t-and-f: Webb Dragila Excel today June 8, 2004
1,500 metres 1. Alan Webb (U.S.) 3:32.73 2. Ivan Heshko (Ukraine) 3:32.88 3. Timothy Kiptanui (Kenya) 3:33.34 Pole vault 1. Stacy Dragila (U.S.) 4.83 - world record 2. Edda Elisdottir Thorey (Iceland) 4.40 3. Monika Pyrek (Poland) 4.40 Long jump 1. Tatyna Kotova (Russia) 7.00 2. Tatyana Lebedeva (Russia) 6.91 3. Marion Jones (U.S.) 6.67 __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Webb Dragila Excel today June 8, 2004
Outdoor WR. Matthew Starr wrote: 1,500 metres 1. Alan Webb (U.S.) 3:32.73 2. Ivan Heshko (Ukraine) 3:32.88 3. Timothy Kiptanui (Kenya) 3:33.34 Pole vault 1. Stacy Dragila (U.S.) 4.83 - world record 2. Edda Elisdottir Thorey (Iceland) 4.40 3. Monika Pyrek (Poland) 4.40 Long jump 1. Tatyna Kotova (Russia) 7.00 2. Tatyana Lebedeva (Russia) 6.91 3. Marion Jones (U.S.) 6.67
Re: t-and-f: Webb Dragila Excel
Earlier today, Matthew wrote that Stacy Dragila had set a new world record in today's Grand Prix meet in Ostrava. Martin corrected that to Outdoor WR. I'm wondering whether, given current IAAF categories, there was any world record at all. Certainly, Stacy's 4.83 was the best outdoor vault, ever. However, when the IAAF changed the world record rule to make THE World Record the best mark, indoor or outdoor, I think I remember that they kept the category of World Indoor Record (for instances where this mark was inferior to the outdoor record), but didn't create a new category of World Outdoor Record (for instances where this mark was inferior to the indoor record). Whether Dragila set a new World Outdoor Record today, or just a world outdoor best, might be of special interest to her, since the Grand Prix circuit offers a substantial bonus for world record performances. Maybe someone (Bob Hersh?) can set us straight on this. Cheers, at least for Stacy!! Great comeback, after being overshadowed by the Russian trio last year. Outdoor WR. Pole vault 1. Stacy Dragila (U.S.) 4.83 - world record 2. Edda Elisdottir Thorey (Iceland) 4.40 3. Monika Pyrek (Poland) 4.40 THE World Record progression since 2001, as I have it-- 4.63Stacy Dragila (USA) 2001-02-02 New York 4.64Svetlana Feofanova (RUS)2001-02-11 Dortmund 4.66Stacy Dragila (USA) 2001-02-17 Pocatello 4.70Stacy Dragila (USA) 2001-02-17 Pocatello 4.70Stacy Dragila (USA) 2001-04-27 Pocatello 4.71Stacy Dragila (USA) 2001-06-09 Palo Alto 4.81Stacy Dragila (USA) 2001-06-09 Palo Alto 4.82Yelena Isinbayeva (RUS) 2003-07-13 Gateshead 4.83Yelena Isinbayeva (RUS) 2004-02-15 Donetsk 4.85Svetlana Feofanova (RUS)2004-02-22 Athina 4.86Svetlana Feofanova (RUS)2004-03-06 Budapest BTW, Yanks. Dragila's 4.83m converts to 14'10. Feofanova's 4.86m converts to 15'11 1/4. Too bad, that Stacy didn't go for 16 feet, a mark that would be a new World Record, however categorized, and a goal for the women's vault that even I, as an ex-Kansan, could appreciate. For the rest of the world, the next mile-post (meter-post?) would have to wait for 5.00m; maybe still a bit in the future.
Re: t-and-f: Webb Dragila Excel
--- Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, Yanks. Dragila's 4.83m converts to 14'10. Feofanova's 4.86m converts to 15'11 1/4. Too bad, that Stacy didn't go for 16 feet, a mark that would be a new World Record, however categorized, and a goal for the women's vault that even I, as an ex-Kansan, could appreciate. For the rest of the world, the next mile-post (meter-post?) would have to wait for 5.00m; maybe still a bit in the future. I can't do the calculation in my head; but this can't be right. A 0.03 meter difference in height is probably around 1 inch, not 1 foot. Can someone enlighten? = Dave Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Webb Dragila Excel
Earlier today, I wrote: BTW, Yanks. Dragila's 4.83m converts to 14'10. Feofanova's 4.86m converts to 15'11 1/4. Too bad, that Stacy didn't go for 16 feet, a mark that would be a new World Record, however categorized, and a goal for the women's vault that even I, as an ex-Kansan, could appreciate Martin and Dave were quick to catch my error. 4.83m does, indeed, convert to 15'10, not 14'10. Sorry 'bout that. After nearly 40 years in Canada, this ex-Kansan still has problems with that metric stuff. You can take the boy out of the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy. Cheers, Roger
t-and-f: Webb poll
As of this morning there were 711 votes in the where will Alan Webb be after the 2008 Olympics poll that appeared with the USA TODAY on-line story yesterday. Results: 35.44% - out of the sport, never living up to the hype 30.66% - US record holder at sub 3:47 19.27% - a 3:55 miler 14.63% - Olympic medalist Choices are a bit puzzling. Obviously 2nd and 4th choices are not mutually exclusive. And having run 3:53 as an 18-year-old it's hard to believe he'd still be in the sport as a 3:55 man in 2008; maybe a 3:50 miler would have been a better option.
Re: t-and-f: Webb poll
35.44% - out of the sport, never living up to the hype 30.66% - US record holder at sub 3:47 19.27% - a 3:55 miler 14.63% - Olympic medalist Choices are a bit puzzling. Obviously 2nd and 4th choices are not mutually exclusive. And since he is already at least a 3:55 miler, you could say that the first and third choices are not mutually exclusive either. Kurt Bray _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb poll
In a message dated 8/16/02 10:02:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And having run 3:53 as an 18-year-old it's hard to believe he'd still be in the sport as a 3:55 man in 2008; maybe a 3:50 miler would have been a better option. I thought you were always known by your all-time PR. Hence, even if Webb IS running 3:55s in 6 years, wouldn't he still be known as that 3:53 guy? Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Webb poll
In a message dated 8/16/02 10:02:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And having run 3:53 as an 18-year-old it's hard to believe he'd still be in the sport as a 3:55 man in 2008; maybe a 3:50 miler would have been a better option. I thought you were always known by your all-time PR. Hence, even if Webb IS running 3:55s in 6 years, wouldn't he still be known as that 3:53 guy? Jim Gerweck Running Times You know, now that you mention it, that is a funny way of labeling people. I always thought of myself as being a 4:27 HS miler, but let's face it, I was a 4:30-4:33 guy who popped off one good race. (No guffaws from the sub-4 readers out there, please.) Now El G, on the other hand, is a very genuine 3:26 man. I didn't realize, until I got to browsing the all-time lists last night, that he has hit 3:26 three times. He's also done 3:27 twice and 3:28 four times. That's consistency. -- Lee Nichols Assistant News Editor The Austin Chronicle 512/454-5766, ext. 138 fax 512/458-6910 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: Webb Signs With Nike
Walt Murphy's News and Results Service The rumors have been swirling for weeks, but it's been confirmed that Alan Webb has signed a lucrative contract with Nike. Dick Patrick has the exclusive story in today's edition of USA Today. A HREF=http://www.usatoday.com/;http://www.usatoday.com//A (Click on Sports--Weaving a New Webb) Be sure to read the 2nd article--Webb Comfortable at Home There is a survey that accompanies the on-line article: Quick question results Look into your crystal ball and predict where Alan Webb will be six years down the road, after the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Results so far: 38.32% Out of the sport, never living up to the hype 26.35% U.S. record-holder, at sub-3 minutes 47 seconds 19.76% A 3:55 miler 15.57% Olympic medalist Total Votes:167
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Read it again. The half was to cover taxes, his agent and additional expenses. I have no idea if the article is accurate or not. I suppose the Times gets it right once in a while. I was just merely responding to the ridiculous assertion that 250,000 per year wasn't really all that much money with a conservative analysis and actually backing that point up with some facts(sans profanity). Regards, Martin Mike Prizy wrote: Half to his agent? Probably more in the range of 15 percent. Hopefully he does your investment deal. I just think he's got more beer money. Martin J. Dixon wrote: Ok let's assume that he gives up half to his agent, additional expenses and for taxes. That's probably excessive but lets go with that. That leaves 125,000US. Let's further assume that this thing doesn't start until 2003 and runs for 6 years. Let's further assume that he gets no other endorsements or incentive bonuses(probably very unreasonable). Let's then apply a discount rate of 5%. Doing some VERY QUICK calculations, that contract is worth 629,256 today. Once again, assuming a discount rate of 5%, he could buy a 30 year annuity of 40,299 per year. On average, approximately half of that would be tax-free. He also intends to go to school so there is no reason that he can't get just as good a job as he would have got even if stayed at UM and fell flat on his face as far as his running goes. It's at least arguable that he made the correct decision from a financial standpoint. Regards, Martin Martin J. Dixon, B. Math. (Hons), C.A., Partner Millard, Rouse Rosebrugh LLP Chartered Accountants P.O. Box 367 96 Nelson Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5N3 Direct Dial: (519) 759-3708 Ext. 231 Telephone: (519) 759-3511 Private Facsimile: (519) 759-8548 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: www.millards.com Practice Areas: www.millards.com/htm/profs/m_mjdixo.htm IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email may be confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. Michael Contopoulos wrote: Does anyone know how much his agent gets? The people who he has handling his finances? etc? After taxes and paying these fees, he won't have as much money as it seems. Not to say its a bad deal. Its a great one. But Mr. Webb, based on his salary, isn't going to be as wealthy as people think. From: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:15:01 -0400 http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020718-16634094.htm malmo wrote: Nope. malmo thinks the amount should cover the risk he takes if/when the slimy John Waters types (agents/shoe geeks) turn their backs on him if/when he becomes just another runner. malmo thinks that amount is all fantasy in the minds of some track fans. malmo malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com -- Regards, Martin Martin J. Dixon, B. Math. (Hons), C.A., Partner Millard, Rouse Rosebrugh LLP Chartered Accountants P.O. Box 367 96 Nelson Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5N3 Direct Dial: (519) 759-3708 Ext. 231 Telephone: (519) 759-3511 Private Facsimile: (519) 759-8548 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: www.millards.com Practice Areas: www.millards.com/htm/profs/m_mjdixo.htm
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020718-16634094.htm malmo wrote: Nope. malmo thinks the amount should cover the risk he takes if/when the slimy John Waters types (agents/shoe geeks) turn their backs on him if/when he becomes just another runner. malmo thinks that amount is all fantasy in the minds of some track fans. malmo malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case.
