t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
If you thought that U.S. milers had fun chasing the A standard for Sydney (3:36.80) and Edmonton (3:36.20), wait'll they get a load of what's in store for the next WC, Paris '03. Would you believe 3:34.90? And when's the last time the winner of the Nationals ran that fast? To paraphrase Jim Rome, oh... about never! Have fun storming the castle, boys! gh
RE: t-and-f: what's a world-class sprinter?
I'm curious as to what criterion people use before they apply that tag (in any event). ??? Before I read any of the many replies to this post I thought I would put in my definition. A few years ago, I noticed my criteria for world-class seemed to be much looser than others, so I looked it up in the dictionary. I don't remember what it said, but I remember taking this away from it: World-class = someone who does (or could) compete at the level of the world's best, such as in a world championship event. So, for me, world-class means any T F athlete who competes (or could conceivably compete) in the WC's. To me it doesn't mean they are fighting for a medal, just that they are on that level that they could go. Even if they never made the meet. Like an 8:17 Steepler in Kenya. He will likely never make a WC team, but he could compete at that level if he ever *DID* make the team. I was reminded a year ago, that elite means something different altogether. I used to equate world-class with elite. However, elite means the very best, or one who is among the very best. /Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 7:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: what's a world-class sprinter? the subject line is a question posed by Steve Holman in a column on the Runner's World site a few weeks back, in which he takes umbrage at the use of world class speed when applied to NFL types. Here's the column: http://205.147.231.44/home/0,1300,1-0-0-1169,FF.html A few times I've been critical on the list of people being cited as world-class that I didn't think were. I'm curious as to what criterion people use before they apply that tag (in any event). ??? gh
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
Hey, the bar has been raised. My suspicion is that guys like Webb, Jennings and others will welcome the challenge. These guys whine less than the marathoners, so we should be fine. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:52 AM Subject: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun? If you thought that U.S. milers had fun chasing the A standard for Sydney (3:36.80) and Edmonton (3:36.20), wait'll they get a load of what's in store for the next WC, Paris '03. Would you believe 3:34.90? And when's the last time the winner of the Nationals ran that fast? To paraphrase Jim Rome, oh... about never! Have fun storming the castle, boys! gh
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
I'm personally really happy that the standard will be that fast... we shouldn't send guys who struggle to make the standard, but rather guys who run it on their way to peaking for the Champioinships where they intend to medal. If we can't send 3 guys with legitimit chances of getting into the finals, I don't mind if we send none at all. Of course, this is coming from someone who can't imagine running within 10 seconds of that time, so take my opinion as you will. Mike From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun? Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 11:52:47 EST If you thought that U.S. milers had fun chasing the A standard for Sydney (3:36.80) and Edmonton (3:36.20), wait'll they get a load of what's in store for the next WC, Paris '03. Would you believe 3:34.90? And when's the last time the winner of the Nationals ran that fast? To paraphrase Jim Rome, oh... about never! Have fun storming the castle, boys! gh _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
Maybe something to consider for the future is the following. Now this isn't my idea, it was brought up by Jamey Harris and Louie Qunitana at the Calif. Community College XC state meet back in November. I feel it has merrit. They felt that having the USATF outdoor standard set at roughly the same level as the NCAA standard did not set the expectation of our post collegiate athletes to strive for that next level of performance. Basically it sets the expectation that once you've made the NCAA standard, you've made it in the US. Their idea was to set the USATF automatic outdoor standard at the midway point between the NCAA standard and the World standard. So in this case where we have a roughly 3:35 world standard and a roughly 3:41 NCAA standard, the Harris/Quintana standard would be set at 3:38 for the auto qualifier. I liked the idea. Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you thought that U.S. milers had fun chasing the A standard for Sydney (3:36.80) and Edmonton (3:36.20), wait'll they get a load of what's in store for the next WC, Paris '03. Would you believe 3:34.90? And when's the last time the winner of the Nationals ran that fast? To paraphrase Jim Rome, oh... about never! Have fun storming the castle, boys! gh
t-and-f: National Indoor
I have some questions about the national indoor championships at The Armory in New York: 1. What will be the seating capacity? 2. Where will the athletes warm up for the running events? 3. Is that area of town safe? I have heard that some of our athletes will skip this event because of the conditions. Harold _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
