Marty Post wrote: > > I'd buy the non-versatility argument a lot better if all of Radcliffe's >> accomplishments were from say 10,000m through marathon. >> The marathon is 14 times 3000 meters. If Devers is such a great hurdler, why >> doesn't she do the 400 hurdles? That's only 4 times as far as she's used to >> and the hurdles are much lower.>>
Hey, if running 14 x farther is the base criterion, why don't we critize Devers for not being a world-beating 1500 runner? As I said in my original post, there comes a time where distance running is distance running and apparent great differences in length don't seem to make all that much difference in ability to run fast. History is full of people who kicked ass at distance races 10-20x apart. Conversely (ignoring 19th-century runners) has there ever been a world-class 100 man who made it in the 800? Of course not. Nor could one have at 700 or 600, should they exist. A sprinter gets two, maybe three distances in which to be good. Distance people (partic. if you start calling XC and road 10Ks yet another accomplisment, as was cited as part of Radcliffe's cv) might get twice as many. And most field eventers are locked into one. I'm not denigrating Radcliffe's achievements, simply saying it's a variation on a theme. She's one of the gutsiest performers I've ever seen, but that's not enough. Before I'd ever vote for her as AOY she'd have to win a major track race. Sorry, Commonwealth doesn't count, old chaps.