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Ok let's assume that he gives up half to his agent, additional expenses and for taxes. That's probably excessive but lets go with that. That leaves 125,000US. Let's further assume that this thing doesn't start until 2003 and runs for 6 years. Let's further assume that he gets no other endorsements or incentive bonuses(probably very unreasonable). Let's then apply a discount rate of 5%. Doing some VERY QUICK calculations, that contract is worth 629,256 today. Once again, assuming a discount rate of 5%, he could buy a 30 year annuity of 40,299 per year. On average, approximately half of that would be tax-free. He also intends to go to school so there is no reason that he can't get just as good a job as he would have got even if stayed at UM and fell flat on his face as far as his running goes. It's at least arguable that he made the correct decision from a financial standpoint. Regards, Martin Martin J. Dixon, B. Math. (Hons), C.A., Partner Millard, Rouse Rosebrugh LLP Chartered Accountants P.O. Box 367 96 Nelson Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5N3 Direct Dial: (519) 759-3708 Ext. 231 Telephone: (519) 759-3511 Private Facsimile: (519) 759-8548 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: www.millards.com Practice Areas: www.millards.com/htm/profs/m_mjdixo.htm IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email may be confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. Michael Contopoulos wrote: Does anyone know how much his agent gets? The people who he has handling his finances? etc? After taxes and paying these fees, he won't have as much money as it seems. Not to say its a bad deal. Its a great one. But Mr. Webb, based on his salary, isn't going to be as wealthy as people think. From: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:15:01 -0400 http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020718-16634094.htm malmo wrote: Nope. malmo thinks the amount should cover the risk he takes if/when the slimy John Waters types (agents/shoe geeks) turn their backs on him if/when he becomes just another runner. malmo thinks that amount is all fantasy in the minds of some track fans. malmo malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Doing some quick calculations - the report came from the Washington Times for Christ sakes! There's a credible source if I ever heard one. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin J. Dixon Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:38 PM To: Michael Contopoulos Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro Ok let's assume that he gives up half to his agent, additional expenses and for taxes. That's probably excessive but lets go with that. That leaves 125,000US. Let's further assume that this thing doesn't start until 2003 and runs for 6 years. Let's further assume that he gets no other endorsements or incentive bonuses(probably very unreasonable). Let's then apply a discount rate of 5%. Doing some VERY QUICK calculations, that contract is worth 629,256 today. Once again, assuming a discount rate of 5%, he could buy a 30 year annuity of 40,299 per year. On average, approximately half of that would be tax-free. He also intends to go to school so there is no reason that he can't get just as good a job as he would have got even if stayed at UM and fell flat on his face as far as his running goes. It's at least arguable that he made the correct decision from a financial standpoint. Regards, Martin Martin J. Dixon, B. Math. (Hons), C.A., Partner Millard, Rouse Rosebrugh LLP Chartered Accountants P.O. Box 367 96 Nelson Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5N3 Direct Dial: (519) 759-3708 Ext. 231 Telephone: (519) 759-3511 Private Facsimile: (519) 759-8548 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: www.millards.com Practice Areas: www.millards.com/htm/profs/m_mjdixo.htm IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email may be confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. Michael Contopoulos wrote: Does anyone know how much his agent gets? The people who he has handling his finances? etc? After taxes and paying these fees, he won't have as much money as it seems. Not to say its a bad deal. Its a great one. But Mr. Webb, based on his salary, isn't going to be as wealthy as people think. From: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:15:01 -0400 http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020718-16634094.htm malmo wrote: Nope. malmo thinks the amount should cover the risk he takes if/when the slimy John Waters types (agents/shoe geeks) turn their backs on him if/when he becomes just another runner. malmo thinks that amount is all fantasy in the minds of some track fans. malmo malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Half to his agent? Probably more in the range of 15 percent. Hopefully he does your investment deal. I just think he's got more beer money. Martin J. Dixon wrote: Ok let's assume that he gives up half to his agent, additional expenses and for taxes. That's probably excessive but lets go with that. That leaves 125,000US. Let's further assume that this thing doesn't start until 2003 and runs for 6 years. Let's further assume that he gets no other endorsements or incentive bonuses(probably very unreasonable). Let's then apply a discount rate of 5%. Doing some VERY QUICK calculations, that contract is worth 629,256 today. Once again, assuming a discount rate of 5%, he could buy a 30 year annuity of 40,299 per year. On average, approximately half of that would be tax-free. He also intends to go to school so there is no reason that he can't get just as good a job as he would have got even if stayed at UM and fell flat on his face as far as his running goes. It's at least arguable that he made the correct decision from a financial standpoint. Regards, Martin Martin J. Dixon, B. Math. (Hons), C.A., Partner Millard, Rouse Rosebrugh LLP Chartered Accountants P.O. Box 367 96 Nelson Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5N3 Direct Dial: (519) 759-3708 Ext. 231 Telephone: (519) 759-3511 Private Facsimile: (519) 759-8548 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: www.millards.com Practice Areas: www.millards.com/htm/profs/m_mjdixo.htm IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email may be confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. Michael Contopoulos wrote: Does anyone know how much his agent gets? The people who he has handling his finances? etc? After taxes and paying these fees, he won't have as much money as it seems. Not to say its a bad deal. Its a great one. But Mr. Webb, based on his salary, isn't going to be as wealthy as people think. From: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:15:01 -0400 http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020718-16634094.htm malmo wrote: Nope. malmo thinks the amount should cover the risk he takes if/when the slimy John Waters types (agents/shoe geeks) turn their backs on him if/when he becomes just another runner. malmo thinks that amount is all fantasy in the minds of some track fans. malmo malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Regular young guy here... I'm 24. I'm someone offered me $100,000 a year, much less $250,000, JUST TO RUN I'm hump that piggie for all it's worth. Who gives a flying fat ass about college running. He won't earn 6 figures in college running. He can still carry on his education while making fat bank and getting his royal ass kicked in Europe while Nike shells out 6 figures. Talk half, invest it, hope you don't completely bomb so Nike will renew the contract. It doesn't matter how fast Webb runs. As long as he's getting exposure and putting his face and personality out there Nike will be happy. Bonus if he runs fast. There have been lots of personalities in the US track and field world who have earned more Nike-like money and exposure while not being the fastest or most consistant in their event. I won't name names. Alan From: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:15:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [128.223.142.13] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBF00534C00944004324F80DF8E0DC9C10; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:27:00 -0700 Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6IIF9ak022773for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost)by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g6IIF9X4022771for t-and-f-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mrr2.millards.com (millards.com [207.61.19.2])by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6IIF7ak022686for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from millards.com (mjdixon.millards.com [192.168.1.44])by mrr2.millards.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g6IHvXO25474for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:57:33 -0400 From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:27:43 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020718-16634094.htm malmo wrote: Nope. malmo thinks the amount should cover the risk he takes if/when the slimy John Waters types (agents/shoe geeks) turn their backs on him if/when he becomes just another runner. malmo thinks that amount is all fantasy in the minds of some track fans. malmo malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case. _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
But, I believe Kobe played under 15 minutes per game his first year with the Lakers. We'll never know, but would he have been better prepared for the NBA if he had played two years of college like some other kid named Mike? Also, Tiger was one of the best in the world, and he and Kobe got multi million dollar contracts. Webb's best time ranked him as the 78th??? 1500m guy. He'll probably reach that sub-3:30 in the next few years. But why take the sink-or-swim approach when a university with a coach with proven credentials was willing to pay for his training and travel to competition, and also pick up the tab for his education? I think one more year of college running would have done wonders for his development - above as well as below his shoulders. Two years of college seemed to work well for Carl Lewis. Fred Finke wrote: Just curious, But does the name Kobe Bryant come to anyone's mind? (He did it straight out of HS! He did the same thing (yeah, what a stupid move. ;) JMHO, But Scott Radzko got Webb to 3:53. Who is to say Webb will not get better? Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, I consider Webb an exception and would not recommend it to any other athletes. *** Fred Finke, LDR Men's Coach Selection Coordinator --- O Men's Team Leader, World Cross, Morocco, 1998 -- ^_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- \/\ Visit me at: www.Coachnet.net *** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb going pro first of all, going pro is probably misleading- I doubt Webb is doing it for the money he could realistically expect in the next year or two. Second, Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride? Sure there's a difference- Woods had already won everything in sight. But if he'd stayed at Stanford we'd probably have been deprived of that 'rookie year' 13-stroke win at the Masters (or thereabouts). Hindsight is always perfect- he had no way of being certain he'd be hugely successful when he made the decision to break with the NCAA scene- there was a risk involved. If he'd been unsuccessful the naysayers would be harping about what a bad idea it is to leave college. You want a better example directly from our own sport-in fact a middle-distance racing example? Who fared better- Johnny Gray getting out of NCAA competition at the start, or Michael Granville slugging it out over four years and getting nowhere? Sure there are examples of success and failure both ways- but the Gray / Granville comparison is pretty startling. We'll never know if Gray would have got down to 1:42 and a very long successful career if he'd stayed in college, but it is clear that NOT going to college certainly didn't seem to hurt his progress! So let's give Webb a break, and see if he can follow the Johnny Gray model and become a medal contender at any competition in the world. I look forward to observing from the stands (and the satellite TV dish). RT
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Is someone privy to his deals? Let's say he was paid the same as Kobe and Tiger then what say you? Some people seem to be strictly looking at the dollars. Take it off the table because we don't know. He thinks he has a good coach who won't screw it up like some people think is going to happen. He is going to get an education. Presumably he is getting paid a bunch of money. Lots of people have developed very well thank very much and have never even heard of your precious NCAA. This is not complicated. It's back to a coaching argument. Let's say he isn't as well off financially long-term, perhaps he should be given credit for looking at other things other than the dollars. Most of this list is American and you would still all be pledging allegiance to the queen if a few people didn't think outside of the box a couple of hundred years ago. Not to mention Neil Armstrong etc. etc. The comments Mike P has made are offensive to GMU. I have no idea if he has made the right move and it will be an impossible thing to evaluate down the road in any event. Regards, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not at all a proper comparison. Tiger and Webb. We are talking whole lot more dollars In a message dated 6/20/2002 8:36:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride?
