I agree, except eliminate the 300, keep the 3K as a Steeple and you'd even have the same number of events. Most importantly, start making tracks 500m and this would be perfect.
I think the quarter milers and half milers might be a tad miffed at the extra 25% distance of their races, however :) While we're suggesting radical changes, I'd submit that having the javelin be based on a "points" system for hitting moving targets would be much more in keeping with the original intent of javelins. And perhaps the moving targets could be those athletes who failed drug tests. - Ed Parrot ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > I've always wanted to see a meet where the runners ran distances that > made more logical sense than 400, 800, and 1,500. I think a > 1-2-3-5-10 progression makes more sense. > > 100-200-300-500-1000-2000-3000-5000-10000. > > And what the hell - we could keep the mile just for grins. > > Lee > > >I've often wanted to be rich. Not just for the ease of life and such, but > >also so I could sponsor some cool ideas I've wondered about. > > > >One of these would be a track meet with much simpler rules than we have now. > >The idea of track, it seems to me, is to see who can huck that iron ball > >farther, who can jump farther or higher, and of course who can run faster > >for various distances. > > > >So let's have a meet where you can huck that 16lb chunk of iron any way you > >want. Two hands, running start, round-off and CHUCK! > > > >Same with the other events - jump any way you want, bring back the > >two-handed spinning javelin. I mean, if the question really is, "Who can > >jump higher?" then why not take off from two feet? > > > >Going even farther, why only six attempts? Open the pit for a couple of > >hours and measure jumps. The guy/gal who went the farthest wins - simple. > > > >After all, I'm rich, it's my meet, I can give the prize money any way I > >want! > > > >Of course the mile stays the same :-) > > > >Cheers, > >Buck > > > > > >P.s. Can you imagine the conversation if the originators of the event didn't > >use a small concrete ring and one hand and a 'putting' technique? > > > >WR holder: Dang! I threw that shot 150 feet! (or 45m for you Canucks and > >Continentals). > > > >Other guy: Well sure, but I 'put' the shot 75 feet using only one hand AND > >I didn't step outside of this little concrete circle. Hah! What do you > >think about that! > > > >WR holder: Uh... great. Why'd you do it like that? > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Post, Marty [mailto:Marty.Post@;Rodale.com] > >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:31 AM > >To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) > >Subject: t-and-f: banned high jump technique > > > >I don't have any citations for this, but I seem to recall anecdotal reports > >that gymnastic experts using a series of flips and a two-footed takeoff > >(illegal per IAAF rules) have been able to achieve extraordinary heights > >near or better than eight feet. > > -- > Lee Nichols > Assistant News Editor > The Austin Chronicle > 512/454-5766, ext. 138 > fax 512/458-6910 > http://austinchronicle.com >
