Re: t-and-f: Davis Medical Update - 2001
On page two of this morning's L.A. Times sports section, Scott was mentioned by name, but it was alleged that he was gonna have a lot of trouble as the announcer of the upcoming L.A. Invitational Indoor meet, due to the alphabetic Gordian knot names of some of the entrants, a few of which were listed. I think those of us who have heard Scott over the p.a. over the years can appreciate that he can spit out names with relish, names which I would take a look at and think they're totally unpronounceable. In fact several times I was down on the infield checking in entrants for a field event, and requesting some of the Eastern European or Asian entrants to pronounce their last name for me so that I could write it down phonetically; thus allowing me to try to take a decent stab at the name when I was calling out who's up. Even then, I felt like my American ears weren't even trained to hear the right rolls of the tongue and syllabic emphasis right, and I would frequently screw up the name anyway when I called it out, drawing lots of laughs from the other competitors (fortunately I've never met an athlete who wasn't good natured about it when you're making a sincere attempt!) About the same time, Scott up in the press box would announce the list of entrants over the P.A. like he was an old pro at anything from Serbo-Croatian to Vietnamese and everything in between. Left me in awe more than once. Of course I had absolutely no idea whether his pronunciation was correct or not! RT
t-and-f: Davis Medical Update - 2001
Well, gang, here is the current scoop for those who may be interested. If you are not, hit the delete key now. I had another PET scan last Friday at UCLA. After an injection of 18-fluro-2-deoxglucose (FDG) which makes you glow like a 50,000 watt bulb for 4 hours, I went through the scanner. I was fortunate enough this time to watch the images come through with the Docs after the test. First time in color. Absolutely amazing images! Nothing of a suspicious nature showed up while I was in the room during the "wet" read. The subsequent careful study and comparisons with the last tests found no changes. So I continue to be absolutely clear of this dreaded disease once again. I am now out 39 months and am the 6th longest survivor in this melanoma research program at the John Wayne Center and UCLA. I met with my chief oncologist today and he is obviously delighted. Of course, one never knows for sure but he seems to think that I have beaten this thing. I will go through the research blood draws once again in April and have another scan in the the July-August timeframe. The success rate of the treament is also on the rise with other patients as it becomes more refined. I thank all of you who have inquired over the past 12 months about my condition. I appreciate your thoughfulness and caring. Now on with the track season!! Scott Davis
Re: t-and-f: mindboggling men's 200 stat
Ato Boldon... plus Cuba has had a few. Part of the problem is that many of "Jamaica's best" sprinters have ended up running for Canada. --Kebba >From: "Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: mindboggling men's 200 stat >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:02:49 -0800 > >Mind boggling but not too when you stop to think that if you add the entire >Caribbean and its wealth of sprinters I would think that Oba Thompson would >probably be the only other ranker in the 200 during the same time span .. > >Conway Hill >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
t-and-f: 400H States
Listers, Can anyone tell me what other states besides NJ, NJ, Conn. compete in the 400H instead of the 300H at their state cjampionships? Thanks in advance for the help :) Bruce R. Berry Head Track and Field coach Elizabeth High School (NJ)
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
You guys talking about the difficulty with clubs should look into the Pole Vault Clubs that are arising out of the dust of failed track and field (haha). The coming pole vault summit in Reno is looking at over 1000 competitors in a one day competition. Track and Field loosing support? Not the vault!!! Rick Baggett Willamette Striders Pole Vault Club
t-and-f: re: clubs
>Why aren't you walking the walk? Good question indeed!! We need more depth there . . . and if you're not walking, then I'll have to turn in a red card! MJR
Re: t-and-f: mindboggling men's 200 stat
> GH wrote: > > Jamaica, that seemingly boundless source of great sprint talent, hasn't > had a man make the T&FN World Rankings in the 200 since > > > > Would you believe Don Quarrie in 1982? > > And if you pull Quarrie out of the equation, would you believe Lennox > Miller in 1969? > Conway wrote: > Mind boggling but not too when you stop to think that if you add the entire > Caribbean and its wealth of sprinters I would think that Oba Thompson would > probably be the only other ranker in the 200 during the same time span .. Except for a Mr. Boldon, of course! - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE
At 09:41 AM 1/12/01 +1100, you wrote: >Err.. windy marks can be Olympic records. > >Flo-Jo's 10.54w IS the Olympic record. > >Regards - GT > Not according to all them official result sheets I brang home by the overweight ton from Syd. At the top of each sheet of the w100 it sez: WR 10.49 Griffith-Joyner F. USA Indianapolis (USA) 16/07/88 OR 10.62 Griffith-Joyner F. USA Seoul (KOR) 24/09/88 jim dunaway >-Original Message- >From: Post, Marty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, 12 January 2001 1:17 >To: 'Robert Hersh'; THOMAS,Graham; t-and-f >Subject: RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE > > >Okay, but it's still wrong... unless they're inferring the finals/gold medal >race only. > >Flo-Jo's 10.54 in the '88 Olympic final was indeed wind-aided, but she's >still considered the Olympic record-holder with her 10.62 from a qualifying >round the day before the final. > >-Original Message- >From: Robert Hersh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:08 AM >To: THOMAS,Graham; t-and-f >Subject: RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE > > >Message text written by "THOMAS,Graham" >>Perhaps they have just dismissed the 10.49 from the books < > >I think it's more likely that they were referring to the Olympic record, >rather than the World record. At least that was my guess when I read the >piece originally. (No, I am not in the habit of reading Vogue, but I did >make it a point to read that piece.) > >Bob H > >
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
Netters Wayne wrote: > Why are these types of clubs and athletes so rare now? One reason for > the paucity of clubs may be ironically, the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. I can see how this had an effect on clubs. But I am wondering how much the road racing boom hurt the club track & field program. Looking at the time period that Wayne talked about (1971-1991) seems to have coincided with the running boom. Also though Brian wrote this several days ago I have to disagree with his statement that an athlete who hasn't made his mark by college then he never will. It may be more true in the sprints but not in distances or walks you never know who is going to pop up in their 30's. Look at Christine Clark who not only won the trials but then silenced any doubters with another PR at the Games. I didn't start really being able to hold my own until I was 30 + nor did my coach. I rattle off dozens of athletes like that.
