - or until someone else hits that magic sector in time when everything is right for them ...
So I don't th ink we should bandy about disparagingly regarding any record simply beause it is so much better than the individual did before ... Because most records end up being that way ...
ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Why we question Chinese marks (was Kristiansen's 'clean' doubt)
My intent was not to try to defend the marks made by the Chinese ... There are many reasons to "question" what was accomplished by Ma's Army ... My point, however, was that to draw suspicion upon a record because "it seemed beyond what the individual had done before or since" is not a rational reason in and of itself for questioning marks ... And too often (especially in this day and age of drugs, supplements, etc) suspicion at what is "not normal" comes all too quickly ...ConwayKurt had written: > >Conway says: > >>So I don't th ink we should bandy about disparagingly regarding any >>record >>simply beause it is so much better than the individual did before >>... >>Because most records end up being that way ...<<< > > >I don't disagree, but you seem to be forgetting that there was a lot >more to >the Chinese Explosion back in '93 than simply a few unexpectedly >good >performances that were never repeated. It was also the amazing >depth of the >performances by the Chinese women. Chinese women coming in second >and third >were also smashing the old WRs. > >I quote from the Dec '93 T&FNews article by Jeff Hollobaugh on the >Chinese >women: > >"The Depth - If the times recorded by Qu and Wang seem >unbelieveable, what >happened behind them is even more so. Four other women went under >World >Records. Five WRs were set, but in actuality, there were 14 >performances >under the old standard." > >"...Consider the sudden depth of China's elite: 8 under 1:58 in the >800; 7 >under 4:00 in the 1500; 5 under 8:22 in the 3000; 11 under 31:33 in >the >10,000. The corresponding numbers at the World Champs, with >virtually all >the best on the planet in attendance, were 3,0,0, and 6." > >This is a much different phenomenon from the WRs you list. This was >more >than just unexpected. This was wholesale slaughter of a bunch of >WRs by an >entire team. > >Kurt Bray > > > > > > > > >_ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ><< message3.txt >> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Why we question Chinese marks (was Kristiansen's 'clean' doubt)
GH wrote: > >Actually, a significant number of the marks you mentioned in your first >post are indeed "not normal," but drugs play no part. But wind, altitude, >timing and hardness of track were significant wild-card variables which >played a definitite part in producing "anomalous" marks that perhaps >wouldn't have happened under more standard conditions. > Which brings up another issue ... Has any consideration been given to reviewing the current set of standards that are in place foro WR consideration ... For example you mentioned hardness of track ... Should some sort of consideration be made for that "variable" ??? Can a venue be built for competition and "geared" towards records and then removed taking the opportunity away from others to achive similar marks ??? And no I am not necessarily just picking on Atlanta because essentially the same thing was done with Echo Summit in the 60s ... And while I don't think that Mexico City's facilty has been removed how often has it been utilized for true competitions ??? The '68 Olympics and the '79 World University Games ??? Both times setting the stage for 200m world records ... Should not the world record process also take into consideration "equal opportunity" of venue / conditions ??? Just a thought ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Why we question Chinese marks (was Kristiansen's 'clean' doubt)
Runlikemad wrote: >I understand what you are saying conway, that what Alan said isn't a >sufficient enough reason by itself to question the WR's set by the chinese. > But given all the circumstances before and after these records were set, >and i dont mean to put you on the spot here (well not too much anyway), do >you personally beleive that the times they ran were times run without the >aid of preformance enhancing drugs. Or do you beileve that almost every >woman on the chinese natinal team had that "woosh," for the ages? > >I personally (if u cant tell already) feel that these times were with the >use of drugs. And if I remember corectly, maybe someone else on the list >can be more specific with the times, but didn't the chinese swimming team >break long standing long distance swimming records that year as well. If i >recall the chinese hardly got wet at international meats and then like >their track counterparts they exploded for a year and now are no where to >be seen. Makes one wonder, no? > >>> On the spot ... :o) ... I try very hard not to make accusations that I have no evidence to confirm ... So I will start off by sayding I have no idea what the Chinese were on ... Be it drugs, supplements, vitamins, very strong ginseng or whatever ... All I can saay to that is that whatever training methods they were utilizing produced extraordinary results ... Period ... Now having said that I will also stick by my original post in that to say that a mark was put out there that the individual had not done before or since in and of itself is not a reason to immediate discredit the mark ... Now to the nitty gritty in this matter ... Whatever the training method we are not talking about just the records themselves ... But the mass finishes of individuals ahead of previous records ... Not ojust one, but two or three ... And not just by small percentages, but by huge percentages ... Those things are what set those records apart from say Beamon or Powell or or Lewis or Bailey ... And so to answer the question that put me on the spot - I question the marks as well ... Conway _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Purpose of NCAA track and field (was Re: t-and-f: Another View on NCAA Regionals
