Ya know, I always root for the underdogs who didn't have a shot of making the team
prior to the trials and don't really concern myself too much when the big dogs fall
by the wayside, so I really like the US format. I also really like the idea of 4+
years of hard work resting on as little as 1/100th of a second, or 1cm on one given
day. That's interesting drama and that's good TV.
s.devereaux
Roger Ruth wrote:
> Shawn Devereaux, in an oft-repeated theme of this thread, wrote:
>
> >If you can't get it up for 1 meet every 4 years stay at home, you don't deserve
> >to go. If you can't handle the pressure of do-or-die in the Trials how are you
> >going to handle the pressure of do-or-die in the Olympics?
>
> I haven't read all of the messages posted on this subject. I wonder whether
> anyone has remarked the example of Bill Nieder in the 1960 USOT at
> Stanford. Bill literally "couldn't get it up," throwing a consistently low
> trajectory, and finished fourth.
>
> In subsequent, pre-olympic meets, Neider broke the world record, while
> trials medalist Dave Davis suffered an injured hand. Bill was appointed to
> the team, "handled the pressure of do or die in the Olympics" and won the
> gold.
>
> The one-trial, make-or-break format may be the best choice for avoiding
> endless political maneuvering. Let's not kid ourselves, though, that it
> always selects the athletes best able to rise to the challenge of the
> Games.
>
> Cheers,
> Roger