t-and-f: re: women's 100 OR
according to the iaaf site at http://www.iaaf.org/Results/index.asp, the OR is 10.62 with a wind reading of "1".
[Fwd: t-and-f: Why the lack of improvement]
I think you bring up a very good question, a question that I ask myself today as it applies to the "H.S. elite"? Is it a biological clock on the number of years one participate?, Does it depends on the region in which you live in? The parental involvement and influences or better yet the faith that one has in his or her spiritual being and oneself. As a former "H.S. elite" athlete, H.S. coach and current club coach, I can only speak for myself and what happen or prevented me from reaching even higher achievements post H.S. For the sake of typing I would like to break it down to 1) guidances /mentor (lack of), 2) thieves (people entrusted) 3) disenchantment (government involvement) 4) priority (lifes situations) 5) Injury. Notice I did not mention the lack of facilities, coaching, competition, or burn out, even though those problem existed. For me it was the combination of the events mentioned above that led me to believe that it was time to hang up my spikes, knowing that I was still in my prime. It wasn't until 1983-84 some eleven (11) years of competition that I finally decided to call it quits, and the last two events that made the final decision were the birth of my daughter and a broken elbow. I have no regret in the decision that I made for God has blessed me with the opportunity to raise a wonderful daughter and better yet, see her make her own marks in the sport of track and field. God Bless TD On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:41:49 -0800 "Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jimmie Manning wrote: > > > There may be some question concerning the success of Tony Darden. > He was > an > > Olympic qualifier, but someone (President Carter) decided to mix > athletics > with > > politics. He also beat the Cuban great (Juan ??spelling) in the > Pan Am > Games. I > > believe that would be like someone beating M. Johnson in a premier > race > today. > > He may have run on a world record relay team, and there were other > > accomplishments. Are those minor or OK accomplishments after high > school? > Does > > it mean to be truly successful you have to break a world record in > an > individual > > event? If that is criteria there will not be a tremendous amount > of > successful > > athletes. > > > > Concerning your question, could it be resources that have caused > some are > best > > athletes to under achieve? During past threads there have been > many > comments on > > training facilities, hours available to train, finances, and so > forth and > so on. > > > > My post was not meant in any way to impugn the career of Darden or > any of > the other athletes that I mentioned .. All were world class athletes > that > had varying degrees of success (both in high school and afterward) > .. My > question has less to do with their individual careers than the fact > that > those athletes that seem to be at the top of the hill in high school > seem to > have less improvement and success afterwards than their lesser > achieving > high school counterparts .. Darden qualified for the Olympics as did > Deloach, Martin, and McTear .. Deloach getting a gold .. All of > these > athletes were high class athletes, high quality athletes .. However, > one > would have expected McTear to run sub 10 for instance .. Martin > should have > been a regular under 20.00 yet never broke that barrier after > running 20.13 > twice in high school and making it look easy .. Henry Thomas ran > 45.09 AFTER > having appendix surgery during the same season .. Yet it was his > "understudy" Mike Marsh that ended up winning Olympic gold and > coming within > a hairs breath of the 200 WR .. My issue is not that these > individuals did > not have good careers but rather why did they NOT end up achieving > the great > performances that their high school careers indicated were in store > ... This > past year Dwight Thomas and Mark Lewis Francis were another pair of > teenagers with outstanding credentials in the sprints .. Their 10.12 > and > 10.13 performances would indicate that both should join the 9.8x > club .. Yet > history indicates that at least one won't and it is highly likely > that > neither will .. My question is simply "why is that??" Why did Darden > not > break 45 (running 45.01) or how about Bill Green with a PR of 45.07 > after > 45.51 in HS ?? Henry Thomas ran 45.09 in HS yet only 45.05 the rest > of his > career .. Obea Moore's PR is still 45.14 from HS .. William Reed > never > bettered his HS 45.17 .. That's all I'm asking .. Has nothing to do > with > their careers but more so with their "improvement" on the clock .. > You would > have thought that all the afore mentioned quarter milers would have > been sub > 44 performers, but none were even sub 45 - why ?? Nothing against > them, just > a curiosity on my part .. > > Conway Hill > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Stay fit with Bodyfit Products Nutritional Support & Energy For The Body Contact me for more product informa
Re: t-and-f: mindboggling men's 200 stat
GH wrote: > Jamaica, that seemingly boundless source of great sprint talent, hasn't had a > man make the T&FN World Rankings in the 200 since > > Would you believe Don Quarrie in 1982? > > And if you pull Quarrie out of the equation, would you believe Lennox Miller > in 1969? > Mind boggling but not too when you stop to think that if you add the entire Caribbean and its wealth of sprinters I would think that Oba Thompson would probably be the only other ranker in the 200 during the same time span .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: No coverage=no trackies
> Just so that there's no misunderstanding -- USATF masters meets of any size > are open to athletes 30-39 (who are called submasters). This includes the > USATF national masters indoor and outdoor championships. The bottom line: > The 12.0 sprinter who can't cut it in postcollegiate elite meets is welcome > with open arms by the masters movement. The reason you don't see more of > these folks is you haven't ASKED them -- or even informed them. First of all, this is absolutely not true. The VAST majority of USATF masters meets run by associations or put on at the local level - and there aren't that many of them - do NOT consider 30-39 year-olds masters. Yes, the national championships do, but most of the other meets don't. The fact is, many masters meets are combined with meets for other ages anyway, so it is kind of a moot point. >But T&FN persists in the damaging delusion that masters track is of interest only to sons, daughters and spouses of >participants. T&FN was on the right track in 1970 but got off it somehow. I don't completely agree with Garry's assessment of the potential interest in competing. But I would have to agree 100% that right now masters track is of interest to people who are associated with participants. Sure, if a former world class athlete like O'Sullivan or Steve Scott talks about breaking 4:00 - the only real performance that the general public can relate to - there is some interest in the press. Probably less press than an amateur state golf championship receives, though. There are so few competitors in masters track that it is silly to waste breath convincing ourselves otherwise. A single large road race has more participants than all the participants in USATF masters track national and association championships in a year combined. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with those who do compete or with those who support them - they are to be commended. But those people especially need to stop being defensive and look at what can be done to improve things. I can't blame T&FN in the slightest for not covering the masters - they don't cover anything except elite track & field. Lack of press coverage is one of the SMALLER problems facing our sport at the sub-elite level. Let's not attack the only American magazine that actually covers the elite side of the sport well, just because they have opinions that we disagree with. I feel certain that if Garry could be convinced that there was a realistic chance of a large-scale increase in track and field participation among sub-elites, he would be supportive. I don't see him saying to do away with masters opportunities. He HAS written that USATF needs to focus on the elite athletes and not get bogged down with the non-elite athletes, but his point seems to be that rather than try to be everything to everybody (and fail), USATF needs to focus on the visible part of the sport - the elites. And given how dysfunctional we (USATF) have been, it is not an unreasonable idea. Youth and masters might even be better served by an organization that focused solely on their interests. - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: NFL for Capel?