GH wrote: >In the glory days of the Pac-8, starting the first week of April, each school had 5 straight weeks of full-bore in-conference dual meets. Then there was a week where the conference split in a half for the Northern and Southern Division meets. Then the next week was the conference. Of course that was when competition meant something and spectators came to collegiate meets, but i forgot that we're trying to avoid that at any cost. > As I have been watching this thread this question keeps popping into my head: What is the reason for NCAA track and field ??? Dual meets are almost a thing of the past ... Aside from conference championships there is little competition amongst squads within conferences ... The NCAA Championships are the one thing that everyone wants to participate in so everyone spends "the season" in search of a mark that will gain them entry into the big dance ... If you make it to the big meet then your season is a success and if you don't your season is over ... So aside from trying to get into the NCAA Championships, what is the purpose of NCAA track and field ??? Because as I see it at present, if this is the case then collegiate track is basically a sport for the collegiately elite with little opportunity for "development" of athletes ... Recruiting means finding those athletes that can come in and "score" NCAA points within a year of entering the program ... Which means little development going on in the sport outside of high school ... Or am I reading this wrong ??? ConwayGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Return to the Real World
Yes ... Many thanks to Charles and Fred for their efforts on behalf of this list ... Conway - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 8:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Return to the Real World When I saw his subject heading, I thought that Bob Hersh was signaling areturn of the t-and-f list to the "real world" of an "unmonitored" statusthat wouldn't require every message being approved by a monitor/supervisorbefore it could be processed by the University of Oregon server.As it turned out, his message had a different referent. Coincidentally,though, it seems to have been only the second post to have been acceptedunder apparent new guidelines that return us to our earlier status.I'm sure Bob would join me in my thanks to the U of O for a new chance.I hope, too, that all list subscribers would join in appreciation to FredFinke, who had to deal with the immediate crisis of our being denied accessto the U of O server, and, especially, to Charles Wandler, whosingle-handledly took on the role of list monitor and kept us on-line untila new agreement could be reached.Many thanks to Fred and Charles and any nameless others who put this listback in business!Cheers! Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Elite expectations
I think too oftern expectations are born of history ... We (the US) have ALWAYS been on or near the top in sprinting ... So it is ASSUMED that we always will be ... The same has been true of the horizontal jumps and pole vault ... Therefore when the occasion/time period comes along when that is not the case it is almost considered a national travesty ... However we have been up and down with respect to distance/middle distance running ... We have the occasional star that comes along (Ryun, Liquori, Salazar, etc) ... But never a "stable" of talent ... So therefore I think it is not "expected" for us to have/devlop it ... Simply because we have never really had it ... Not saying that I personally believe in that philosophy, but I think that is the way it is in the US ... For example, while there has been some nice young talent coming out of high school the past couple of years in the mile/2 mile range, the US has focused on the young star in Webb ... Almost as if the hopes of the nation are to rest on his shoulders with respect to the mile/1500 meters and US fortunes ... It was almost as if Sage didn't run 4:00.29 ... OR that Hall ran the equivalent of 4:03.13 ... Because we have Webb and all we need is one ... Now that may be somewhat of an exageration But it is not too far off ... We're happy to have one (maybe two) international hopes when it comes to the distances ... We are fine as long as Kennedy is right there ready to challenge ... We're ok if Scott can stay close ... But even a silver medal is not good enough at anything under 800 meters ... We wonder aloud why we can't "sweep" sprint events any more ... We question if the right "back ups" were there ... There are boos and howls if a baton is dropped ... When what we should be wondering is why we can't train more than one or two middle distance/distance runners at a time that are able to compete against the worlds elite ! Conway - Original Message - From: Ed & Dana Parrot Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:39 AM To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) Subject: Re: t-and-f: Elite expectations DGS wrote: >An example is Webb. There is a lot of discussion about his successes, and times, but there are also discussions regarding if he >is running too much, too fast, too soon. It becomes evident when we start to discuss sprinters or foreign distance runners. >Junior sprinters are expected to be world class by the time the finish college, if not sooner, and there is rare talk of over training >when we discuss foreign juniors. That is a good point that many people question whether a distance runner is doing "too much too soon", but the question is rarely considered for sprinters. I tend to think that doing too much is as much related to attitude than physiology, but either way, it never seems to be a concern about sprinters. Yet every year we see just as many high school sprint talents who fail to succeed at the next level as we do distance runners. Perhaps some of this IS related to what they did or didn't do in high school, just as it may be with the distance runners. I don't know very much about how the sub 10.5 high school sprinters train. As for world distance juniors, it is my impression that two countries - Ethiopia and Kenya - dominate, with a few north Africans as well. I suspect that the 3:42 and 13:35 junior times that Kebba is telling us aren't good enough would be considered excellent by every non-African country in the world. Not to mention the fact that the Africans themselves will admit that the accuracy of their birth records are not all that great by western standards. I do agree that expectations are not what they should be as a general rule. To some extent, it's a chicken and an egg concept. If you're used to local dual and tri-meets won with a 5:00 mile and you watch a local league meet won in 4:45, a 4:25 runner will be a superstar. A 4:10 miler seems like someone from another planet. Add to that the annoyingly popular concept of "everyone's a winner" and you have an expectation/attitude/performance problem that will not be fixed simply by telling today's best high schoolers that they stink. - ed Parrot Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
