Re: t-and-f: the REAL problem in the 200? (tight curves)

> >The bottom line is that I had somebody who should know how to do the match do >this, and his conclusion was that lane 5 in Sacramento is tighter than lane 1 >(!) on a max-radius track like Atlanta. > >gh Very interesting, especially when we consider the fact that the times were

Re: Piling on (was Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson)

At 10:46 AM 8/10/00 -0400, franno wrote: >ORIGINAL ARGUMENT > >ONly SHORT sprinters coached by JOHN SMITH WILL medal at the Olympics 2000. >Therefore, no medals for the USA in the 200m. > > >This is recorded for posterity. > > >Stephen Francis Why don't we all cut out the frustration an

t-and-f: Ranking

Garry Hill made some good points about the proposed IAAF system of ranking. I'm not trying to write a complete critique, but I'd like to mention a couple of fatal flaws in their system. The quality of competition is not the same for every event of a meet. Thus, a national ch

Re: t-and-f: Suzy Hamilton Interview = High Anxiety

At 01:32 AM 10/13/2000 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a message dated 10/12/00 2:13:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > ><< Lesson to be learned. Don't be afraid to lose. When all you can > think of is first place then often you lose the ability to place highly > (ie

t-and-f: Sprinters

> I don't think Christie can be considered among the top 5 because he wasn't > dominant in his era. I think we're giving short shrift to the pre 1964 > sprinters. What about Bobby Morrow, Jesse Owens or Charlie Paddock? I > suspect Cordner Nelson has some thoughts on that. > I agree

Re: t-and-f: M.I.A. ?

Or #5. GH might be busy reporting the Olympics. - Original Message - From: "William Bahnfleth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael J. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Track Listserve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 9:28 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: M.I.A. ? > 4. New career in ac