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
The major difference between Webb, Woods, and Bryant is that Woods was guaranteed millions in sponsorships the day he quit college whether he panned out or not. Same for Kobe, plus several million in signing bonuses from the Lakers. I'll take a guess and say that Webb's sponsorship is well below $1 million per year. If Tiger Kobe didn't pan out, they had enough to live on for life if they were halfway intelligent with the money. If Webb doesn't show significant improvement in the next year or two, it's over. He can't live off of his high school career forever and no sponsor is going to throw the same amount of money his way for it. --- Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is someone privy to his deals? Let's say he was paid the same as Kobe and Tiger then what say you? Some people seem to be strictly looking at the dollars. Take it off the table because we don't know. He thinks he has a good coach who won't screw it up like some people think is going to happen. He is going to get an education. Presumably he is getting paid a bunch of money. Lots of people have developed very well thank very much and have never even heard of your precious NCAA. This is not complicated. It's back to a coaching argument. Let's say he isn't as well off financially long-term, perhaps he should be given credit for looking at other things other than the dollars. Most of this list is American and you would still all be pledging allegiance to the queen if a few people didn't think outside of the box a couple of hundred years ago. Not to mention Neil Armstrong etc. etc. The comments Mike P has made are offensive to GMU. I have no idea if he has made the right move and it will be an impossible thing to evaluate down the road in any event. Regards, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not at all a proper comparison. Tiger and Webb. We are talking whole lot more dollars In a message dated 6/20/2002 8:36:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride? __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Webb ain't Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant was one of 400 b-ball players earning 3 million a year. Webb won't be buying his momma a house with his 5 million dollar signing bonus. College isn't for everyone. Who on this list would really trade away the Harvard of the West for the Salisbury State of the West? malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Fred Finke Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Webb going pro Just curious, But does the name Kobe Bryant come to anyone's mind? (He did it straight out of HS! He did the same thing (yeah, what a stupid move. ;) JMHO, But Scott Radzko got Webb to 3:53. Who is to say Webb will not get better? Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, I consider Webb an exception and would not recommend it to any other athletes. *** Fred Finke, LDR Men's Coach Selection Coordinator --- O Men's Team Leader, World Cross, Morocco, 1998 -- ^_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- \/\ Visit me at: www.Coachnet.net *** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb going pro first of all, going pro is probably misleading- I doubt Webb is doing it for the money he could realistically expect in the next year or two. Second, Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride? Sure there's a difference- Woods had already won everything in sight. But if he'd stayed at Stanford we'd probably have been deprived of that 'rookie year' 13-stroke win at the Masters (or thereabouts). Hindsight is always perfect- he had no way of being certain he'd be hugely successful when he made the decision to break with the NCAA scene- there was a risk involved. If he'd been unsuccessful the naysayers would be harping about what a bad idea it is to leave college. You want a better example directly from our own sport-in fact a middle-distance racing example? Who fared better- Johnny Gray getting out of NCAA competition at the start, or Michael Granville slugging it out over four years and getting nowhere? Sure there are examples of success and failure both ways- but the Gray / Granville comparison is pretty startling. We'll never know if Gray would have got down to 1:42 and a very long successful career if he'd stayed in college, but it is clear that NOT going to college certainly didn't seem to hurt his progress! So let's give Webb a break, and see if he can follow the Johnny Gray model and become a medal contender at any competition in the world. I look forward to observing from the stands (and the satellite TV dish). RT
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Not running for the NCAA didn't hurt Wilson Kipketer, Hicham El-Gueruej, Haile Gebrelessie or Khalid Kahnnouchi. From: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 05:34:30 -0400 Is someone privy to his deals? Let's say he was paid the same as Kobe and Tiger then what say you? Some people seem to be strictly looking at the dollars. Take it off the table because we don't know. He thinks he has a good coach who won't screw it up like some people think is going to happen. He is going to get an education. Presumably he is getting paid a bunch of money. Lots of people have developed very well thank very much and have never even heard of your precious NCAA. This is not complicated. It's back to a coaching argument. Let's say he isn't as well off financially long-term, perhaps he should be given credit for looking at other things other than the dollars. Most of this list is American and you would still all be pledging allegiance to the queen if a few people didn't think outside of the box a couple of hundred years ago. Not to mention Neil Armstrong etc. etc. The comments Mike P has made are offensive to GMU. I have no idea if he has made the right move and it will be an impossible thing to evaluate down the road in any event. Regards, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not at all a proper comparison. Tiger and Webb. We are talking whole lot more dollars In a message dated 6/20/2002 8:36:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Martin D. - Please explain to me (Mike P) how - in your opinion, and I presume not in any official capacity with GMU - was my comment offensive to GMU? My previous post: But, I believe Kobe played under 15 minutes per game his first year with the Lakers. We'll never know, but would he have been better prepared for the NBA if he had played two years of college like some other kid named Mike? Also, Tiger was one of the best in the world, and he and Kobe got multi million dollar contracts. Webb's best time ranked him as the 78th??? 1500m guy. He'll probably reach that sub-3:30 in the next few years. But why take the sink-or-swim approach when a university with a coach with proven credentials was willing to pay for his training and travel to competition, and also pick up the tab for his education? I think one more year of college running would have done wonders for his development - above as well as below his shoulders. Two years of college seemed to work well for Carl Lewis. Martin J. Dixon wrote: Is someone privy to his deals? Let's say he was paid the same as Kobe and Tiger then what say you? Some people seem to be strictly looking at the dollars. Take it off the table because we don't know. He thinks he has a good coach who won't screw it up like some people think is going to happen. He is going to get an education. Presumably he is getting paid a bunch of money. Lots of people have developed very well thank very much and have never even heard of your precious NCAA. This is not complicated. It's back to a coaching argument. Let's say he isn't as well off financially long-term, perhaps he should be given credit for looking at other things other than the dollars. Most of this list is American and you would still all be pledging allegiance to the queen if a few people didn't think outside of the box a couple of hundred years ago. Not to mention Neil Armstrong etc. etc. The comments Mike P has made are offensive to GMU. I have no idea if he has made the right move and it will be an impossible thing to evaluate down the road in any event. Regards, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not at all a proper comparison. Tiger and Webb. We are talking whole lot more dollars In a message dated 6/20/2002 8:36:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride?
RE: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Hi. Fred Finke Here. Actually I was not talking about money as everyone appears to be thinking. I was strictly referring to the fact that, although I would never recommend it to any HS athlete in any sport, we do not know the specifics of the entire move. Maybe, just maybe, he is doing what he and his parents think is best. Maybe he is really doing the best thing: Striking while the iron is hot. Suppose (and if Webb took anything less, I would be surprised and disappointed) he gets: a. -1 million dollar signing bonus (I would guess that is conservative (that's 50K a year for life invested)) b. -Guaranteed 4 year school scholarship of his choice (NO College guarantees that, and I would bet ANYTHING that was part of the deal) c. -Coaching that includes the guy that got him 3:53 (and you can be sure that he will have access to other coaches as necessary) d. -One of the best (if not THE best) manager in the game as his agent (that can use the leverage of his other athletes to get Webb into races). e. -The ability to pick and schedule ALL of his races (which I doubt would just include 1500/mile races) around the worlds schedule instead of just the collegiate schedule. f. -Be surrounded by the support group that has worked so far (His HS Coach, parents, girlfriend(?), etc) g. -Be in a training group of HIS choice. h. -Still race all the NCAA (XC, Indoors, Outdoors) races he wants (on his schedule, as an open athlete) except for the NCAA championships. (What meet would not want him in their race as a draw?) What could ANY college program do to top that set-up? And last but not least, I find it interesting (at least it appears to me) that the common perception is that the progression of coaching excellence is as follows:, club youth coaches, HS coaches, college coaches, elite coaches, each having better coaches than the one before it. I still remember Radzko (His HS coach, sp?) getting hammered during Webb's' junior year when he had Webb pass on a race or two (I think it was national scholastic) and then having Webb in some relays instead of open events (Penn relays?). As we all know, there are rotten apples at ALL levels and there is excellence at ALL levels. We may not want to sell Radzko short. In the final analysis, it comes down (IMHO) to what the athlete feels is best for his success and his future. Obviously, he would have gotten good coaching and racing experiences at Michigan, but who is to say that he did not get an even BETTER situation? Fred PS-On the other hand, how about the experts that were screaming Ritzenheim that was overraced in HS. Seems to me he is doing pretty well. (BTW, how many of you experts knew that Ritz negative split almost EVERY 2K lap of the 12K at the world XC Championships?) *** Fred Finke, LDR Men's Coach Selection Coordinator --- O Men's Team Leader, World Cross, Morocco, 1998 -- ^_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- \/\ Visit me at: www.Coachnet.net *** -Original Message- From: Mike Prizy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:51 AM To: Fred Finke Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro But, I believe Kobe played under 15 minutes per game his first year with the Lakers. We'll never know, but would he have been better prepared for the NBA if he had played two years of college like some other kid named Mike? Also, Tiger was one of the best in the world, and he and Kobe got multi million dollar contracts. Webb's best time ranked him as the 78th??? 1500m guy. He'll probably reach that sub-3:30 in the next few years. But why take the sink-or-swim approach when a university with a coach with proven credentials was willing to pay for his training and travel to competition, and also pick up the tab for his education? I think one more year of college running would have done wonders for his development - above as well as below his shoulders. Two years of college seemed to work well for Carl Lewis. Fred Finke wrote: Just curious, But does the name Kobe Bryant come to anyone's mind? (He did it straight out of HS! He did the same thing (yeah, what a stupid move. ;) JMHO, But Scott Radzko got Webb to 3:53. Who is to say Webb will not get better? Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, I consider Webb an exception and would not recommend it to any other athletes. *** Fred Finke, LDR Men's Coach Selection Coordinator --- O Men's Team Leader, World Cross, Morocco, 1998 -- ^_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- \/\ Visit me at: www.Coachnet.net *** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Because you were implying that GMU would not be able to do as good a job above the shoulders. Maybe that is true. Is there any empirical evidence in whatever field he was in at UM and whatever he is in at GMU? Somebody must have the answer to that question given how many conclusions are being drawn about his deal(s) from various and sundry armchairs. Martin D Mike Prizy wrote: Martin D. - Please explain to me (Mike P) how - in your opinion, and I presume not in any official capacity with GMU - was my comment offensive to GMU? My previous post: But, I believe Kobe played under 15 minutes per game his first year with the Lakers. We'll never know, but would he have been better prepared for the NBA if he had played two years of college like some other kid named Mike? Also, Tiger was one of the best in the world, and he and Kobe got multi million dollar contracts. Webb's best time ranked him as the 78th??? 1500m guy. He'll probably reach that sub-3:30 in the next few years. But why take the sink-or-swim approach when a university with a coach with proven credentials was willing to pay for his training and travel to competition, and also pick up the tab for his education? I think one more year of college running would have done wonders for his development - above as well as below his shoulders. Two years of college seemed to work well for Carl Lewis. Martin J. Dixon wrote: Is someone privy to his deals? Let's say he was paid the same as Kobe and Tiger then what say you? Some people seem to be strictly looking at the dollars. Take it off the table because we don't know. He thinks he has a good coach who won't screw it up like some people think is going to happen. He is going to get an education. Presumably he is getting paid a bunch of money. Lots of people have developed very well thank very much and have never even heard of your precious NCAA. This is not complicated. It's back to a coaching argument. Let's say he isn't as well off financially long-term, perhaps he should be given credit for looking at other things other than the dollars. Most of this list is American and you would still all be pledging allegiance to the queen if a few people didn't think outside of the box a couple of hundred years ago. Not to mention Neil Armstrong etc. etc. The comments Mike P has made are offensive to GMU. I have no idea if he has made the right move and it will be an impossible thing to evaluate down the road in any event. Regards, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not at all a proper comparison. Tiger and Webb. We are talking whole lot more dollars In a message dated 6/20/2002 8:36:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride?
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Yep!!! that's a fair projection in the running market. It's just a totally different market in comparison to b-ball or other huge revenue sports. In a message dated 6/21/2002 4:27:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If Webb doesn't show significant improvement in the next year or two, it's over. He can't live off of his high school career forever and no sponsor is going to throw the same amount of money his way for it.
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
I said - one more year of college running would have done wonders for his development - above as well as below his shoulders - no where did I slam any educational institution! I was not implying anything about GMU. If he can get one more year of college running at GMU, fine. I think one more year of the college running experience will help him more with his long-term running development and would provide for a smoother transition to the next level. (((If I was going to slam a university, I would have slammed Michigan. I live in Illinois - home of two Big 10+1 schools.))) Martin J. Dixon wrote: Because you were implying that GMU would not be able to do as good a job above the shoulders. Maybe that is true. Is there any empirical evidence in whatever field he was in at UM and whatever he is in at GMU? Somebody must have the answer to that question given how many conclusions are being drawn about his deal(s) from various and sundry armchairs. Martin D Mike Prizy wrote: Martin D. - Please explain to me (Mike P) how - in your opinion, and I presume not in any official capacity with GMU - was my comment offensive to GMU? My previous post: But, I believe Kobe played under 15 minutes per game his first year with the Lakers. We'll never know, but would he have been better prepared for the NBA if he had played two years of college like some other kid named Mike? Also, Tiger was one of the best in the world, and he and Kobe got multi million dollar contracts. Webb's best time ranked him as the 78th??? 1500m guy. He'll probably reach that sub-3:30 in the next few years. But why take the sink-or-swim approach when a university with a coach with proven credentials was willing to pay for his training and travel to competition, and also pick up the tab for his education? I think one more year of college running would have done wonders for his development - above as well as below his shoulders. Two years of college seemed to work well for Carl Lewis. Martin J. Dixon wrote: Is someone privy to his deals? Let's say he was paid the same as Kobe and Tiger then what say you? Some people seem to be strictly looking at the dollars. Take it off the table because we don't know. He thinks he has a good coach who won't screw it up like some people think is going to happen. He is going to get an education. Presumably he is getting paid a bunch of money. Lots of people have developed very well thank very much and have never even heard of your precious NCAA. This is not complicated. It's back to a coaching argument. Let's say he isn't as well off financially long-term, perhaps he should be given credit for looking at other things other than the dollars. Most of this list is American and you would still all be pledging allegiance to the queen if a few people didn't think outside of the box a couple of hundred years ago. Not to mention Neil Armstrong etc. etc. The comments Mike P has made are offensive to GMU. I have no idea if he has made the right move and it will be an impossible thing to evaluate down the road in any event. Regards, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not at all a proper comparison. Tiger and Webb. We are talking whole lot more dollars In a message dated 6/20/2002 8:36:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride?