According to this morning's paper, John Capel has entered his name into the pro football draft-eligibles list. I just have one question: won't his team hate it when it's consistenly 1st and 15? :-) gh
Re: t-and-f: Storm watch
Steve wrote: > < I am sure there are reasons or criteria, but they change year to year. And in > some cases look to be more personal than professional. > > > Got to disagree with this statement. I don't know the athletes involved nor the people at T&FN from a hole in the wall and I have yet to read the magazine or look on the website but I mentioned a few months ago that I thought Kenteris would be ranked #1 in a year where there was no real dominant player in the event. > > Typically when there is not a dominant athlete in an event in a year where there is a major championship T & FN will weigh the championship heavier than the rest of the competitions in the event. > Not sure if I agree with this line of reasoning .. But even if such were the case, then the biggest Championship race of the year would have to be the US trials .. And if you would give the top ranking to the individual who won the biggest race then that would have to be Capel, who won the biggest race, over the toughest and deepest field in one of the fastest times in the world .. Versus an athlete who won 1 race of note all year in what proved to be a weak field in a mediocre (for championships races) time ... Not to downgrade Kenteris, but that was definitely the case of the proverbial blind squirrel finding the rare (or occasional) nut ! Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
Ed wrote: > A very good barometer of the degree to which Garry's assertion is correct is > US. > > "US", as in you and me, the people on this list. Most of us can be > described as coaches, athletes, former athletes, journalists or just fans. > You have a lot of casual fans in this country of College and pro team > sports. But, to be part of this listserver, you are usually a HARD-CORE > track and field fan. I have read that there are more than 2000 on this > list. > > Now, out of ALL the people on the list who are post-college but > pre-retirement age (about 22-60) how many of us ARE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING > in track and field? > > We can't bemoan the lack of opportunity, the lack of organization, and the > lack of support/ structure/coaching/etc. that fails to attract the general > public ... if it ALSO fails to attract Track's BIGGEST fans. > continuing on . I have to disagree .. I have been to many track meets and met former athletes that I know who talk all the time about how they could do this or do that and wish they were still running .. Wish there was someone to run for .. I mean come on sprint egos never die .. They don't even fade away .. And the big thing that former sprinters talk about is "getting their old relay teams together" .. How many of you remember an old Jim Hines in the late 70's early 80's stepping back on the track with his little belly proclaiming that he could still be "The Man" .. Given a vehicle there would lots of middle aged sprinters and relay teams out there going at it .. ME included .. How can you ask the question of how many do we see competing when there is no vehicle/reason for them to be out there competing ?? That's kind of like asking if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make any noise .. No we don't see them out there competing .. Doesn't mean they don't want to or wouldn't if the opportunity existed .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: mindboggling men's 200 stat
Jamaica, that seemingly boundless source of great sprint talent, hasn't had a man make the T&FN World Rankings in the 200 since Would you believe Don Quarrie in 1982? And if you pull Quarrie out of the equation, would you believe Lennox Miller in 1969? gh
RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE
In a message dated Thu, 11 Jan 2001 5:52:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, "THOMAS,Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << Err.. windy marks can be Olympic records. Flo-Jo's 10.54w IS the Olympic record.>> Strangely enough, on a quick search, I can't find a source I'd consider to be 100% definitive on this question, but I'm virtually certain the 10.54 is NOT the OR. I don't have enough cells left to remember the specifics, but we had quite a hoo-ha in the press tribune at an Olympics a few years back in which a windy mark was listed as the OR (I think maybe Seoul, because of presence of Johnson, Lewis and Flojo and record possibilities). As I recall, somebody finally won the day by pointing out that the setup was such that somebody might get credit for an OR but not the WR, and that would look pretty stupid to the public. So I believe the IAAF started applying the same rule as for WRs. Believe the Commonwealth Games Records still include windies, though. gh
t-and-f: No coverage=no trackies
Brother Garry writes: >People in that age group who play basketball, softball, soccer? >Dozens/hundreds/thousands. Meet 'em every day. But no trackies. At the risk of beating the dead horse that T&FN is at the moment, I will quote from an editor's note (apparently by the late Alphonse Juilland) that accompanied a debut column called "Seniors, 30 & Up" on page 20 of Track & Field News in November 1970: "As is apparent from the title, this column will transcend the normal 40 and up limitation for seniors to include those in their thirties -- the objective of which is to facilitate continuous participation in athletic activities after competition in regular meets is no longer practical. The new 30-39 category will help fill a gap between regular and senior competition, thus encouraging athletes to continue practice without having to wait until they have reached 40." Just so that there's no misunderstanding -- USATF masters meets of any size are open to athletes 30-39 (who are called submasters). This includes the USATF national masters indoor and outdoor championships. The bottom line: The 12.0 sprinter who can't cut it in postcollegiate elite meets is welcome with open arms by the masters movement. The reason you don't see more of these folks is you haven't ASKED them -- or even informed them. An interesting phenomenon is worth noting, too: Until I had my hernia surgery in late 1997, I didn't know a single person in my workplace who'd been through it. After I returned to work, I learned that quite a few men had undergone hernia operations. Same thing happens in masters track. Just last week, I went for a workout at Cuyamaca College east of San Diego and saw a very muscled man with two teen-age daughters practicing block starts. Turns out he's a former semipro football player (San Diego Jaguars), who is training for sprints at age 36. He competed in meets last year in his age group. I can cite a dozen instances of running into masters or submasters in training in my area. Garry has probably walked past hundreds of them at meets on the way to the buffet table. He's just never stopped to ask or notice. On the flip side, I've come across equal numbers of older distance runners who haven't a clue that masters track exists. Sites like mine and Runner's World Online are making a dent, though. In fact, one of the queries put to Marcus O'Sullivan recently in an online interview is whether he thinks he has a shot at a sub-4 mile as a master. He turns 40 at the end of 2001. Five years ago, "masters" rarely came up in mainstream coverage. Now it's becoming almost a given when talking to older or near-retirement elites. But T&FN persists in the damaging delusion that masters track is of interest only to sons, daughters and spouses of participants. T&FN was on the right track in 1970 but got off it somehow. How the heck are nonelite thirty-somethings going to see themselves as track athletes if the Bible of the Sport commands that they not? Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com
Re: t-and-f: Saturday's NY Invitiational - web site?
