Actually the US had two contenders in the 1500 for women - Favor Hamilton
and Jacobs .. Unfortunately Hamilton bombed in the final and Jacobs didn't
run at the last minute ..
Conway Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "THOMAS,Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:55 AM
Subject: RE: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
> In the last day or so, a news web-site (USA Today? LA Times?) posed the
> following question (or similar):
>
> "When was the last time the US track & field team did not have ANY serious
> medal contenders (men or women) in an Olympic event longer than 400m?"
>
> Regards - GT - http://homepages.go.com/~oztrack/index.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Ulfelder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 October 2000 21:39
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
>
>
> When it comes to the 800m, the United States sure had a lousy Olympics.
Only
> two semifinalists and one finalist on the women's side, and not a single
man
> advanced past the opening round.
>
> Although there is less margin for error in the 800 than most other track
> events, this goes beyond bad luck. What's more, three of the top four U.S.
> women in the event almost certainly will not be around for another
Olympics
> (Jearl, Joetta, and Meredith Valmon--who, by the way, ran a local road 10K
> this past Sunday in 43 min). Where would the U.S. be without the Clark
> family? And on the men's side, only Kenah has shown that he has the
> potential to break through to the 1:43 range that would keep him on the
map.
>
> Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think it's especially
> surprising on the men's side, where our total domination of the 400m
> suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who could move up to
the
> new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with success. (I still wish
we'd
> had a chance to see MJ seriously attempt it, even just once.) But it ain't
> happening. And with the women's 400 becoming so weak (read: opportunity
for
> folks who want to compete in an easier event instead), the prospects seem
> even bleaker for the U.S. there. It's also surprising in light of the
> resurgence of 1500m runners among both men and women. We're doing better
> there than we have in a while, but with the exception of Regina, none of
the
> athletes enjoying that success seems like a real threat over the shorter
> distance.
>
> Opinions? Theories? Thoughts? Here's mine, briefly: The 800 is a brutal
> event. It's physically miserable and tactically unforgiving. So, given a
> choice between sticking with the one-lap sprint, or staying with the
> better-known and more romantic mile, athletes will tend to gravitate away
> from the 800. And if U.S. depth is already lacking in one of these events,
> the athletes will move to fill that hole first.
>
> - Jay Ulfelder
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by
> the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