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
I worry about Webb going pro now not over any questions of money nor even educational opportunity - he's an adult now and can judge those things for himself. My concern is that he not harm his development by rushing to jump to a higher level of the sport when he has not yet mastered his current level. Things worked out great for Tiger, but he was already beating the crap out of all the college boys. If Tiger had been getting cuffed around at the college level the way Webb has, I would have thought his going pro after one year would have been a mistake too. If the problem is that Webb was unhappy with Michigan or his college coach, I would have advised him to transfer to another school for a year and perhaps then, depending on whether he was winning at the college level, think about the pros. In any case it's too late now. I wish him great success. Kurt Bray _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
I agree with you. And, I hope his decision takes him right to his goals. It is great that we are able to have this debate at all in the U.S. There are a lot of great young U.S. distance runners coming up. I think this issue will be revisited a few times over the next several years. I hope good notes are being taken. Kurt Bray wrote: I worry about Webb going pro now not over any questions of money nor even educational opportunity - he's an adult now and can judge those things for himself. My concern is that he not harm his development by rushing to jump to a higher level of the sport when he has not yet mastered his current level. Things worked out great for Tiger, but he was already beating the crap out of all the college boys. If Tiger had been getting cuffed around at the college level the way Webb has, I would have thought his going pro after one year would have been a mistake too. If the problem is that Webb was unhappy with Michigan or his college coach, I would have advised him to transfer to another school for a year and perhaps then, depending on whether he was winning at the college level, think about the pros. In any case it's too late now. I wish him great success. Kurt Bray _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
I think Webb would have been better off to stay in college, but people are blowing this decision way out of proportion. As far as I have heard he is still going to be getting an education and he will likely be running in some of the same meets he would have at Michigan. It really boils down to a coaching decision, which I believe Webb should be allowed to choose for himself (It is his career). A lot of the posts are right to point out the notable diffrences between Webb and Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant. However, I think it is safe to assume Webb is being paid enough to pay his bills. If he doesn't develop in the next couple of years, he is likely going to be in the almost the same place he would have been if he didn't develop at Michigan. More than likely fairly debt free with a college degree and 40+ years in the working world ahead of him. Even if he doesn't graduate from college in a timely manner he could go back in a few years if running doesn't pan out. It's not ! like he's going to end up homeless on the street if he doesn't develop into a great miler. Matthew
RE: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Suppose (and if Webb took anything less, I would be surprised and disappointed) he gets: a. -1 million dollar signing bonus (I would guess that is conservative (that's 50K a year for life invested)) Let's be realistic here instead of throwing all kinds of numbers around. First off, what company in their right mind would be willing to give an unproven 19 year-old track athlete a million dollar signing bonus? A shoe company? It just doesn't make sense. I would guess that the main target audience for purchasing running shoes (and apparel) are recreational runners and people looking for a comfortable walking shoe. These are the people driving the industry. Look at any issue of Runner's World, Running Times or even TFN and odds are you'll see plenty of shoe ads. How many ads have an elite athlete in it? Zero? One, maybe? Track stars just don't drive product sales to the running/walking masses. I know it's comparing apples to oranges but less and less NBA stars have huge shoe contracts. If I recall, Reebok dropped Shaq a few years ago. Here's a guy who gets more national (and even international) TV exposure in one game than Alan Webb will probably get in his lifetime, and it still doesn't help sell shoes! Another example being thrown out is Tiger Woods. Companies pay him big bucks because he helps them sell product. Golfers are willing to shell out $400 for a Nike driver or $40 for a box of golf balls just because Tiger uses the same equipment. Plus he gets his sponsors a ton of high-level media exposure on a regular basis. An elite track and field athlete doesn't have the same pull nor the access to prime media outlets to garner mass exposure for sponsors. Unless it's an Olympic year. That's a reality. If Alan Webb gets a 7 figure signing bonus or even a $100,000 a year deal then good for him. I just find it hard to fathom (from a business perspective) why any company would be willing to shell out that kind of money for him at this time. John __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
And the people talking about money are arguing against themselves in any event. Old story: Man to beautiful woman in bar: Will you sleep with me for a million dollars? Beautiful woman: Of course. Man: Will you sleep with me for a dollar? Beautiful woman: Of course not. What do you think I am-some kind of whore? Man: We've already established that. We're now just negotiating price. Those talking about money don't seem to have a problem with Ray's pimping, they are just questioning whether or not he has done a good enough job. malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case. Shawn's cut-off seems to be 1,000,000. It's likely less than that. I'll concede it should be greater than 1.00. So the number that should make people happy is somewhere between 1 dollar and 1,000,000. What is that number and do we know for sure that he is not getting it? As far as John Sun's comments are concerned, since when can business people be counted on to pay what the appropriate market is? Do a search and include dot-com and bubble in your search parameters. Draw your own conclusions. We don't know what he is getting. We can't guess. It might be enough. Show me the money. Fred Finke wrote: Hi. Fred Finke Here. Actually I was not talking about money as everyone appears to be thinking. I was strictly referring to the fact that, although I would never recommend it to any HS athlete in any sport, we do not know the specifics of the entire move. Maybe, just maybe, he is doing what he and his parents think is best. Maybe he is really doing the best thing: Striking while the iron is hot. Suppose (and if Webb took anything less, I would be surprised and disappointed) he gets: a. -1 million dollar signing bonus (I would guess that is conservative (that's 50K a year for life invested)) b. -Guaranteed 4 year school scholarship of his choice (NO College guarantees that, and I would bet ANYTHING that was part of the deal) c. -Coaching that includes the guy that got him 3:53 (and you can be sure that he will have access to other coaches as necessary) d. -One of the best (if not THE best) manager in the game as his agent (that can use the leverage of his other athletes to get Webb into races). e. -The ability to pick and schedule ALL of his races (which I doubt would just include 1500/mile races) around the worlds schedule instead of just the collegiate schedule. f. -Be surrounded by the support group that has worked so far (His HS Coach, parents, girlfriend(?), etc) g. -Be in a training group of HIS choice. h. -Still race all the NCAA (XC, Indoors, Outdoors) races he wants (on his schedule, as an open athlete) except for the NCAA championships. (What meet would not want him in their race as a draw?) What could ANY college program do to top that set-up? And last but not least, I find it interesting (at least it appears to me) that the common perception is that the progression of coaching excellence is as follows:, club youth coaches, HS coaches, college coaches, elite coaches, each having better coaches than the one before it. I still remember Radzko (His HS coach, sp?) getting hammered during Webb's' junior year when he had Webb pass on a race or two (I think it was national scholastic) and then having Webb in some relays instead of open events (Penn relays?). As we all know, there are rotten apples at ALL levels and there is excellence at ALL levels. We may not want to sell Radzko short. In the final analysis, it comes down (IMHO) to what the athlete feels is best for his success and his future. Obviously, he would have gotten good coaching and racing experiences at Michigan, but who is to say that he did not get an even BETTER situation? Fred PS-On the other hand, how about the experts that were screaming Ritzenheim that was overraced in HS. Seems to me he is doing pretty well. (BTW, how many of you experts knew that Ritz negative split almost EVERY 2K lap of the 12K at the world XC Championships?) *** Fred Finke, LDR Men's Coach Selection Coordinator --- O Men's Team Leader, World Cross, Morocco, 1998 -- ^_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- \/\ Visit me at: www.Coachnet.net *** -Original Message- From: Mike Prizy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:51 AM To: Fred Finke Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro But, I believe Kobe played under 15 minutes per game his first year with the Lakers. We'll never know, but would he have been better prepared for the NBA if he had played two years of college like some other kid named Mike? Also, Tiger was one of the best in the world, and he and Kobe got multi million dollar contracts
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Although Webb's on a slightly higher level: Can you say Liz Mueller? Foot Locker champ went to several colleges, kept leaving because she didn't like the coaches, wound up someplace where the coach allowed her to pick her own races and set her own training schedule. She is now a boxer, fighting professionally, and has several elaborate tatoos. Maybe we'll see Webb in Athens, not as a miler, but as a bantamweight. Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Nope. malmo thinks the amount should cover the risk he takes if/when the slimy John Waters types (agents/shoe geeks) turn their backs on him if/when he becomes just another runner. malmo thinks that amount is all fantasy in the minds of some track fans. malmo malmo seems to think that if he is making enough to buy his Mom a 5 million dollar house then that is enough. I think we can safely say that is not the case.
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
It could happen. Dave Sandridge former Van Cortlandt Park XC HS recorder holder once whupped Golden Gloves Champion (and future boxing legend) Sugar Ray Leonard's a$$ in a lockerroom brawl. Like Webb, college (Villanova) wasn't for Sandridge either. malmo Although Webb's on a slightly higher level: Can you say Liz Mueller? Foot Locker champ went to several colleges, kept leaving because she didn't like the coaches, wound up someplace where the coach allowed her to pick her own races and set her own training schedule. She is now a boxer, fighting professionally, and has several elaborate tatoos. Maybe we'll see Webb in Athens, not as a miler, but as a bantamweight. Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
As far as John Sun's comments are concerned, since when can business people be counted on to pay what the appropriate market is? Do a search and include dot-com and bubble in your search parameters. Draw your own conclusions. Business people will only pay what the market demands. Simple economics. Sure, in hindsight a lot of people were wildly overpaid during the dot-com bubble. But if you were trying to hire employees during that time, you had to pay through the nose for people, even if they were less qualified then you wanted. It was a sellers market. Professional team sports offer a great example. These are billion dollar businesses, and the owners pay what the market will bear. If it's 10 years at $252 mill for ARod or 5 years at $90 mill for Barry Bonds, it all depends on current market conditions and demand. In the case of AWebb, there is already a pretty good precedent on what the appropiate demand and market value is for track and field stars in the US. And it's not much. Face it, track field in its current state is not a big-money sport and probably will never be. Most people could care less about it in non-Olympic years. And those that do care, like the folks on this list, aren't spending enough to make a difference. Just my thoughts on the matter. John __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
t-and-f: Webb going pro
first of all, going pro is probably misleading- I doubt Webb is doing it for the money he could realistically expect in the next year or two. Second, Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride? Sure there's a difference- Woods had already won everything in sight. But if he'd stayed at Stanford we'd probably have been deprived of that 'rookie year' 13-stroke win at the Masters (or thereabouts). Hindsight is always perfect- he had no way of being certain he'd be hugely successful when he made the decision to break with the NCAA scene- there was a risk involved. If he'd been unsuccessful the naysayers would be harping about what a bad idea it is to leave college. You want a better example directly from our own sport-in fact a middle-distance racing example? Who fared better- Johnny Gray getting out of NCAA competition at the start, or Michael Granville slugging it out over four years and getting nowhere? Sure there are examples of success and failure both ways- but the Gray / Granville comparison is pretty startling. We'll never know if Gray would have got down to 1:42 and a very long successful career if he'd stayed in college, but it is clear that NOT going to college certainly didn't seem to hurt his progress! So let's give Webb a break, and see if he can follow the Johnny Gray model and become a medal contender at any competition in the world. I look forward to observing from the stands (and the satellite TV dish). RT
Re: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Not at all a proper comparison. Tiger and Webb. We are talking whole lot more dollars In a message dated 6/20/2002 8:36:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride?