You have an excellent point. Look what this type of thinking is doing to the guys on the roads. Many road races have American-only money, or two purses: one for the regular winners and one for the top placing Americans. I know there are good intentions for this double standard, but I'm not sure if it is doing much to improve American distance running or to close the gap. I think the same is true here with these track standards. But this will be a mute point in a couple years with all these quality young guys we now have. Right? Joe Rubio wrote: Maybe something to consider for the future is the following. Now this isn't my idea, it was brought up by Jamey Harris and Louie Qunitana at the Calif. Community College XC state meet back in November. I feel it has merrit. They felt that having the USATF outdoor standard set at roughly the same level as the NCAA standard did not set the expectation of our post collegiate athletes to strive for that next level of performance. Basically it sets the expectation that once you've made the NCAA standard, you've made it in the US. Their idea was to set the USATF automatic outdoor standard at the midway point between the NCAA standard and the World standard. So in this case where we have a roughly 3:35 world standard and a roughly 3:41 NCAA standard, the Harris/Quintana standard would be set at 3:38 for the auto qualifier. I liked the idea. Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you thought that U.S. milers had fun chasing the A standard for Sydney (3:36.80) and Edmonton (3:36.20), wait'll they get a load of what's in store for the next WC, Paris '03. Would you believe 3:34.90? And when's the last time the winner of the Nationals ran that fast? To paraphrase Jim Rome, oh... about never! Have fun storming the castle, boys! gh
Re: t-and-f: National Indoor
well... I can answer questions 2 and 3 VERY confidently as I ran MANY night meets at the Armory in college. The area is very safe. Most people warm up by doing laps around the Armory itself... or going a few blocks downtown, across town a blck, a few blocks up town, back a block and so on and so forth. I never once felt unsafe warming up or cooling down for a meet at the Armory. If people aren't coming for that reason... well... they need to get over their fears and realize that per capita, NYC is one of the safest places to be in the country... at any hour... in nearly any neighborhood. Mike From: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Harold Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: National Indoor Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 11:47:02 -0700 I have some questions about the national indoor championships at The Armory in New York: 1. What will be the seating capacity? 2. Where will the athletes warm up for the running events? 3. Is that area of town safe? I have heard that some of our athletes will skip this event because of the conditions. Harold _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
In a message dated Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:55:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael Contopoulos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm personally really happy that the standard will be that fast... we shouldn't send guys who struggle to make the standard, but rather guys who run it on their way to peaking for the Champioinships where they intend to medal. If we can't send 3 guys with legitimit chances of getting into the finals, I don't mind if we send none at all. Then Joe Rubio wrote: Their idea was to set the USATF automatic outdoor standard at the midway point between the NCAA standard and the World standard. So in this case where we have a roughly 3:35 world standard and a roughly 3:41 NCAA standard, the Harris/Quintana standard would be set at 3:38 for the auto qualifier. The real problem has nothing to do with having 3 guys who are at A standard or setting the standard for Nationals so that only superstuds are in the meet. The key to my original post was the line about when the was the last time anybody ran that fast in the nationals, like never. The huge problem the U.S. has had in the mile department in the last decade, relative to OG/WC, is with the Trials winner not having the A standard. So he spends a month or so running himself into the ground trying to get it, and maybe others behind him have to do the same. Meanwhile, the guys with the A's don't know whether or not to assume they'll make it and gear their training accordingly, or just go on-Circuit and bust ass trying to make bucks. In a column i wrote in TFN (November issue, where I half-serioiusly suggested the Nationals needs paid rabbits) I said this: Starting with ?91, when the WC went to the every-two-years schedule, here?s the winning time in Trials years: 3:40.72, 3:36.24, 3:42.74, 3:43.90, 3:43.86, 3:45.85, 3:39.21, 3:35.90, 3:37.63. Only a hard-core freak would remember the names of some of those winners. So the big question, in my mind, is how do we guarantee that the winner of the 1500 at Stanford in June of '03 runs (or has already run) 3:34.90? gh
Re: t-and-f: National Indoor
I concur. And according to recent statements by the ex-mayor of NYC,It's safer than Boston. Happy New Year to all. NeTrack
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
Hmm... my point is that the winner of the trials shouldn't have to worry about running himself into the ground to run 3:34.9 in Europe. Hopefully the 3 guys we send won't have to worry about the standard... or achieving it at Nationals... because if they get in one fast race in Europe, they're in like flyn. If they do kill themselves to make the standard that just shows that we still have a ways to go until we can be the best. The same holds true for the college athlete that doesn't have to work that hard to make his conference meet, but needs to kill himself all year to make NCAAs. He doesn't care how he does once he gets there... the goal is to make the dance. The difference, of course, is in college, there is the opposite side of the spectrum... guys who can coast into NCAAs with the goal of winning. We need guys who can coast through Nationals (conference meet), not worry about making the A standard (NCAA standard), and can rather focus on making and doing well in the finals of the WCs and OGs. We have recently had guys like this in Williams, Kennedy and Croghan. They didn't have to worry about hitting standards or making teams. Their concern was of a grander nature... medaling at the WCs. M From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun? Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:12:03 EST In a message dated Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:55:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael Contopoulos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm personally really happy that the standard will be that fast... we shouldn't send guys who struggle to make the standard, but rather guys who run it on their way to peaking for the Champioinships where they intend to medal. If we can't send 3 guys with legitimit chances of getting into the finals, I don't mind if we send none at all. Then Joe Rubio wrote: Their idea was to set the USATF automatic outdoor standard at the midway point between the NCAA standard and the World standard. So in this case where we have a roughly 3:35 world standard and a roughly 3:41 NCAA standard, the Harris/Quintana standard would be set at 3:38 for the auto qualifier. The real problem has nothing to do with having 3 guys who are at A standard or setting the standard for Nationals so that only superstuds are in the meet. The key to my original post was the line about when the was the last time anybody ran that fast in the nationals, like never. The huge problem the U.S. has had in the mile department in the last decade, relative to OG/WC, is with the Trials winner not having the A standard. So he spends a month or so running himself into the ground trying to get it, and maybe others behind him have to do the same. Meanwhile, the guys with the A's don't know whether or not to assume they'll make it and gear their training accordingly, or just go on-Circuit and bust ass trying to make bucks. In a column i wrote in TFN (November issue, where I half-serioiusly suggested the Nationals needs paid rabbits) I said this: Starting with ?91, when the WC went to the every-two-years schedule, here?s the winning time in Trials years: 3:40.72, 3:36.24, 3:42.74, 3:43.90, 3:43.86, 3:45.85, 3:39.21, 3:35.90, 3:37.63. Only a hard-core freak would remember the names of some of those winners. So the big question, in my mind, is how do we guarantee that the winner of the 1500 at Stanford in June of '03 runs (or has already run) 3:34.90? gh _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
You needn't apologize for that. Very few of the millions of people who have strong opinions about baseball can imagine throwing a fastball within 10 mph of Randy Johnson's, but that doesn't stop them from talking baseball. 10 MPH? If I could throw a baseball 10 MPH slower than Johnson and I could place it well, I'd be in the majors!
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
You have an excellent point. Look what this type of thinking is doing to the guys on the roads. Many road races have American-only money, or two purses: one for the regular winners and one for the top placing Americans. I know there are good intentions for this double standard, but I'm not sure if it is doing much to improve American distance running or to close the gap. I think the same is true here with these track standards. But this will be a mute point in a couple years with all these quality young guys we now have. Right? I agree with the general point, but I think it's misleading to say Many road races have American-only money. The national championships have American-only money, as well they should. I know of VERY few non-championship road races that have American-only money. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
Maybe something to consider for the future is the following. Now this isn't my idea, it was brought up by Jamey Harris and Louie Qunitana at the Calif. Community College XC state meet back in November. I feel it has merrit. They felt that having the USATF outdoor standard set at roughly the same level as the NCAA standard did not set the expectation of our post collegiate athletes to strive for that next level of performance. Basically it sets the expectation that once you've made the NCAA standard, you've made it in the US. Their idea was to set the USATF automatic outdoor standard at the midway point between the NCAA standard and the World standard. So in this case where we have a roughly 3:35 world standard and a roughly 3:41 NCAA standard, the Harris/Quintana standard would be set at 3:38 for the auto qualifier. And this would reduce the fields in most events, allowing the possibility of another idea that would help stimulate U.S. track and field - have 30-50% of the fields at nationals come from 4-8 regional meets rather than having it all time based as it is now (sounds like the NCAA). In a field of 24, ~12 should qualify on time, and the rest should come from regional meets. This would increase the emphasis on head-to-head competition while still ensuring that the top dozen people in each event would get in on time. Many of the other individual sports do some varaition on this. I don't think it would fly with the athletes, plus it would require some money for the regional meets. But if done right, I think the net result would be more and better competition opportunities for those coming up through the ranks. To ponder gh's original thought on how we are going to get the winner under the A standard in 2003, that's a good question. If I can just knock 20 seconds off my 1500 time and qualify for nationals, I'll volunteer to rabbit the race at 3:33 pace! - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