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Bob Ramsak wrote: > Hi All, > Is anyone aware of a website for Saturday's NY Invitational? Or a site for the >timing company working the meet? If you mean the Armory Collegiate Invitational, TrackMeets.com will carry the meet live in streaming video, showing Every Lap of Every Race. The cameras and production equipment will be manned with students from Fordham Prep. We will control the computers remotely from sunny Saskatoon! Kamal. DR KAMAL JABBOUR - Engineer, Educator, Runner, WriterO o 2-222 Center for Science and Technology /|\/ <|\ Syracuse University, Syracuse NY 13244-4100 | | Phone 315-443-3000, Fax 315-443-2583 __/ \ \/ \ http://running.syr.edu/jabbour.html\ \
RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE
Err.. windy marks can be Olympic records. Flo-Jo's 10.54w IS the Olympic record. Regards - GT -Original Message- From: Post, Marty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 12 January 2001 1:17 To: 'Robert Hersh'; THOMAS,Graham; t-and-f Subject: RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE Okay, but it's still wrong... unless they're inferring the finals/gold medal race only. Flo-Jo's 10.54 in the '88 Olympic final was indeed wind-aided, but she's still considered the Olympic record-holder with her 10.62 from a qualifying round the day before the final. -Original Message- From: Robert Hersh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:08 AM To: THOMAS,Graham; t-and-f Subject: RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE Message text written by "THOMAS,Graham" >Perhaps they have just dismissed the 10.49 from the books < I think it's more likely that they were referring to the Olympic record, rather than the World record. At least that was my guess when I read the piece originally. (No, I am not in the habit of reading Vogue, but I did make it a point to read that piece.) Bob H
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
> It is wrong to think that "loads" of people in the general population would > be attracted to participate in T&F after HS and College are over if WE DON'T > EVEN WANT TO. It is like Garry said: Road based competition? Yes, people > are doing it. Sprinters, throwers, Jumpers? No, people aren't doing it. I still am not convinced that there is no chance of greatly increasing participation on all levels, although I am not convinced that those who say it could never happen are worng, either. An interesting choice of words in this post - "road-based competition". I would argue that most road racers are participating, not competing - and I am primarily a road racer, so it is not meant to bash anyone. I tend to agree that track is a sport in which it is difficult to "participate" only. Not only are most events difficult/undesirable to do without some kind of reasonable training, but there is a perception that track is only for the elite. A guy I know (a list-member) told me this summer that he wiould never run a track meet unless he was training hard, but he will run road races all the time. He usually finished in the top 10-20% of road races even out of shape, so it's not like he is a pure jogger. He does this out of respect for the discipline that track & field requires. While I sympathize with him, I think that this is an attitude that will have a negative impact, not a positive impact on track & field. We will probably never see hundreds of adults showing up to run 7 or 8 minutes for the mile, and logistically it might be difficult to handle anyway. What we can do is focus some efforts on instilling a desire to "compete", as opposed to just participate. This MUST start with youth programs and continue through high school. And more focus needs to be given to this aspect of club development. It doesn't matter how good you are or even how much time you have to train. What matters is that you approach it as a competition, as an opportunity to find out about your limits and abilities on any given day, as opposed to just showing up and finishing, as many road racers do. IMO, teaching the value of competition at a young age and supporting it for open and masters athletes will end up having a positive impact on the elites, even if participation numbers at the adult level never get to the point where we are satisfied with them. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
Garry says Yogi says: >As Yogi says, "if they don't want to come to the ballpark, you can't make >them come" (or something like that). Correct Yogi quote: "If people don't want to come out to the ballpark, nobody's going to stop them." Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Storm watch
< I am sure there are reasons or criteria, but they change year to year. And in some cases look to be more personal than professional. > Got to disagree with this statement. I don't know the athletes involved nor the people at T&FN from a hole in the wall and I have yet to read the magazine or look on the website but I mentioned a few months ago that I thought Kenteris would be ranked #1 in a year where there was no real dominant player in the event. Typically when there is not a dominant athlete in an event in a year where there is a major championship T & FN will weigh the championship heavier than the rest of the competitions in the event. Steve S.