RE: t-and-f: Webb going pro
Just curious, But does the name Kobe Bryant come to anyone's mind? (He did it straight out of HS! He did the same thing (yeah, what a stupid move. ;) JMHO, But Scott Radzko got Webb to 3:53. Who is to say Webb will not get better? Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, I consider Webb an exception and would not recommend it to any other athletes. *** Fred Finke, LDR Men's Coach Selection Coordinator --- O Men's Team Leader, World Cross, Morocco, 1998 -- ^_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- \/\ Visit me at: www.Coachnet.net *** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb going pro first of all, going pro is probably misleading- I doubt Webb is doing it for the money he could realistically expect in the next year or two. Second, Would anybody have said to Tiger Woods that he needed to stay at Stanford through a full four-year ride? Sure there's a difference- Woods had already won everything in sight. But if he'd stayed at Stanford we'd probably have been deprived of that 'rookie year' 13-stroke win at the Masters (or thereabouts). Hindsight is always perfect- he had no way of being certain he'd be hugely successful when he made the decision to break with the NCAA scene- there was a risk involved. If he'd been unsuccessful the naysayers would be harping about what a bad idea it is to leave college. You want a better example directly from our own sport-in fact a middle-distance racing example? Who fared better- Johnny Gray getting out of NCAA competition at the start, or Michael Granville slugging it out over four years and getting nowhere? Sure there are examples of success and failure both ways- but the Gray / Granville comparison is pretty startling. We'll never know if Gray would have got down to 1:42 and a very long successful career if he'd stayed in college, but it is clear that NOT going to college certainly didn't seem to hurt his progress! So let's give Webb a break, and see if he can follow the Johnny Gray model and become a medal contender at any competition in the world. I look forward to observing from the stands (and the satellite TV dish). RT
t-and-f: Webb goes pro; out of juniors
Alan Webb has signed with Ray Flynn's Sports Management agency (terms undisclosed). He's leaving Michigan and returning to Virginia. Will train with HS coach Scott Razcko and enroll at George Mason U. Won't run junior nationals this weekend. Details and quotes from Webb at www.runnersworld.com today.
Re: t-and-f: Webb goes pro; out of juniors
Ray Flynn is a list lurker. What say ye Ray? If it all blows up in the kids face, when you are no longer pimpin him, will the deal have been good enough to trade away the best four years of his life? Or is it just business? malmo Alan Webb has signed with Ray Flynn's Sports Management agency (terms undisclosed).
Re: t-and-f: Webb goes pro; out of juniors
I'm sure Ray Flynn did not recruit Webb to his group by encouraging him to leave school. But if Webb wants to leave a school and sign with an agent, why should Flynn turn him down? sideshow
Re: t-and-f: Webb goes pro; out of juniors
Hate to ask the obvious, but not being hip to distance running... Webb is extremely good for an american 19 year old, but is he actually good enough to be invited to meets that would allow him to earn money from running outside of the shoe contract? I can't see the title of HS mile recordholder exciting european meet promoters that much. If he can't get into quality euro meets that pay, where's he going to run outside of Prefontaine and Oregon track classic? Unattached at college meets? s.devereaux --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure Ray Flynn did not recruit Webb to his group by encouraging him to leave school. But if Webb wants to leave a school and sign with an agent, why should Flynn turn him down? sideshow __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
t-and-f: Webb qualifies... barely
Rather than head out to Calif for the Stanford Qualifier, Alan Webb decided to run in the Len Paddock Invitational at Ann Arbor this past weekend. Ran second in the 1500 in 3:41.46 (to Tim Broe, 3:40.67), so he just squeaked under the NCAA champs Auto qualifier of 3:41.50. And if he decides to compete in USATF he beat the A standard of 3:41.60 as well.
Re: t-and-f: Webb qualifies... barely
USA Champs not a problem. He clobbered the standard last in 2001 and it counts as a qualifier. They take 3:59.10 for the mile. In a message dated 5/13/2002 10:32:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: an second in the 1500 in 3:41.46 (to Tim Broe, 3:40.67), so he just squeaked under the NCAA champs Auto qualifier of 3:41.50. And if he decides to compete in USATF he beat the A standard of 3:41.60 as well.
Re: t-and-f: Webb qualifies... barely
In a message dated Mon, 13 May 2002 1:31:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ran second in the 1500 in 3:41.46 (to Tim Broe, 3:40.67), so he just squeaked under the NCAA champs Auto qualifier of 3:41.50. And if he decides to compete in USATF he beat the A standard of 3:41.60 as well. i *think* he has stated rather definitively that he's going to run the Juniors, not the Seniors. gh
Re: t-and-f: Webb takes ninth at Mt SAC 1500
Webb didn't look good from the gun. When he took the lead it appeared as though he did so out of desparation more than anything else. He tried to come on with 300 to go, was slightly bumped with about 200 to go, but at that point there was no way he was finishing much higher than he did. Blincoe had the race in hand from the beginning and looked very smooth out there. The real tragedy is Ritz getting knocked down without the starter seeing it. He must have lost 5-10 seconds on the ground and who knows how much energy as he tried to catch the field. I have no doubt he would have given kimani a run for his money. Tom McArdle... wow. Cruises through in 14:04 and stays strong through the finish in something like 28:18. The kid keeps getting better and better. Amazing. What a fun weekend! Great meet Scott. Mike From: Tony Banovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tony Banovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: track and field list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb takes ninth at Mt SAC 1500 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:09:53 -0600 Partly because of a Montana boy named Scott McGowan. Go Griz! Tony Banovich Billings, Montana At 10:21 PM 4/20/2002 -0700, you wrote: Y ask: Anyone know how Webb got shunted back to ninth at Mt SAC Relays? Results just posted here: http://vm.mtsac.edu/relays/2002/results/B82E.gif Ken Stone _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb takes ninth at Mt SAC 1500
A quick sum-up: he started out pretty far back in the pack in the first 100m. 2nd or 3rd to last. By 500 into the race he was pushing towards the front, top 1/3 of pack. He took the lead about 700 into the race and pushed the pace slightly. I don't remember the split for 800... maybe 2:01 (anyone with more accurate numbers please help.) Dont remember details until about 300 to go. I remember Webb not being in the lead, but pushing hard to get there around the last turn in lane 2. He was fourth or so. He was straining but the body wasn't responding. He tied up in the last 70 to 100. I think 3 stanford guys got him. I know Sage and Reiley did, and maybe Robison as well as a couple of others. Wasn't a bad race, just went out a little slow and I just don't think he had his best day. After the race... he seemed to be a little pissed. It was a fun race to watch though... hell the whole meet was fun. Personally I am more of a 1500 fan, but the 5K was the event that made that meet. Good stuff all around. -D
Re: t-and-f: Webb takes ninth at Mt SAC 1500
Partly because of a Montana boy named Scott McGowan. Go Griz! Tony Banovich Billings, Montana At 10:21 PM 4/20/2002 -0700, you wrote: Y ask: Anyone know how Webb got shunted back to ninth at Mt SAC Relays? Results just posted here: http://vm.mtsac.edu/relays/2002/results/B82E.gif Ken Stone
t-and-f: Webb takes ninth at Mt SAC 1500
Y ask: Anyone know how Webb got shunted back to ninth at Mt SAC Relays? Results just posted here: http://vm.mtsac.edu/relays/2002/results/B82E.gif Ken Stone
t-and-f: Webb focusing on Wolrd Jrs... past winners???
So Alan Webb said he will forego US Senior Nationals this year to concentrate on World Juniors. I was wondering if anyone had a list of lets say the last 10-15 years of Junior Champs in the 1500 and 5k. I would be interested in seeing how many WJ winners in these events became World (Senior) Champs. If I recall, Ngeny, Gebreselassie, El G were all world junior champions... of course, so was the great Julius Achon... Mike _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
t-and-f: Webb at Mt. SAC
To answer all of the mail I am getting, let me just say that Alan Webb will run on Sat night at SAC in a very hot college race. I will detail it later; no time right now. His coach asked specifically for this race which, of course, I was happy to accommodate. It should be quite good. Most of the Michigan squad is coming, as they normally do. Please, no more e-mailsI can't answer them all right now. Thanks for your understanding. Scott
t-and-f: Webb puts the pressure on
Some thoughts from AW in his interview in the latest issue of TFN: TFN: Any thoughts looking back at your record-setting high school season before you begin your first collegiate track season? Webb: Uh, I guess I?d like to see another U.S. high school miler break 4:00 this year. I think it can be done. Not to put pressure on these guys? well, actually I?d like to put some pressure on these guys. I?m dead serious. People say, ?Don?t put pressure on,? blah, blah, blah. Screw that; put pressure on ?em. I want to see Bobby Lockhart and Bobby Curtis duke it out. Those guys need to rock and roll; they need to keep it going. gh
t-and-f: Webb/Sully on the road next year?
From Paul Christman's Mai Tai Diaries on the Honolulu Marathon Week. The organizers are UM grads and bring in various and sundry UM alumni every year. More of Paul's free associating(including a Rono tidbit) on the week at: http://www.runningstats.com/Pages/740/Players.html Regards and best of the season to everyone, Martin ...On the Reef hospitality suite deck overlooking surf, sand, and sunbathers, the journalist recalls another chat with the legendary University of Michigan coach, Ron War Dog Warhurst. War Dog not only coaches 1500m sensation Kevin Sullivan and steeple standout Tim Broe, but now has recruited the phenom everyone is talking about: Alan Webb. It's Warhurst's job to keep the lad who eclipsed Jim Ryun's high school mile record from over-racing. There will only be three appearances on the tracks of Europe next summer. But if the HMA decides to revive the Waikiki Mile for the marathon's gala 30th anniversary next December and Webb elects to come to Honolulu, the incendiary effect upon the media and possible television coverage could be nearly as big as June Jones' Hawaii-BYU game..
t-and-f: Webb, Pilja Finish One-Two at Great American Festival
Probably old news but I'm on the digest and haven't got one in a while. The list must be pretty quiet. http://mgoblue.com/crosscountry-m/01-02/release-09-21.html Regards, Martin
RE: t-and-f: Webb, Pilja Finish One-Two at Great American Festival
Great pictures and complete results are on DyeStat. www.dyestat.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Martin J. Dixon Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 11:53 AM To: Track Field List Subject: t-and-f: Webb, Pilja Finish One-Two at Great American Festival Probably old news but I'm on the digest and haven't got one in a while. The list must be pretty quiet. http://mgoblue.com/crosscountry-m/01-02/release-09-21.html Regards, Martin
Re: t-and-f: Webb vs. Ritz
In a message dated 6/30/01 9:41:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: at 4:15, webb is more than 20 seconds slower than his best. he's quite comfortable and won't be dropped. with 300 to go he's gone. i love ritz, but this would not be his race. As one who has seen them both race quite often, both on and off the track, I think Ritz would have the upper hand in a two mile race. GH's argument along the lines of a 4:15 pace being comfortable for Webb is valid but it's not the first mile that counts. The third 880 is usually where Ritz hammers the opposition and is also the point where Webb would run into trouble. The final 880 is where serious pain takes hold and both have a great tolerance. But the gap Ritz opens up on laps 5-6 would be too much for Webb to overcome.
