I'd like to see a running pentathlon: 100, 400, 800, 1,500, 5,000 with a points table. Or maybe a steeple instead of the 800 or 1,500.
A few years ago this local high school kid ran a strong leg on a sub-41 sprint relay and was a pretty good cross country runner (16:40 or so for 5,000 meters). He wasn't good enough in any one thing to be a collegiate star, but I always thought there should be something for guys like him. > -----Original Message----- > From: ghill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:36 PM > To: track list > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track rules (was: banned high jump technique) > > 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.