What are the arguements against having a rabbit for the race? HR From: Ed and Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Ed and Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: \Athletics\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun? Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:29:01 -0800 Maybe something to consider for the future is the following. Now this isn't my idea, it was brought up by Jamey Harris and Louie Qunitana at the Calif. Community College XC state meet back in November. I feel it has merrit. They felt that having the USATF outdoor standard set at roughly the same level as the NCAA standard did not set the expectation of our post collegiate athletes to strive for that next level of performance. Basically it sets the expectation that once you've made the NCAA standard, you've made it in the US. Their idea was to set the USATF automatic outdoor standard at the midway point between the NCAA standard and the World standard. So in this case where we have a roughly 3:35 world standard and a roughly 3:41 NCAA standard, the Harris/Quintana standard would be set at 3:38 for the auto qualifier. And this would reduce the fields in most events, allowing the possibility of another idea that would help stimulate U.S. track and field - have 30-50% of the fields at nationals come from 4-8 regional meets rather than having it all time based as it is now (sounds like the NCAA). In a field of 24, ~12 should qualify on time, and the rest should come from regional meets. This would increase the emphasis on head-to-head competition while still ensuring that the top dozen people in each event would get in on time. Many of the other individual sports do some varaition on this. I don't think it would fly with the athletes, plus it would require some money for the regional meets. But if done right, I think the net result would be more and better competition opportunities for those coming up through the ranks. To ponder gh's original thought on how we are going to get the winner under the A standard in 2003, that's a good question. If I can just knock 20 seconds off my 1500 time and qualify for nationals, I'll volunteer to rabbit the race at 3:33 pace! - Ed Parrot _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
Ed wrote: Another idea that would help stimulate U.S. track and field - have 30-50% of the fields at nationals come from 4-8 regional meets rather than having it all time based as it is now (sounds like the NCAA). In a field of 24, ~12 should qualify on time, and the rest should come from regional meets. This would increase the emphasis on head-to-head competition while still ensuring that the top dozen people in each event would get in on time. Many of the other individual sports do some variation on this. clip if done right, I think the net result would be more and better competition opportunities for those coming up through the ranks. This idea is brilliant! I would go further and require that any entrant in the national championships also have run the qualifying time and placed in the top 3 in the regional meet (combination of associations) like an Olympic trial. Top three and qualifying time. Then each region would have its important track meet including its regional stars and a reason for spectators and the press to pay attention. Hopes would go with the regional guy to go to the nationals. Tom Derderian, endorser of brilliant ideas.
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
Harold asked: What are the arguements against having a rabbit for the race? Depends what you want to accomplish, and how far you're willing to go to have effective rabbits. If you go with a half-miler type rabbit, most everyone in the field will just run their own race, since nobody wants to be the guy stuck in front when the rabbit pulls off halfway through the race. OK, maybe one guy will. But most of the field will just key on each other. If you go with a rabbit who can hold reliable 3:34 pace for longer than 1/2 mile - well, he's probably trying to make the team in the 1500 (even if you're using dual rabbits, you'd still need a guy capable of running a solo 57-58 after following through a 1:54-1:55 - and how many Americans can do that?) Your next option - do what Stanford did last year in the 10K American Record race, and get an express-train of Kenyans to pace the field around the track. But that seems kind of a humiliating prospect for an Oly/WC qualifying race, doesn't it? Phil
Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
This idea is brilliant! I would go further and require that any entrant in the national championships also have run the qualifying time and placed in the top 3 in the regional meet (combination of associations) like an Olympic trial. Top three and qualifying time. Then each region would have its important track meet including its regional stars and a reason for spectators and the press to pay attention. Hopes would go with the regional guy to go to the nationals. I don't think it's a good idea to go as far as Tom suggests. We don't want the top 3 athletes in each event to be forced to run a regional meet. Ideally what I'd like to see is this: 1.A series of local meets, possibly 57 of them, hosted by the USATF associations. They should occur 4-6 weeks before nationals. However, even though I am Vice Chair of the national Associations Committee, and about as strong a proponent of associations as there is, I have my doubts as to whether the associations would agree to this. They would have less control over things like dates and meet structure. Assuming we had national signoff and support, if the associations weren't willing then I say screw 'em, we'll have to go a different route with local meets. At any rate, anyone would be eligible to run in the local championship. Ideally we could create some club incentive right here as well. Possibly design the scoring in such a way as to reward clubs that serve different event groups as opposed to all distance runners or all sprinters. This incentive will have to be in the form of money. 2. Six regional meets, 2 weeks before nationals. These would be two-day meets, with 1 section of 24-32 in the 10,000m, two sections of 16 in the Steeple and 5K, 3 trial heats plus finals in the 400m, 400H, 800m, and 1500m, and 3 rounds in the dashes and short hurdles. The top 2 in each event at the local championships would automatically advance to regionals, with rest of the fields being filled out by the top athletes who meet performance standards but didn't place top 2 at the local meet. 3. Nationals. 18 athletes come from regional meets - top 3 from each. The rest of the field is filled based on performance The above would start with the Regional meets, with the expectation that the local meets would follow. There are a variety of ways this could be done. The most important thing to get it to work is that enough spots at nationals would have to be up for grabs at Regionals (at least 2 per region) to get the athletes to show up to the meet. - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