Re: t-and-f: Webb vs. Ritz
In a message dated 6/30/01 10:40:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess Webb could break the HS 5k record and beat Ritz since it is "only" 4:25 pace which is 30 secs slower than his best. MIght as well give Webb the HS 10k record while we are at it. Hell, let's go for the marathon as well.
t-and-f: Webb vs. Ritz
i was surpised at how few people rose to the bait on that one; figured everybody would have an opinion. I'm also surprised at how many people cited XC as an argument for Ritz. XC running isn't remotely the same as track, and while Ritz clearly has had an upper hand in that department, my money says that Webb cleans his clock on the track at 2M. For a direct parallel, see Jim Ryun vs. Gerry Lindgren in the '68 NCAA Indoor 2M (the only championship loss of Lindgren's college career). Speed wins at that distance. gh
t-and-f: Webb waddles in Duck-land
from the USATF web site : * Whew!: In qualifying rounds, Alan Webb extracted himself from a tight pack and recovered from a slight trip-up to win the first heat of the men's 1,500m in 4:45.77. A final 200m of just over 25 seconds propelled him to the win. 2000 Olympic Trials champion Gabe Jennings won the second heat in 3:40.80 and NCAA champion Bryan Berryhill won the second heat in 3:40.47. My take: Not only were Jennings and Berryhill both very fortunate to end up winners of the same heat, even though their times were slightly different, but Webb sure was lucky to get in the duck walk heat, seeing as how he would have had to run over a minute faster to keep up with Jennings or Berryhill. :-) Hopefully he'll do better in the final, and not get lapped! RT
t-and-f: Webb could be the one
Listers, I have been reading Ed Grant's posts about lack of coverage for track in NJ and I have to tell you it is the same thing here in CT. My local paper will usually only put a 3 inch column for any track news and even the local track stuff is sometimes a day late. But I just read the AP article about Webb's heat at Nationals by Bert Rosenthal in todays paper. Besides making the cover of the NY Times, getting an article in Sports Ilustrated and making the rounds on many TV talk, I have heard many non track fans talk about him. I hope Alan doesn't read this because I don't want to put unwanted pressure on him, but he could be the one athlete that could bring track back in the minds of everyday Americans. We've always had our sprinters, but we need an American distance runner out there if we want to get Joe Public's attention. Just look at the make up of this list. There is probably more written about distance running than any other event. Track was big in America when we had Prefontaine, then Scott, then Rodgers and Shorter. If Webb and Ritzenheim are able to live up their potential, we might have found our people that can sell the sport. Tiger did it for golf, Jordon for basketball and Gretsky did it for hockey. Hopefully as these young men mature and reach their potential, track and field will take its place as one of the more popular sports in American again. M.O.
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
Amid all this very interesting discussion about the US team for Edmonton, please remember that the US is in the fortunate position of being able to send the maximum of 3 athletes per event (if qualified). As has been mentioned sometimes in the past, this is not true for most other countries. Many qualifiers (A or B) do NOT get on their team, because other constraints (probably financial) play a role in determining team size. Often, the athlete has to show final or even medal potential to be selected. David Dallman On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/19/01 1:38:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what if he wins? Is it then a situation a la the marathon trials where the champion gets into the meet even if no qualifier? Can the champion who runs 3:39 go to Worlds and block others who potentially posess the standard? USATF's policy is to take as many people as possible per event. If Webb wins, and doesn't meet the standard in doing so (and doesn't chase it in Europe), then Michael Stember and David Krummenacker, assuming they run in Eugene, will go to Edmonton. (This is also assuming that Gabe Jennings doesn't run, and no else who finishes ahead of Stember and/or Krummenacker in Eugene reaches the standard before the deadline of July 23--got all that??). Here is the official policy from www.usatf.org(under Elite Athletes). The top three (3) place finishers at the selection competition (2001 GMC Envoy USA Outdoor National Championships) who have met the qualifying criteria will select themselves to the team. * All athletes competing in the selection competition will be ranked according to their order of finish at the selection competition. The Ranking List for each event will be compiled as follows: 1. Athletes will be ranked according to order of place finish in the event final. 2. Ranking outside the event final will be based on performance in the preliminary rounds, beginning with the semi-finals. 3. The top-performing athlete in the semi-finals will be the next ranked athlete, with ranking continuing according to performance through the semi-finals and into the preliminary rounds, if necessary. 4. Only the athlete’s performance in his/her last round of competition at the Championships will be used for ranking. * If any of the top 3 finishers in the selection competition do not meet the “A” qualifying standard during the qualifying period, the next athlete on the ranking list from the selection competition who has met the “A” qualifying standard will be selected to the team. * In an event where only two (2) athletes have met the “A” qualifying standard, only those two athletes who compete at the selection competition will be selected to the Team, regardless of their place at the selection competition. * In an event where only one (1) athlete has the “A” qualifying standard, the highest placing finisher at the selection competition with the “A” or “B” standard will be selected to the Team. * In an event where two or more athletes meet the “A” qualifying standard during the qualifying period (but after the selection competition) in an event where only one “B” qualified athlete has been selected to the Team (at the selection competition), the “B” qualifier will be replaced on the Team by the two “A” qualified athletes. Walt Murphy
t-and-f: Webb/Ritzenhein
Only in Eugenetoday's Register Guard A HREF=http://www.registerguard.com;http://www.registerguard.com/A has a big color photo of Alan Webb on the front page of the sports section, along with a story, and the other featured article is on Dathan Ritzenhein, who says that Oregon was his 2nd choice (behind Colorado). Ritz's former teammate at Rockford, Jason Hartmann, attends Oregon. If you're not lucky enough to be in Eugene this week, check out the above link on a daily basis. The Guard's coverage will make you feel like you are here. Walt Murphy
RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Ryan Hall 3:42.70 qualified Christopher Bennett 0.00 not qualified Paul McMullen 0.00 not qualified I was at a meet at Hillsdale College two weeks ago that was set up specifically to qualify distance runners for Nationals ... In the 1500m, Paul McMullen ran (from my watch) a 3:42.7 or so. They had FAT timing, so his official time is available somewhere. My thought is that it must be agonizing for guys like him (on the edge of qualifying), when a HS kid is let in with the same time. Perhaps Paul's official time was slower than the one I got for him, and I am all wrong about this. I don't know which would be worse for him. Along the same lines: In the M5k that night, the field went out targeting 13:45, hoping to drag as many guys under 13:51.5 as possible. At the finish, the two guys I traveled with and I had these times for the top-3: 1. 13:49.xx 2. 13:51-low 3. 13:52-high After the race, all three were announced as having qualified under the 13:51.5. We all agreed driving home that the third guy didn't qualify, and that we could not have been that far off. Our times had him at 13:32.8-13:53.2. Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Hall is in, see list below your message. Mike In a message dated 6/15/01 9:39:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I may have missed it, but did this question ever get answered? Regards, Martin Michael Stember 3:35.11 qualified Gabriel Jennings 3:35.21 qualified JASON PYRAH 3:36.70 qualified Jason Lunn 3:36.74 qualified Bryan Berryhill 3:37.05 qualified Ibrahim Aden Gedi 3:38.00 qualified ANDY DOWNIN 3:38.36 qualified Matt Holthaus 3:38.37 qualified SCOTT ANDERSON 3:38.70 qualified Jonathon Riley 3:38.90 qualified Donald Sage 3:39.27 qualified Joel Atwater 3:39.40 qualified Dan Wilson 3:39.71 qualified Justin Niedzialek 3:40.06 qualified Jeremy Huffman 3:40.08 qualified ERIK NEDEAU 3:40.56 qualified Andrew Powell 3:40.65 qualified DARIN SHEARER 3:40.68 qualified Christian Hesch 3:40.73 qualified Sharif Karie 3:41.10 qualified Robert Mitchell 3:41.52 qualified Mike Miller 3:41.54 qualified Nick MacFalls 3:41.67 qualified Clay Schwabe 3:41.79 qualified Jason Long 3:41.80 qualified ZACHARY GRIFFIN 3:41.82 qualified Brendan Rodgers 3:42.66 qualified Ryan Hall 3:42.70 qualified Alan Webb 3:53.43 qualified SENECA LASSITER 3:54.21 qualified Charlie Gruber 3:58.47 qualified Christopher Bennett 0.00 not qualified Paul McMullen 0.00 not qualified Jamey Harris 3:43.34 not qualified GARY HAMER 3:43.84 not qualified JESSE STRUTZEL 4:00.40 not qualified
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton
One overlooked factor in Ritzenheim's case is that Michigan's rules on high school athletics prevented him from running in more than two (?) invitationals, which meant that he ran only one 5000m on the track this spring. In other words, he missed the qualifier by less than a second in his only possible attempt. This makes him somewhat more deserving of an exemption than an open or collegiate athlete who has multiple chances to qualify and comes up short. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on the details... By the way, enjoy Eugene if you're there - I had tickets but have too much work to do to make the trip. Besides, I'm in near-PR shape, which might disqualify me from HOOTIE... Jason ___ Jason BlankHopkins Marine Station Enloe HS '92, Duke '96, Stanford ?? Oceanview Boulevard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pacific Grove, CA 93950 ___
Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
McMullen qualified 2 days later in Boston running 3:40 and change. Kevin Sullivan In a message dated 6/20/01 10:31:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the 1500m, Paul McMullen ran (from my watch) a 3:42.7 or so. They had FAT timing, so his official time is available somewhere.
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
Yes, but the way Berryhill runs, he will be out there pounding away at
3:36-3:38 pace. Now you throw in a huge kick and a race the last 400 and
Webb gets his qualifier.
M
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:46:03 -0400
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
But what if he wins? Is it then a situation a la the marathon trials where
the champion gets into the meet even if no qualifier? Can the champion who
runs 3:39 go to Worlds and block others who potentially posess the standard?
Better yet, who the hell cares, let the racing play itself out on the track
and worry about the ramifications later. Its that old cart before the horse
thing.
Grote
adiRP/MMRD
- Original Message -
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning
time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
RE: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
it would seem to be the same situation as 2000 Oly mens/womens Marathon
Trials if Webb wins
the WC B standard is 3:38.40, which he's already met with 3:38.26 so he
would be able to go to Edmonton if he wins no matter how slow
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Grote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:25 PM
To: Post, Marty; 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
But what if he wins? Is it then a situation a la the marathon trials where
the champion gets into the meet even if no qualifier? Can the champion who
runs 3:39 go to Worlds and block others who potentially posess the standard?
Better yet, who the hell cares, let the racing play itself out on the track
and worry about the ramifications later. Its that old cart before the horse
thing.
Grote
adiRP/MMRD
- Original Message -
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning
time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote:
Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last
qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a
3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q
time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the
BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin
Yes, but the way Berryhill runs, he will be out there pounding away at
3:36-3:38 pace. Now you throw in a huge kick and a race the last 400 and
Webb gets his qualifier.
M
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to
Edmonton.
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:46:03 -0400
The WC A standard at 1500m is rather stiff this year: 3:36.20.
From 1983 there has been exactly one US championship where the winning time
was 3:36.20 or faster, last year when Jennings ran 3:35.90 (and he was the
only one).
The last three US champs in Eugene ('86, 93, '99) winning times were
3:42.41, 3:42.74 and 3:39.21.
Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A
qualifier.
And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe.
Marty Post
Senior Editor
Runner's World Magazine
www.runnersworld.com
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Post, Marty Even if Webb makes top 3 it seems extremely remote he'll have A qualifier. And his coach has supposedly said he will not chase one in Europe. That's exactly what Coach Raczko said in Raleigh Sunday after Webb and South Lakes won the DMR in national record time. Raczko also said that even if Webb got the A qualifier at Eugene, it is not a certainty he would run at Edmonton. That would depend on an assessment of what's best in the long run.
