I just don't get it. I'm sure I've read a post that was more
condescending than the one RANDY TREADWAY
..yada, yada, yada
Now THAT'S a sample of the distance vs non-distance debates
that people say they miss from the 'good old days' of the
beginning of this list back in '94-95.
Not a word
Nice recovery!
JL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just don't get it. I'm sure I've read a post that was more
condescending than the one RANDY TREADWAY
..yada, yada, yada
Now THAT'S a sample of the distance vs non-distance debates
that people say they miss from the 'good old days' of the
I don't see anything wrong with having both long and short course races. Just not at
championship meets.
I think cross meets can be made more exciting and fan-friendly in many ways. Adding a
short course race is only one of them.
Other ideas include making courses consisting of shorter loops,
I don't see anything wrong with having both long and short course races.
Just not at championship meets.
I was thinking the same.
I think cross meets can be made more exciting and fan-friendly in many
ways. Adding a short course race is only one of them.
An Eikiden-type format could be
, Indoor Nats will be here, making a 2012
Olympic Bid...maybe a good outdoor facility in the vicinity?
Grote
adiRP/MMRD
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: t-and-f: XC Long-Short Debate
I don't see anything
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: t-and-f: XC Long-Short Debate
I don't see anything wrong with having both long and short course races.
Just not at championship meets.
I think cross meets can be made more
]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: t-and-f: XC Long-Short Debate
Been saying this for years and maybe they are getting closer to it, but to
promote the sport at the elite level to those at the grass roots level try
this on for size:
-Have a freaking short course x-c race
when the women in the us began running xc it was the 1.5 mile bridge to
bridge loop at van cortlandt in 1962!!!
, October 24, 2001 12:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: XC Long-Short Debate
I just don't get it. I'm sure I've read a post that was more
condescending than the one RANDY TREADWAY wrote here, but I just can't
remember it right now. Opinions are like assholes
I agree Robbie. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.
Mike
From: Philip Pinkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Philip Pinkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ROBERT J HOWELL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: t-and-f: XC Long-Short Debate
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:59:48 -0500
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Grote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: t-and-f: XC Long-Short Debate
Been saying this for years and maybe they are getting closer to it,
but to promote the sport at the elite
In a message dated Tue, 23 Oct 2001 6:31:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a big fan of the old adage, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think
the IAAF was wrong to go to two distances, and I think it would be terrible
for the NCAA to follow suit. If you want to
So how about we put the Stanford men in the 4k and the Colorado guys in
the 12k? While we're at it, let's decide the national champions for any
discipline via a postal system. No need to have host USATF track
nationals just run some time trials, have Mike Scott post the results
and we can see
it is just sick to think about splitting up nationals, cross country is the one and
only time when you can decide who the top dog is on that day. One race, one champion.
Bringing
together the milers and the 10K dudes. The BEST, bar none. It kind of relates to the
watering down of high school
Of course the NCAA all ready does this by holding seperate DI and DII
races. The fastest 10k guy in college is NOT a DI runner.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Keenan Robbins wrote:
it is just sick to think about splitting up nationals, cross country is the one and
only time when you can decide who the
It's about introducing a forum for 800 and 1500 runners who would
otherwise not be running cross country at all.
Sure, the longer race might lose the occasional Alan Webb, but that's the
exception and NOT the rule.
Ok, what about hard numbers? Out of all the NCAA 1500m finalists in the
past
]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: t-and-f: XC Long-Short Debate
it is just sick to think about splitting up nationals,
you guys have it all wrong, it's not about splitting up nationals,
in fact you're making ME sick with all your whining.
It's not about splitting up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's about introducing a forum for 800 and 1500 runners who would
otherwise not be running cross country at all.
Sure, the longer race might lose the occasional Alan Webb, but
that's the exception and NOT the rule.
Any middle distance guys who can't handle running
Randy wrote:
NOW REPEAT AFTER ME CHILDREN, It's not about splitting up nationals..
...now write that fifty times on the chalkboard.
It's about introducing a forum for 800 and 1500 runners who would
otherwise not be running cross country at all.
Sure, the longer race might lose the
I just don't get it. I'm sure I've read a post that was more
condescending than the one RANDY TREADWAY wrote here, but I just can't
remember it right now. Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got
one. You've got your opinion. It happens to be wrong, but that's no
reason to be a jerk. So
20 matches
Mail list logo
