-0500, Thomas J. Derderian wrote:
And gravity was less then when the earth was younger.
Tom
--
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: t-and-f: When XC courses were shorter
>Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2002, 3:53 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin wrote:
>
>&
And gravity was less then when the earth was younger.
Tom
--
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: t-and-f: When XC courses were shorter
>Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2002, 3:53 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin wrote:
>
>>>>Veering a bit
You'll probably be able to resist Ed but here is one of the better quotes. The
thread is:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=37235&page=0
Regards,
Martin
"I've said it before and I'll say it again, the courses prior to mid-1980s were
SHORT.
Don't believe the apocrypha. The
Martin wrote:
>>>Veering a bit here but the subject line made me think of it. There are
>>>some yahoos on letsrun that actually espouse the theory that the reason
>>>there was so much depth in distance in the early eighties is because the
>>>courses(and probably the tracks) were all short. Reg
The tracks were short, as well!
malmo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin J. Dixon
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:17 PM
To: track list
Subject: Re: t-and-f: When XC courses were shorter
Veering a bit here but the subject line
> Veering a bit here but the subject line made me think of it. There are
some
> yahoos on letsrun that actually espouse the theory that the reason there
was so
> much depth in distance in the early eighties is because the courses(and
probably
> the tracks) were all short.
I assume you are talking
Veering a bit here but the subject line made me think of it. There are some
yahoos on letsrun that actually espouse the theory that the reason there was so
much depth in distance in the early eighties is because the courses(and probably
the tracks) were all short.
Regards,
Martin
ghill wrote:
> F
