GH wrote:
> In a message dated Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:15:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << << on a personal note if your asking me( not that my opinion matters)
if I think that the Mackowiak beating antonio in the OG and running 45.14
as opposed to Pettigrews 45.42 is "credentials" enough to garner a world
#10 ranking than I
> say NO. >>
>
> As i said to Mr. Caine in an earlier post on the same subject, can you
give me a better choice? I actually think there are a couple (Mackowiak
wasn't in my top 10, but your original question was what credential he might
have, so i gave one) who might have better cases, but none of them really
fit the profile of a "true world ranker."
>
> But if you're going to be so quick to condemn a choice, I think you need
to be prepared to back up your strident commentary with a viable
alternative.
>
> It was not a vintage year at the No. 10 level in the 400.
>
How about Danny McCray as a candidate for #10 .. Ran throughout the European
circuit running consistently 4th through 6th and actually had a 3rd place
finish in Gateshead .. If you're going to count abbreviated seasons then
perhaps JaWarren Hooker would deserve a look at the spot .. Much better
times than either McCray or Mackowiak but a short season a la Johnson .. :o)
.. Course I can't find Mackowiak among any of the top meets in Europe Save
the Olympics ... And no it wasn't a vintage year in the 400 period which
makes it even more absurd that MJ was #2 in the whole world, since he is
reigning over a kingdom of mediocrity ...
Conway Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