My guess, raise the bar higher and they'll jump higher. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun? If you thought that U.S. milers had fun chasing the A standard for Sydney (3:36.80) and Edmonton (3:36.20), wait'll they get a load of what's in store for the next WC, Paris '03. Would you believe 3:34.90? And when's the last time the winner of the Nationals ran that fast? To paraphrase Jim Rome, oh... about never! Have fun storming the castle, boys! gh
RE: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
In a message dated Fri, 4 Jan 2002 6:54:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My guess, raise the bar higher and they'll jump higher. As in, when the standard was 3:36 they ran 3:38, so now that the standard is 3:34 they'll run 3:36? gh
RE: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
Jamie Harris and Louie Quintana have the right idea in increasing the or making the standard higher, but with the new qualifying marks for the WC, I think the automatic qualifier for the USATF has to be increased to 3:34.90. I have talked to Louie on many occasions and he has a lot of good ideas. He has also developed quite a few good 800M runners and milers at Arroyo Grande and Righetti High Schools. He obviously knows of what he speaks. He also helped his son Louie, Jr. develop into the 800M, miler that he became. It is too bad that Louie, Jr. got injured while at Villanova, and cut his career short. I thought he was going to be one of the young guns to take over the 1500 and mile for the US. He definitely had the will to do so. Gerald Woodward -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joe Rubio Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 10:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun? Maybe something to consider for the future is the following. Now this isn't my idea, it was brought up by Jamey Harris and Louie Qunitana at the Calif. Community College XC state meet back in November. I feel it has merrit. They felt that having the USATF outdoor standard set at roughly the same level as the NCAA standard did not set the expectation of our post collegiate athletes to strive for that next level of performance. Basically it sets the expectation that once you've made the NCAA standard, you've made it in the US. Their idea was to set the USATF automatic outdoor standard at the midway point between the NCAA standard and the World standard. So in this case where we have a roughly 3:35 world standard and a roughly 3:41 NCAA standard, the Harris/Quintana standard would be set at 3:38 for the auto qualifier. I liked the idea. Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you thought that U.S. milers had fun chasing the A standard for Sydney (3:36.80) and Edmonton (3:36.20), wait'll they get a load of what's in store for the next WC, Paris '03. Would you believe 3:34.90? And when's the last time the winner of the Nationals ran that fast? To paraphrase Jim Rome, oh... about never! Have fun storming the castle, boys! gh
RE: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun?
That's a start. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 7:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: 1500: ain't we got fun? In a message dated Fri, 4 Jan 2002 6:54:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My guess, raise the bar higher and they'll jump higher. As in, when the standard was 3:36 they ran 3:38, so now that the standard is 3:34 they'll run 3:36? gh
t-and-f: Acuff in running for World's Sexiest Athlete
Y ask: ESPN is conducting an online poll on the world's sexiest athletes -- men and women both. Only trackster listed is Amy Acuff. See: http://espn.go.com/sexiestathletes/amy_acuff.html But my vote would go to Aussie-vaulter-via-Russia Tatiana Grigorieva. See her in trackwear at: http://www.athletics.org.au/athletes/profiles/profile.cfm?ObjectID=41 See her in nowear at: http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/cinerama/horror/235/oops_tatiana_grigorieva.html Kournikova, eat your heart out. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com
Re: t-and-f: Acuff in running for World's Sexiest Athlete
No, there are other tracksters listed on the ESPN poll, but the best bio goes to Anna Kournikova: Stats - None. She's just hot. On the Aussie vaulter: Wow! Makes me think I wasted 40,000 miles being a distance runner. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Y ask: ESPN is conducting an online poll on the world's sexiest athletes -- men and women both. Only trackster listed is Amy Acuff. See: http://espn.go.com/sexiestathletes/amy_acuff.html But my vote would go to Aussie-vaulter-via-Russia Tatiana Grigorieva. See her in trackwear at: http://www.athletics.org.au/athletes/profiles/profile.cfm?ObjectID=41 See her in nowear at: http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/cinerama/horror/235/oops_tatiana_grigorieva.html Kournikova, eat your heart out. Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com
Re: t-and-f: Acuff in running for World's Sexiest Athlete
In a message dated 1/4/02 9:17:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only trackster listed is Amy Acuff. Marion Jones Grigoreyeva are also listed.