RE: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
A very good barometer of the degree to which Garry's assertion is correct is US. "US", as in you and me, the people on this list. Most of us can be described as coaches, athletes, former athletes, journalists or just fans. You have a lot of casual fans in this country of College and pro team sports. But, to be part of this listserver, you are usually a HARD-CORE track and field fan. I have read that there are more than 2000 on this list. Now, out of ALL the people on the list who are post-college but pre-retirement age (about 22-60) how many of us ARE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING in track and field? We can't bemoan the lack of opportunity, the lack of organization, and the lack of support/ structure/coaching/etc. that fails to attract the general public ... if it ALSO fails to attract Track's BIGGEST fans. We have a subset (here on this list) of some of the biggest fans of T&F in America ... who is going to have more motivation to participate? But, how many of us DO? It is wrong to think that "loads" of people in the general population would be attracted to participate in T&F after HS and College are over if WE DON'T EVEN WANT TO. It is like Garry said: Road based competition? Yes, people are doing it. Sprinters, throwers, Jumpers? No, people aren't doing it. Many people will post that ... "YES I AM doing it ... I am still a masters runner (or a recreational track athlete)" ... or maybe some of you were former elites and have had enough after 20 years of tough training and competition. That is understandable. Maybe you are: - Currently training full time as an elite (K. Sullivan, Rohl, a few others). - Already had your elite career (malmo, Platter, Joe Rubio, many others, ...) - Too "old" to really train for say the PV, HJ, or some other demanding event. - Too busy with coaching/career/or family or all of the above to really "train". Most of us fall into ONE of these categories ... but for those who don't ... those that are 22-45 or so and LOVE T&F (as evidenced by membership on the list) ... Why aren't you walking the walk? This is not taking a shot at those who don't compete ... just showing that EVEN the most fervent fans are not participating in the CLUBS AND COMPETITIONS THAT DO EXIST. We can't suggest that with MORE grass-roots clubs, MORE developing elite clubs, MORE Regional Club competition, and seasonal INDOOR/OUTDOOR/XC/MARATHON/and RACEWALK CLUB CHAMPIONSHIPS that T&F would be a thriving sport in America. If we build it ... would they come? NO WAY. Bringing up the phrase "Sport for a lifetime" made me think of some of the sports I have done since college ... bicycle racing, rollerblade racing, tennis, and XC skiing. Tennis and Bicycling are well-established sports in the US, that face the exact same challenges track has ... declining participation and declining interest. Skating and XC skiing are still "fringe" sports. This is because of the training/time/and effort involved. If you look at Americans older than 25 most of them are more interested in seeing how many donuts they can eat than DOING ANY SPORT. For the fraction who want to do something athletic, they are gravitating towards the truly recreational sports; downhill skiing, snowboarding, downhill mountain biking, soccer, Ultimate, basketball things like that. Mostly sports that can be practiced CASUALLY. You can pick them up and put them down with relative EASE. You can't say THAT about track and field. The events are mostly training-intensive (distances/throws/walks) or technique-intensive(sprints/jumps/throws/relays/walks) ... they are not practiced casually. Mike Casy said to me: Other countries have competitive series available for sub-elite athletes shouldn't America also have it? YES ... WE "SHOULD" ... but would we have enough people interested? If you are 22-45 and would LOVE to see a viable club system developed in the U.S., ask yourself whether, once in place, you would make the commitment to TRAIN AND COMPETE for those clubs. Or, whether it just sounds "good" to you ... or you think it would "feed" the elite level of competition, and you enjoy watching that ... so why NOT? If you honestly WOULD compete ... great ... if you would not/could not/might not/probably not ... then why should a club system developed? If the nation's biggest track fans/supporters won't participate ... we can't expect that to ever work, or to attract those on the margin. Sorry I ranted, Brian (would love to have clubs in my town, I would even give money) McEwen start with youth programs. If youth programs are pervasive, then I think adult participation will increase, at least to the point of where adult soccer is now. It's a tough issue. Very little that has been tried to either increase participation OR performance quality in the past 20 years has worked. From where I sit, the biggest contributor to this is a lack of agreement/cooperation within our sport about how to improve things. There
t-and-f: no doubling for Fredericks
IAAF website has a nice interview with Frank Fredericks, talking about last year's Achilles surgery, which kept him out of OG. Says he'll probably just run one event at the WC this summer, and he'ds probably choose the 100 over the 200. (see www.iaaf.org) gh
t-and-f: What high school did Willye White attend?
Does anyone know what high school Willye White attended while competing in the 1956 Olympics? Keith Conning
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
In a message dated Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:20:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: <> Again, to wax anecdotal, my college team was chock-full of studs (the one year I lettered, we finished 2nd in the NCAA), who might be expected to have a decent post-collegiate career. Didn't work that way. I was mediocre, but couldn't envision not competing in track for the rest of my life. At one point, stunned to find out how little interest my teammates really had in the sport, I actively canvassed everyone on the team. Other than three guys who were of Olympic caliber, not one had any plans to compete another day after they finished school. To a man, they viewed the sport simply as an adjunct to getting through school (scholarship funds) and having a little fun. But the day after the last meet of their senior year they cleaned out their lockers and went on to a "real life." As Yogi says, "if they don't want to come to the ballpark, you can't make them come" (or something like that). gh
RE: t-and-f: Saturday's NY Invitiational - web site?
