Darrell wrote:
>
>From what I have observed over the years the stagnation has been rooted in
>the misconception hat women cannot handle the race. Coupled with the
>unwillingness of the current crop of sprinters to accept the challenge of
>the
>race.
>I see the talent out there, but they are running the 100 and 200. And
>there
>are a few men that fit that description also. If you are a woman that runs
>11.2 and 22.5, you should be running the 400. If you are a man that can
>run
>10.1 - 10.2, and 20.2 - 20.3, you should be running the 400.
>
I would agree with that assessment ... Men and women ... On the women's side
I think we've gotten away from the days when Merlene Ottey was running the
400 (in addition to the short sprints)Eveleyn Ashford ran some 400s .. FloJO
when she was just Florence ... And the eastern bloc sprinters ran all 3
sprints ... Even here in the States Chandra Cheeseborough and Valerie Brisco
moved UP to the 400 ... And almost 20 years later are still the top 2 US
Q-milers ... Pam Marshall in a brief attempt before being struck down by
injury broke 50 and would have surely been great at the distance ..
It has been shown that times around 11.00 and 22.00 make for the best
Q-milers .. Am surprised that some sprinters would rather never have a shot
at any kind of medal in teh 100 or 200 than move up a notch and have a true
chance ...
Same on the men' side ... The 2 best of the last decade, Watts and Johnson
were both sprinters with good 100 speed but injury prone who made the long
sprint(s) look like cake walks ... A guy like Obikwelu for example who may
never have a true shot at 100 glory due to his late get a way .. Coould be
awesome at the 200/400 double ... I know it hurts some ... But not enough to
forgo the opportunity that presents itself to some of these athletes ... Or
maybe I am wrong ...
Conway
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
