I've long been an advocate of the 500, mainly because it would make for a long sprint that's actually exciting. There's nothing more thrilling than watching guys duelling down the backstretch at high speed in a 4x4, but when you put them in lanes it sucks just about every last bit of thrill out of it. I'd love to see 400s run from a waterfall start (roller derby lives!) but since the death toll would be unacceptable, that's why the 500 is so appealing.
Put everybody at the 100 start (no blocks) at a bit of a tangent and let them break for the pole at the end of the straight. Then you get a kick-ass 400 run out of lane 1. It would also be a terrific event numerologically, with the 1-minute barrier being a great marker for international-class running. gh > From: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Lee Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:48:12 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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.
