Kebba,
Let me make sure I have this correct.
1) You are trying to promote a track meet in the U.S.
2) You know that U.S. people get excited about a certain class (those who make the
finals in major meets) of distance athletes.
3) There are members of that class of athletes entered in the meet you're promoting.
4) You choose to IGNORE those athletes in your promotion of the meet, because it tends
to lower our expectations.
With all due respect, if you are trying to promote the meet, you should be paying
attention to any aspect of the meet which may put fannies in the seats. It does
indeed appear that you are putting your own anti-distance bias ahead of effective meet
promotion.
And I think you are way, way off base by putting down U.S. juniors who run between
13:30 and 13:40. How many "real-deal" (real) juniors HAVE run sub 13:20, and how many
of them have moved on to run under 12:50? It's almost as if your opinion of our best
juniors is "So what, they're no Haille Gebrsellasie." Any of our juniors who run
13:30 to 13:40 should be encouraged to move up to the next level; they should not be
ignored because you think encouraging them promotes mediocrity.
regards,
Don
Kebba Tolbert wrote:
>
> In the sprints and hurdles we in the US don't get excited about someone
> unless they have a chance to medal at a major meet. In the distance races
> people get excited if a US athlete makes a final. ...
>
> ... We have no chance of medalling in those events right now
> because we get excited about Juniors (U20) running in the 3:42, 13:30-13:40
> range when the real-deal Jrs are running 3:35/13:20 and faster on the
> circuit. When our expecations of our JRs are to run sub 13:20 then maybe
> we'll expect our seniors to run 12:50. Think of it like this -- no one get
> excited when a collegiate female hurdler runs 13.20 or a guy runs 10.20.
> Let's have high standards across the board.
>
> --Kebba
