In a message dated Wed, 6 Feb 2002 3:54:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In a message dated Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:39:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, James Dunaway ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Don't we, perhaps, respect the four-minute mile a little too much? >> > > All depends who "we" is. I think the sport's hard-core statisticians (yeah, that >includes me) did the sport a great disservice by trying to pound home the >"irrelevance" of the 4:00 mile lo those many decades ago. > > But for the most important people--the athletes and the fans--it still has its >luster, just as does a 1000y rusher in the NFL (even though the season has gone from >12 games to 16), a 20-goal scorer in hockey, 50 homers, etc., etc. > > If it's a nice round number that has magic simply becuase of its roundness, forget >trying to demythify it. Use its strength to help build the sport, not tear it down. > > gh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. I still don't understand why the NCAA outdoor meet doesn't run a mile. C'mon!!! I think USATF should also lobby the IAAF harder about a mile qualifying time for the Worlds and Olympics. It's not like the U.S. is the only country that holds mile races. Why not let a 3:43 mile (and anything faster than the 1500 qualifier equivalent) qualify for the Worlds? I think the IAAF is open to ideas to help countries such as the U.S. promote the sport. The mile at the USATF meet (and thus the mile at virtually "all" U.S. meets) would be a good start. sideshow
