Roger:
I think you are overreacting. I don't think anyone meant any disrespect to
Lemmon, and no "holier than thou" attitude or "ego gratification" was
expressed. I think we all realize that 4:10 number cannot be true, wherever
it came from. And certainly a 76-year old man has a right to not quite
remember how fast he ran a high school race some 60 years ago. Nobody blames
him. But numerous sources (see my People's quote which you conveniently
snipped) mention his success as an athlete, including New England 2-mile
record. I, for one, would be interested to know what Lemmon's time was, even
if it doesn't make any "effect on the history of the sport". I'd say quite a
lot of discussions here have very little effect on the history of the sport.
People discussed Wilt Chamberlain's 400m times here as well, after he died.
Maybe that was inappropriate too. Especially coming from those dangerous
"non-athlete" types.
Oleg.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Ruth
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 12:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: t-and-f: Re: Liars Club
The latest of this series of "holier than thou" posts on this non-topic, by
non-athletes included:
>Come on, Jack Lemmon's 4:10 mile is a perfect illustration to "The Older I
>get, the Faster I was" rule.
The entire thread, after the first post that sought information, reminds me
of Joseph Welch's summative question to Joe McCarty and the House
Un-American Activities Committee:
"At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?"
Lemmon has died, after a distinguished career in an activity that had
nothing to do with track and field. Whether he was mistaken, exaggerative,
or misquoted on his high school track marks, the time he claimed could have
no effect, whatever, on the history of the event.
Just what is it that is to be gained, and to the gratification of whose
ego, to pursue this topic?