www.trackmeets.com is always a good bet, especially in New York. If you mean the college meet at the NY Armory this weekend, it is definitely being webcast on trackmeets.com A site for the meet itself is www.armorytrack.com John Dye[EMAIL PROTECTED]DyeStat - the Internet home of High School Trackhttp://www.dyestat.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob RamsakSent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:26 AMTo: tf listSubject: t-and-f: Saturday's NY Invitiational - web site? Hi All, Is anyone aware of a website for Saturday's NY Invitational? Or a site for the timing company working the meet? Thanks! -| Bob Ramsak| TRACK PROFILE/OHIO Track & Running Report| Cleveland, Ohio USA| [EMAIL PROTECTED] **Get your FREE trial subscription to The OHIO Track & Running Report at http://www.trackprofile.com | http://www.trackprofile.com| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
Dan & others- One other thing to consider when comparing T&F to recreational basketball/football/etc. You can go down to the local gym/field and jog around for a few hours with a substantial "alternative grain storage device" (beer gut) and do OK. In track, you can't hide. If you're fat and out of shape, your condition is obvious to all. The sport is not about participation, but about winning and losing. Jogging/recreational running, however, is much more participatory in nature. My two cents. Guy Oekerman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think I can state with a pretty good sense of assurance than in these > last 3-plus decades, throwing out people I've actually met at all-comer's > meets, I don't think I've met A SINGLE PERSON between the ages of say, > 22 and 40, who competes in, or has any interest in, competing in a track > & field meet. Why would you exclude those people from consideration? Those are the very people that might disprove your theory. Selective reasoning at its best, it would appear. > People in that age group who play basketball, softball, soccer? > Dozens/hundreds/thousands. Meet 'em every day. But no trackies. Few other sports require the degree of organization that a track or xc meet does for people to continue on with a semi-competitive outlet. What is more difficult, finding 75 officials, preparing seeding, timing, and distributing results, or finding an empty basketball court and a friend or two? You can't simply say that people are not interested because they aren't currently involved. Provide the post-collegiate competitive environment and follow the thousands of kids that participate in high school track, then we'll see if your theory holds water. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 9,900 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Storm watch
Thunder and lightning... Come on guys you cannot be serious about the 200! This back and forth is the exact reason people, like myself, get so boisterous about the rankings. In 1997, wins and losses dictated the rankings, bumping both Ato and Maurice from the top spot. And over the years there has been ample conversation. Now we get to the new millennium and the exact opposite has occurred, again. Kenteris number 1? I know all the reasoning, and I do not buy it. I had conversations during the last year concerning which rankings should an athlete be more concerned about, and I was told the IAAF. I thought that was foolish, and a little premature, but now I know I was wrong. The SEEMINGLY, arbitrary rankings of TFN continues to diminish the credibility of them. I am sure there are reasons or criteria, but they change year to year. And in some cases look to be more personal than professional. DGS The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think I can state with a pretty good sense of assurance than in these > last 3-plus decades, throwing out people I've actually met at all-comer's > meets, I don't think I've met A SINGLE PERSON between the ages of say, > 22 and 40, who competes in, or has any interest in, competing in a track > & field meet. Why would you exclude those people from consideration? Those are the very people that might disprove your theory. Selective reasoning at its best, it would appear. > People in that age group who play basketball, softball, soccer? > Dozens/hundreds/thousands. Meet 'em every day. But no trackies. Few other sports require the degree of organization that a track or xc meet does for people to continue on with a semi-competitive outlet. What is more difficult, finding 75 officials, preparing seeding, timing, and distributing results, or finding an empty basketball court and a friend or two? You can't simply say that people are not interested because they aren't currently involved. Provide the post-collegiate competitive environment and follow the thousands of kids that participate in high school track, then we'll see if your theory holds water. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 9,900 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/
t-and-f: Re: Clubs
Listers have identified several points- 1) We need more clubs and stronger clubs in the U.S. 2) We need more t&f programs for Youth 3) The only obvious, viable market for older age groups in the U.S. may be road running I would argue that those needs and realities should be brought together- 1) There is a market for and interest in having more running based activities for all abilities and ages in clubs 2) Track & field at the elementary school level is a very easy sell (provided there are volunteers to produce meets) and can compete with youth soccer effectively. Any group of kids can train for and compete in track meets happily because there is something for everybody. 3) Many of the road runners and potential running members of clubs are parents who are happy to volunteer for things when the whole family - or at least the children - can participate. There may not be millions of grassroots masters field competitors but so what. By starting with the children and their parents you have a strong foundation on which to build. The all-comers track meets are an easy next step for broadening the scope of the club. And the most competitive local track and field participants can also be recruited as mentors and flag bearers for the club at competitions. Sponsors (and paying members) will be more interested if the club has it all - 1) Top local competition that can provide news and promotional opportunities 2) Family atmosphere 3) Lots of people participating. I don't see these different objectives being incompatible at all. - Linda Honikman, mom > gh wrote: > > IMHO, there simply aren't enough people out there who care about track & > > field (again, as opposed to road-based running) to justify even thinking > > about a viable club system. It's a terrible thing to have to > say, but I'm > > afraid it reflects reality. > > As much as I would like to see a strong club program for all ages and > abilities, I have to admit that gh might be right. > ... > I tend to think that a lot of it needs to start with youth > programs. If youth programs are pervasive, then I think adult > participation > will increase, at least to the point of where adult soccer is now. > ... > - Ed Parrot >
t-and-f: Saturday's NY Invitiational - web site?