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
it would seem to be the same situation as 2000 Oly mens/womens Marathon Trials if Webb wins the WC B standard is 3:38.40, which he's already met with 3:38.26 so he would be able to go to Edmonton if he wins no matter how slow Unless two other Trials finalists break 3:36.20 afterwards, right? That is where tf is different than the marathon was. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
Netters Kristopher Rolin writes: On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote: Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a 3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin I noticed and I am not pleased. While many of you take the point that such things are good for the promotion of TF, a point I understand, I say again that the some animals are more equal then others approach is not the answer. Certainly the women's 10k standard was loosened by 10 seconds but that decision was made based on the numbers in the the field rather then any one individual. For the 1500 and the 5000 both fields were essentaily already full with with out loosening the standards. I might point out that on 3 separate occasions walkers who were very close to the standard in a event with very low numbers (12 or less) were denied entry into the U.S. Championships. There is no simple solution to this. Either you set a cap on numbers and fill them in in all events or no one with out a qualifier gets in. Should I remind you all of the whole debacle at the trials of the 1500 meter runner who was not allowed in (I can't remember his name but I recall he had won a medal at world indoors)- as a I recall there was strong sentiment that he not be allowed in.
RE: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
Bulletin: Life is not fair. In addition to promoting the sport, it is one of the missions of the USATF to develop the nation's promising talent. Note that no one was adversely affected by the decision to let Hall run. In other words, no one was denied entry who otherwise would have been accepted. USATF is providing the opportunity for one of the nations best-ever mile talents to run in a race at the level he has proven he can run. Either setting a field number cap or a strict time-standard to which the USATF is bound to adhere is narrow-sighted and close-minded, not to mention unreasonable. Though track is, almost intrinsically, a fair sport, the USATF is not governed by subjective concepts such as fairness, especially when the better good of the sport can be acheived. -Ryan W. Eckel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 3:57 PM To: Kristopher Rolin Cc: Michael Contopoulos; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton. Netters Kristopher Rolin writes: On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote: Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a 3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin I noticed and I am not pleased. While many of you take the point that such things are good for the promotion of TF, a point I understand, I say again that the some animals are more equal then others approach is not the answer. Certainly the women's 10k standard was loosened by 10 seconds but that decision was made based on the numbers in the the field rather then any one individual. For the 1500 and the 5000 both fields were essentaily already full with with out loosening the standards. I might point out that on 3 separate occasions walkers who were very close to the standard in a event with very low numbers (12 or less) were denied entry into the U.S. Championships. There is no simple solution to this. Either you set a cap on numbers and fill them in in all events or no one with out a qualifier gets in. Should I remind you all of the whole debacle at the trials of the 1500 meter runner who was not allowed in (I can't remember his name but I recall he had won a medal at world indoors)- as a I recall there was strong sentiment that he not be allowed in.
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Michael Contopoulos wrote: Anyone notice that they have let Ryan Hall into the 1500m as the last qualifier. Looks like they let the a guy in front of him in also with a 3:42.6 when the time was 3:41 something. Ritz's was only like .16 of the Q time not a full second...they seem to be bending all the rules to get the BIG THREE into the meet. Later, Rolin Assuming this info is accurate, I say more power to them. I don't know how many entrants there are in the 1500m and the 5000m, so perhaps they are just filling the fields. Having just watched the U.S. Open in golf, it becomes clear how many things they do that would be good for track field to emulate. They are smart enough to leave open the possibility of offering exemptions to an athlete who's presence will benefit the sport - like Jack Nicklaus in past years. Instead of the contention that so often pervades anything like this in track and field, you get most of the other players, as well as the media applauding such a decision. And you also get guys turning down exemptions when they don't think they deserve it. And you never get guys ASKING for exemptions - they are respectful of the process and figure that if they are not asked, they don't deserve it. In fairness to USATF, the athletes have made it pretty clear over the years that they are not in favor of something like this. I think it would be great to have up to two allowed exemptions per event, granted by USATF or even better by the athletes advisory committee itself. But based on past history, there may never be the kind of mutual respect and humility between USATF and the athletes that the PGA, the USGA and the golfers currently have - without that, the exemption concept is probably doomed to failure. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
In a message dated 6/19/01 1:38:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what if he wins? Is it then a situation a la the marathon trials where the champion gets into the meet even if no qualifier? Can the champion who runs 3:39 go to Worlds and block others who potentially posess the standard? USATF's policy is to take as many people as possible per event. If Webb wins, and doesn't meet the standard in doing so (and doesn't chase it in Europe), then Michael Stember and David Krummenacker, assuming they run in Eugene, will go to Edmonton. (This is also assuming that Gabe Jennings doesn't run, and no else who finishes ahead of Stember and/or Krummenacker in Eugene reaches the standard before the deadline of July 23--got all that??). Here is the official policy from www.usatf.org(under Elite Athletes). The top three (3) place finishers at the selection competition (2001 GMC Envoy USA Outdoor National Championships) who have met the qualifying criteria will select themselves to the team. * All athletes competing in the selection competition will be ranked according to their order of finish at the selection competition. The Ranking List for each event will be compiled as follows: 1. Athletes will be ranked according to order of place finish in the event final. 2. Ranking outside the event final will be based on performance in the preliminary rounds, beginning with the semi-finals. 3. The top-performing athlete in the semi-finals will be the next ranked athlete, with ranking continuing according to performance through the semi-finals and into the preliminary rounds, if necessary. 4. Only the athlete’s performance in his/her last round of competition at the Championships will be used for ranking. * If any of the top 3 finishers in the selection competition do not meet the “A” qualifying standard during the qualifying period, the next athlete on the ranking list from the selection competition who has met the “A” qualifying standard will be selected to the team. * In an event where only two (2) athletes have met the “A” qualifying standard, only those two athletes who compete at the selection competition will be selected to the Team, regardless of their place at the selection competition. * In an event where only one (1) athlete has the “A” qualifying standard, the highest placing finisher at the selection competition with the “A” or “B” standard will be selected to the Team. * In an event where two or more athletes meet the “A” qualifying standard during the qualifying period (but after the selection competition) in an event where only one “B” qualified athlete has been selected to the Team (at the selection competition), the “B” qualifier will be replaced on the Team by the two “A” qualified athletes. Walt Murphy
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
Except that unlike Golf in Track and field performance is paramount. There is room to let old duffers in in a golf tournament with nearly unlimited space to play, In track there is limited space. So though allowing a Steve Scott to run would remove a better runner from the field where as in Golf that doesn't happen. Are you kidding? Golf is just as bad as track. The first two rounds of the U.S. Open take literally from dusk until dawn to complete. They can't fit any more people, and when they have rain delays like they did this year, they end up not finishing on thursday and friday. Every exemption that is granted means that one less person can qualify, exactly like it does in track. The fact that 150 people can compete in the tournament doesn't mean that the 151st person isn't more deserving than others who got in through an exemption. Allowing exemptions would put these choices into the hands of people I and many athletes do not trust. I've said for years that either the athletes or the grass roots associations (which I am involved in) could control the organization if they wanted to. But both groups have chosen to fight amongst themselves instead. Hey, if you're opposed to exemptions, I can respect that. But why not have a subcommittee of athletes advisory determine possible exemptions each year? If the athletes were united, they could accomplish this. Tell me, aside from the marginal promotional value why a high school kid missing the 1500 mark by one second should be let in over a walker missing the 20k mark by 10 seconds. Marginal promotional value? If we were basing it on promotional value, there would be no walks, hammer throw or 10K. There is loads of promotional value in having Hall and Ritz compete. If that promotional value ends up not being talken advantage of - that's a different story. I would grant an exemption to Hall and not necessarily to an adult walker, sprinter, whatever, who missed the standard. It depends on what other reason the athlete had to be considered for an exemption. As I said, I certainly can respect the opinion that no one should ever be given an exemption - I just don't agree with it. That said, I agree that the kind of sliding of the standards that appears to have happened here has some problems. It needs to be part of a more formal and public process - I actually don't know who made the decision or what process was used, so maybe there is some official procedure regarding this. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going toEdmonton.
USATF's policy is to take as many people as possible per event. If Webb wins, and doesn't meet the standard in doing so (and doesn't chase it in Europe), then Michael Stember and David Krummenacker, assuming they run in Eugene, will go to Edmonton. This is also assuming that Gabe Jennings doesn't run, and no else who finishes ahead of Stember and/or Krummenacker in Eugene reaches the standard before the deadline of July 23--got all that??). Does Stember have the A standard? I thought he made the Olympic A standard but not the world A standard - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton.
