In a message dated Mon, 13 Aug 2001 8:08:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Was a hard meet to get up for for some reason .. Didn't seem to have the
> usual >electricity associated with the Worlds
> I think the WCs have lost luster ever since the IAAF went for the money and
> doubled the frequency of the meet. The post-Olympic year WC seems to be
> particularly hard hit, whereas at least the pre-Olympic meet has the
> anticipation of the impending Games to heighten the excitement.
>
> Sorry, but I think switching from quad- to biennial WCs was one of Primo's worse
>decisions (although I'm sure everyone's the richer for it, so I doubt we'll see a
>return to the old schedule)>
I've got a two-word answer to that line of thinking: Houston and Cerritos. As in the
nationals of '89 and '90, where the domestic version of the sport, imho, came close to
dieing at the top end.
The doubling of the Worlds and the concomitant rise of Goodwill as a big-bucks meet
meant that every year's nationals was a must-go destination for the nation's top
atheltes, instead of just half the years.
And I fear that next year's nationals (w/ Goodwill unfortunately moving to this year),
with only the single-athlete World Cup as motivation, will once again be kaka.
Craig and Co. are going to have to be very creative in making whatever site we get
(Stanford still the leading--indeed, ONLY--grapevine candidate) able to host an
artistic success. i.e., one w/ a significatn number of the big names.
gh