Hi All, Is anyone aware of a website for Saturday's NY Invitational? Or a site for the timing company working the meet? Thanks! -| Bob Ramsak| TRACK PROFILE/OHIO Track & Running Report| Cleveland, Ohio USA| [EMAIL PROTECTED] **Get your FREE trial subscription to The OHIO Track & Running Report at http://www.trackprofile.com | http://www.trackprofile.com| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Re: Clubs
gh wrote: > IMHO, there simply aren't enough people out there who care about track & > field (again, as opposed to road-based running) to justify even thinking > about a viable club system. It's a terrible thing to have to say, but I'm > afraid it reflects reality. As much as I would like to see a strong club program for all ages and abilities, I have to admit that gh might be right. It's quite possible that we will never have the demand needed for even a moderately successful club system. I am not completely ready to concede this. I think part of the problem is that there never has been a program, so no one even thinks about doing it after college. I tend to think that a lot of it needs to start with youth programs. If youth programs are pervasive, then I think adult participation will increase, at least to the point of where adult soccer is now. It's a tough issue. Very little that has been tried to either increase participation OR performance quality in the past 20 years has worked. From where I sit, the biggest contributor to this is a lack of agreement/cooperation within our sport about how to improve things. There is even a lot of disagreement about what needs to be improved. The actions that have been taken are disjointed and not fully suppported and cause more bad feelings than good. Regardless of what the eventual solution(s) are, some sort of consensus and willingness to work together is needed among USATF, NCAA and high schools. I don't see this happening in a meaningful way right now. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Track Clinic Information
The name of the clinic was the 1999 National Track & Field/Cross Country Coaches Clinic. It was held at the Orange County Airport Hilton in Irvine on Jan. 16-17, '99. I really enjoyed it but have not received any information for future clinics. One long shot would be to contact the hotel since it was held there in '98 also. Jeff Fedorko, Distance Coach Lynchburg College -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:30:43 EST >I was at a Track Clinic in Los Angeles two years ago. The clinic was held >about this time of year. The speakers included John Smith, Tom Tellez, Karen >Dennis, Lance Harter and others. Does anybody recall the name of the clinic >and if it's being held again this year. > >Thanks in advance for the information. >A.C. >
RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE
Okay, but it's still wrong... unless they're inferring the finals/gold medal race only. Flo-Jo's 10.54 in the '88 Olympic final was indeed wind-aided, but she's still considered the Olympic record-holder with her 10.62 from a qualifying round the day before the final. -Original Message- From: Robert Hersh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:08 AM To: THOMAS,Graham; t-and-f Subject: RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE Message text written by "THOMAS,Graham" >Perhaps they have just dismissed the 10.49 from the books < I think it's more likely that they were referring to the Olympic record, rather than the World record. At least that was my guess when I read the piece originally. (No, I am not in the habit of reading Vogue, but I did make it a point to read that piece.) Bob H
t-and-f: Start a Division III Program
Hello: Anyone have any information on how to start a Division III Cross Country Program. Please Email at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank You _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Guess who on the cover of VOGUE
Message text written by "THOMAS,Graham" >Perhaps they have just dismissed the 10.49 from the books < I think it's more likely that they were referring to the Olympic record, rather than the World record. At least that was my guess when I read the piece originally. (No, I am not in the habit of reading Vogue, but I did make it a point to read that piece.) Bob H
RE: t-and-f: And the winners are.....
hmmm... Alekna! Not a bad choice at all. Probably wiser than selecting Zelezny who certainly established an all-time greatness, but was not nearly as dominant as Alekna this year (Drecshler among the ladies- same story). It would be nice to see where the others ranked. I do hope Korzeniowsky was not left to the doldrums. UG ___ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: And the winners are. T&FN AOYs for 2000 (whole top 10 voting in fact) now posted on the T&FN website. www.trackandfieldnews.com The No. 1 Rankers in each event will be posted tomorrow; for those entire top 10s you'll have to buy a copy of the magazine. gh
t-and-f: Storm watch
GH has given the forecast, a storm is brewing. I am confirming the sighting of our seasonal storm. Something wicked this way comes! DGS The G.O.A.T.