In a message dated 6/19/01 6:34:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does Stember have the A standard? I thought he made the Olympic A standard but not the world A standard Stember ran 3:35.11 in Monaco last year. (The A standard is 3:36.20) Walt Murphy
Re: t-and-f: Webb maybe top 3 at USATF 1500... but not going to Edmonton
Ryan Eckl wrote: In addition to promoting the sport, it is one of the missions of the USATF to develop the nation's promising talent. Note that no one was adversely affected by the decision to let Hall run. In other words, no one was denied entry who otherwise would have been accepted. USATF is providing the opportunity for one of the nations best-ever mile talents to run in a race at the level he has proven he can run. Try this hypothetical...12 runenrs advance from the preliminaries to the finals...say Webb/Ritz/Hall finish 13th and fail to qualify for the National Championship Final in their eventshould the USATF grant them an exception and advance the high school phenom to the final...they have already given them (not Webb obviously) special treatment to advance this far, why not give them a free pass one round further??...under the arguments that I have read in support of the special treatment presented on the list, nobody would be harmed if the USATF just allowed an extra person into the final (or would someone be harmed?) If Hall or Ritz do advance to the Final in Eugene then there will be people who will be harmed; the first person who does not qualify will be harmed. What if that extra runner qualified for the World Team?? If it is good for promoting the sport to allow a runner that does not meet the qualifying mark into the meet, then it MUST be good for promoting the sport to advance this same runner to the final??? On another note, it can easily be believed that runners like Hall and Ritz have about 10 more years of National Championships ahead of them in their futuresthen why do they need to receive special treatment to gain entry to the National Championship meet at this stage in their career?? They have plenty of years ahead to gain the valuable experience of racing in high caliber meets like the USATF Championships. Do you find it funny/ironic that these runners will not (I hope) receive this same special treatment next year or any other year in the future? Yet next year, at this time, they will still be America's future of distance running. Should these same runners get special treatment in attempting to to qualify for the NCAA championships or USATF Championships next year? Where is the line drawn?? And yet another point where this whole situation has opened Pandora's box was the timing in which Ritz was told that he would be allowed into the National Championships with a non-qualifyinbg mark. John Chaplin was quoted in SI 2 months prior to the final qualifying date that he would be admitted into the meet. That fact alone DOES do harm to other runners in that while Ritz was able to plan/train knowing that he need not attempt to run a qualifying mark, any other runner in that same situation would be forced to train and plan their race schedule accordingly to give them the best chance to obtain a qualifying mark. This topic hits home for me very much. Last year my wife missed the 5,000m qualifying mark for the Olympic Trials by .01 of a second (we have the finishlynx photo to prove it; arms across the line, knee across the line, but not the torso). We went through the process of appealing to get her entry into the meet. Did she deserve to get in? No. Would she have run if she was granted entry? YES. I do take exception to anyone who believes that the USATF should be able to choose which of the athletes in this situation are allowed entry based on subjective standards. But I at least applaud the USATF for being consistent in 2000 with staying true to their stance across the board. However, in my opinion, ANYONE who argues that the exceptions made this year were to accomodate field size is sadly mistaken. My 2 cents worth, Daniel Niednagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Being that I am the same age as Carl, and ran in the same track meets he did in high school, I can tell you that in 1978 he was a jr. at Willingboro high. In 1980 he was freshman at Houston. -Original Message- From: Reuben Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Carl Lewis competed at TAC as a ninth-grader at Levitt Junior High in 1978 in the long jump and had a #9 us ranking that year as a 14-year-old, but of course had to wait until her junior year of HS to make her first Olympic team = This content in no way reflects the opinions, standards, or policy of the United States Air Force Academy or the United States government. __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/
RE: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Yeah I think he meant Car(o)l Lewis ... that is why he kept saying 'her' ... Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: Mitchell S. Clair, Esq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:30 AM To: Reuben Frank; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Being that I am the same age as Carl, and ran in the same track meets he did in high school, I can tell you that in 1978 he was a jr. at Willingboro high. In 1980 he was freshman at Houston. -Original Message- From: Reuben Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Carl Lewis competed at TAC as a ninth-grader at Levitt Junior High in 1978 in the long jump and had a #9 us ranking that year as a 14-year-old, but of course had to wait until her junior year of HS to make her first Olympic team = This content in no way reflects the opinions, standards, or policy of the United States Air Force Academy or the United States government. __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/
Fwd: RE: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Can we really take someone (Reuben) seriously that can't distinguish between Carl and Carol? ;- --- Mcewen, Brian T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah I think he meant Car(o)l Lewis ... that is why he kept saying 'her' ... Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: Mitchell S. Clair, Esq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:30 AM To: Reuben Frank; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Being that I am the same age as Carl, and ran in the same track meets he did in high school, I can tell you that in 1978 he was a jr. at Willingboro high. In 1980 he was freshman at Houston. -Original Message- From: Reuben Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Carl Lewis competed at TAC as a ninth-grader at Levitt Junior High in 1978 in the long jump and had a #9 us ranking that year as a 14-year-old, but of course had to wait until her junior year of HS to make her first Olympic team = This content in no way reflects the opinions, standards, or policy of the United States Air Force Academy or the United States government. __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ = Dave Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ = Dave Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/
Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
of course it was a typo - Carol, not Carl --- Mitchell S. Clair, Esq [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being that I am the same age as Carl, and ran in the same track meets he did in high school, I can tell you that in 1978 he was a jr. at Willingboro high. In 1980 he was freshman at Houston. __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/
t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
I may have missed it, but did this question ever get answered? Regards, Martin Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:33:56 -0400 From: Michael Contopoulos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals You're forgetting Monique Henderson in the 400. So is Hall in or not? From: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:33:56 -0400 Actually, there were 2 in the jav and 2 in the vault, plus 1 in the 100 (muna lee, who made the semis) Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Hall is in, see list below your message. Mike In a message dated 6/15/01 9:39:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I may have missed it, but did this question ever get answered? Regards, Martin Michael Stember 3:35.11 qualified Gabriel Jennings 3:35.21 qualified JASON PYRAH 3:36.70 qualified Jason Lunn 3:36.74 qualified Bryan Berryhill 3:37.05 qualified Ibrahim Aden Gedi 3:38.00 qualified ANDY DOWNIN 3:38.36 qualified Matt Holthaus 3:38.37 qualified SCOTT ANDERSON 3:38.70 qualified Jonathon Riley 3:38.90 qualified Donald Sage 3:39.27 qualified Joel Atwater 3:39.40 qualified Dan Wilson 3:39.71 qualified Justin Niedzialek 3:40.06 qualified Jeremy Huffman 3:40.08 qualified ERIK NEDEAU 3:40.56 qualified Andrew Powell 3:40.65 qualified DARIN SHEARER 3:40.68 qualified Christian Hesch 3:40.73 qualified Sharif Karie 3:41.10 qualified Robert Mitchell 3:41.52 qualified Mike Miller 3:41.54 qualified Nick MacFalls 3:41.67 qualified Clay Schwabe 3:41.79 qualified Jason Long 3:41.80 qualified ZACHARY GRIFFIN 3:41.82 qualified Brendan Rodgers 3:42.66 qualified Ryan Hall 3:42.70 qualified Alan Webb 3:53.43 qualified SENECA LASSITER 3:54.21 qualified Charlie Gruber 3:58.47 qualified Christopher Bennett 0.00 not qualified Paul McMullen 0.00 not qualified Jamey Harris 3:43.34 not qualified GARY HAMER 3:43.84 not qualified JESSE STRUTZEL 4:00.40 not qualified
t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
I believe Ritz has been given a clearance to run the 5K at nationals. If Hall runs, that will make 3 Hs'rs on the male side, what about the females? - Original Message - From: Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
You're forgetting Monique Henderson in the 400. So is Hall in or not? From: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:33:56 -0400 Actually, there were 2 in the jav and 2 in the vault, plus 1 in the 100 (muna lee, who made the semis) Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Actually, there were 2 in the jav and 2 in the vault, plus 1 in the 100 (muna lee, who made the semis) Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Sorry ... Meant 2 high schoolers in the 1500 in the same year ... :o) Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ben Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:01 AM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Ahhh - but does anyone (besides me) know when the last time a Junior High athlete not only qualified for nationals but actually made an Olympic track and field team and competed in the Olympics that year? Floyd Highfill -Original Message- From: Ben Hall [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:01 PM To: Michael Contopoulos; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals I think this is a fairly complete list. Pulled from looking at results on the TFNews website. Muna Lee (100) Erica Whipple (100) Angel Perkins (400) Monique Henderson (400) Sheena Johnson (400H) Amy Linnen (PV) Staci Manuel (PV) Samantha Shepard (PV) Briona Reynolds (HT) Katy Polansky (JT) Kendra Wecker (JT) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Contopoulos Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals You're forgetting Monique Henderson in the 400. So is Hall in or not? From: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:33:56 -0400 Actually, there were 2 in the jav and 2 in the vault, plus 1 in the 100 (muna lee, who made the semis) Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
FW: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
I don't know that much about Mathias. I know he was very young but probably out of Jr. Hi. Anyway, not correct. Hint - This was back in the time when it was not that unusual for high school age athletes to qualify for Olympic and US International teams. It was still very unusual for a Jr. Hi. athlete to do so, however. Floyd Highfill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals In a message dated 6/14/01 4:24:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ahhh - but does anyone (besides me) know when the last time a Junior High athlete not only qualified for nationals but actually made an Olympic track and field team and competed in the Olympics that year? Floyd Highfill Bob Mathias - 1948? maddog
Re: FW: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Bob Mathius was an INCREDIBLE athlete. He won the decathlon gold at the 48 Olympics at 17 years old. He set the World record in the decathlon just 2 years later at 19 and then won gold again in 52 with another WR. He was never defeated in the 10 event discipline. He also played football at Stanford and played in the 1952 Rose Bowl. M From: Highfill, Floyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Highfill, Floyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Track and Field Listers' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:34:22 -0600 I don't know that much about Mathias. I know he was very young but probably out of Jr. Hi. Anyway, not correct. Hint - This was back in the time when it was not that unusual for high school age athletes to qualify for Olympic and US International teams. It was still very unusual for a Jr. Hi. athlete to do so, however. Floyd Highfill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals In a message dated 6/14/01 4:24:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ahhh - but does anyone (besides me) know when the last time a Junior High athlete not only qualified for nationals but actually made an Olympic track and field team and competed in the Olympics that year? Floyd Highfill Bob Mathias - 1948? maddog _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: Webb and Hall
Ahhh - but does anyone (besides me) know when the last time a Junior High athlete not only qualified for nationals but actually made an Olympic track and field team and competed in the Olympics that year? Marjorie Larney in '52? /Drew
FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall
I don't know the name (Larney) and she may have been in Jr. Hi., but again, not correct. You are moving closer to the right date however. Floyd Highfill -Original Message- From: Eckmann, Drew [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:28 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall Ahhh - but does anyone (besides me) know when the last time a Junior High athlete not only qualified for nationals but actually made an Olympic track and field team and competed in the Olympics that year? Marjorie Larney in '52? /Drew
Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Linnen and Johnson are both college freshmen and competed in the NCAA, Johnson for UCLA and Linnen for Arizona. - Original Message - From: Ben Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Contopoulos [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:01 PM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals I think this is a fairly complete list. Pulled from looking at results on the TFNews website. Muna Lee (100) Erica Whipple (100) Angel Perkins (400) Monique Henderson (400) Sheena Johnson (400H) Amy Linnen (PV) Staci Manuel (PV) Samantha Shepard (PV) Briona Reynolds (HT) Katy Polansky (JT) Kendra Wecker (JT) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Contopoulos Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals You're forgetting Monique Henderson in the 400. So is Hall in or not? From: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:33:56 -0400 Actually, there were 2 in the jav and 2 in the vault, plus 1 in the 100 (muna lee, who made the semis) Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: FW: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Didn't Mark Dekker make the 800 team when she was 14 but was too young to compete? On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Highfill, Floyd wrote: Ahhh - but does anyone (besides me) know when the last time a Junior High athlete not only qualified for nationals but actually made an Olympic track and field team and competed in the Olympics that year? Floyd Highfill -Original Message- From: Ben Hall [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:01 PM To: Michael Contopoulos; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals I think this is a fairly complete list. Pulled from looking at results on the TFNews website. Muna Lee (100) Erica Whipple (100) Angel Perkins (400) Monique Henderson (400) Sheena Johnson (400H) Amy Linnen (PV) Staci Manuel (PV) Samantha Shepard (PV) Briona Reynolds (HT) Katy Polansky (JT) Kendra Wecker (JT) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Contopoulos Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals You're forgetting Monique Henderson in the 400. So is Hall in or not? From: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:33:56 -0400 Actually, there were 2 in the jav and 2 in the vault, plus 1 in the 100 (muna lee, who made the semis) Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com *** Paul Talbot Department of Geography/ Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder CO 80309-0260 (303) 492-3248 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals
Sorry. Should have made myself more clear. The below list is of high schoolers who qualified for nationals LAST YEAR. An addendum to my original post on the subject. -Original Message- From: Mike and Barb Hubbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:41 PM To: Ben Hall Cc: Track List Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Linnen and Johnson are both college freshmen and competed in the NCAA, Johnson for UCLA and Linnen for Arizona. - Original Message - From: Ben Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Contopoulos [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:01 PM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals I think this is a fairly complete list. Pulled from looking at results on the TFNews website. Muna Lee (100) Erica Whipple (100) Angel Perkins (400) Monique Henderson (400) Sheena Johnson (400H) Amy Linnen (PV) Staci Manuel (PV) Samantha Shepard (PV) Briona Reynolds (HT) Katy Polansky (JT) Kendra Wecker (JT) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Contopoulos Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals You're forgetting Monique Henderson in the 400. So is Hall in or not? From: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jack Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:33:56 -0400 Actually, there were 2 in the jav and 2 in the vault, plus 1 in the 100 (muna lee, who made the semis) Conway, Not sure what you mean by If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? But last year there were at least three female competitors who were high schoolers. One in the 400, one in the javelin, and one in the pole vault. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Conway Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 1:03 PM To: T-and-F@Lists. Uoregon. Edu Subject: t-and-f: Webb and Hall at Nationals Is Ryan Hall going to be able to run the 1500 at the US Championships ?? I realize he was just short of the actual qualifying mark, but are there provisions that would allow him to run ?? If so when was the last time 2 high schoolers qualified to run at nationals in the same year ?? And given the results of races so far this season am I alone in thinking that Webb has a very good chance of making the WC team ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
