Re: t-and-f: 5K stats goof
Six seconds each is in the bag, but does it have to be this year? They'll be at 26:30 next season. Combine Ritz and the Torres twins, and that three-person time could be history also. Ed and Dana Parrot wrote: one sharp-eyed list member has already caught this bit of foolishness on my part: In '79 Oregon totalled 26:41.7 w/ Chapa (13:19.3) and Salzar (13:22.4), but again, that's not even the best Duck total (!). That came the next year, with McChesney (13:18.6) and Salazar (13:23.62) totalling 26:42.2. 'tis but a trifle. So, any bets on whether Ritz and Torres can knock off 6 seconds each and surpass the Ducks? If they do it after NCAA's, it would still count? - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: NYTimes.com Article: Let Nike Stay in the Game
This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] / advertisement ---\ Enjoy new investment freedom! Get the tools you need to successfully manage your portfolio from Harrisdirect. Start with award-winning research. Then add access to round-the-clock customer service from Series-7 trained representatives. Open an account today and receive a $100 credit! http://www.nytimes.com/ads/Harrisdirect.html \--/ Let Nike Stay in the Game May 6, 2002 By BOB HERBERT As much as it pains me to say it, I am not in favor of stifling the speech of the loud and obnoxious and terminally exploitative Nike Corporation. California's highest court ruled last week that the First Amendment did not shield Nike from a lawsuit that claims the company was guilty of fraud and false advertising because it asserted that its overseas factories were in compliance with applicable wage and safety regulations. Now there is no doubt that Nike has wrung billions and billions of dollars from the toil and the sweat and in some cases the physical abuse of impoverished workers - mostly women - in places like China and Vietnam and Indonesia. In the wretched sport of global sweatshop exploitation, Nike - like its nonpareil pitchman, Michael Jordan - is an absolute champion. It has no peer. But the very same First Amendment that allows me to make these assertions about Nike must also allow Nike to defend itself. In the California case a man named Marc Kasky filed a lawsuit that accused the company of violating the state's laws against unfair competition and false advertising because, in Mr. Kasky's view, Nike did not always tell the truth when it described conditions in its overseas factories. Specifically, Nike has denied that workers who make its products are physically or sexually abused, that they are underage, that they are underpaid, that their working conditions are lousy, and so on. Some of Nike's assertions are true and some, I have no doubt, are false. But I don't believe that a company responding to public allegations that have become the focus of a major international debate should have to face local consumer fraud charges and the possibility of severe financial penalties because some of its assertions in the course of that debate turn out to be false. Last Thursday the California Supreme Court ruled otherwise. It held, in a 4-to-3 decision, that Mr. Kasky could proceed with his suit. The court ruled that Nike's statements regarding the labor practices and working conditions in the factories amounted to commercial speech, designed to maintain and increase its sales and profits, and thus were not entitled to full First Amendment protection. If the ruling stands, it will almost certainly make some companies reluctant to vigorously defend themselves in the court of public opinion. That is not a good thing. The treatment of workers who manufacture goods and provide services for the great international corporations is one of the most important and contentious issues in this era of globalization. Whatever one thinks of Nike, it is a crucial participant in this continuing debate. As one of the dissenting justices wrote, The public at large, in addition to Nike's actual and intended customers, has the right to receive information from both sides of this international debate. That said, it's truly ironic that Nike, a big bully of a corporation if there ever was one, is seeking the protection of the First Amendment in this fight. Nike has never been shy about trying to pressure publications into tempering their criticism of its empire. A few years ago Nike's chief executive officer, Phil Knight, even came to The New York Times to complain angrily - and to no avail - about the columns appearing in this space. In 1997, The San Francisco Examiner managed to embarrass itself by refusing to run a column by one of its longtime staffers, Stephanie Salter, because it was, in the paper's view, too critical of Nike. Editors spiked the column at the same time that the paper was hard at work on an arrangement to have Nike co-sponsor a major Examiner promotional event. In a real democracy, even the people you disagree with get to have their say. Nike will likely appeal last week's ruling and the case could make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoever hears this matter next I hope will recognize that this is not a case about unfair competition or false advertising. Nike, in response to very serious allegations on a matter of compelling public interest, issued press releases, contacted top officials at a number of colleges and universities, wrote letters to various editors and otherwise attempted to make its case. In the United States of America that kind of speech, even if it is not always accurate, deserves unyielding protection.
RE: t-and-f: Ritz's impressive 5050
Ritz also missed the American junior record for 5000m by two days. Had he been born Jan 1, 1983 instead of Dec. 30, 1982 he would have smashed the AJR of 13:38.39 by Franklyn Sanchez last year. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 2:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Ritz's impressive 5050 I didn't key on him the whole race, but Ritzenhein ran at least the last half of the STanford 5K a couple of feet out from the curb, on Torres' shoulder. So instead of a 5000, he ran about a 5050, so figure he's already close to a 13:20 guy. gh
RE: t-and-f: Ritz's impressive 5050
Speaking of the American Junior Record in the 5k... what is the young and talented Franklyn Sanchez doing right now? I know he is at Georgetown, was injured during cross, ran briefly (and not very well) indoors, and as far as I know, hasn't been heard from since. He was so good in 2000 cross/2001 track with his top 5 finish at NCs and then his 13:38 5k. Keep in mind... he did this at a younger age than Dathan too. How quickly people forget him and someone like Goucher when they are down and out. Mike From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Ritz's impressive 5050 Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:27:36 -0400 Ritz also missed the American junior record for 5000m by two days. Had he been born Jan 1, 1983 instead of Dec. 30, 1982 he would have smashed the AJR of 13:38.39 by Franklyn Sanchez last year. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 2:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Ritz's impressive 5050 I didn't key on him the whole race, but Ritzenhein ran at least the last half of the STanford 5K a couple of feet out from the curb, on Torres' shoulder. So instead of a 5000, he ran about a 5050, so figure he's already close to a 13:20 guy. gh _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: Brannen vs Webb was t-and-f: Ritz's impressive 5050
Post, Marty wrote: Ritz also missed the American junior record for 5000m by two days. Had he been born Jan 1, 1983 instead of Dec. 30, 1982 he would have smashed the AJR of 13:38.39 by Franklyn Sanchez last year. Forget teammates. How about roommates? Sully reports on the Can list that Brannen beat Webb 1:48.92 to 1:49:46 at the Jesse Owens classic. They have both been injured on and off too. 1, Kimata, Simon, Oregon, 1:47.25. 2, Brannen, Nathan, Michigan, 1:48.92. 3, Tidwell, Winston, Unattached, 1:49.26. 4, Bailey, Caleb, Western Car, 1:49.38. 5, Webb, Alan, Michigan, 1:49.46.
Re: t-and-f: Ritz's impressive 5050
My understanding is that both ex-Massachusetts schoolboys, Sanchez (8:49) and Andy Powell (4:02+), class of '99, have been injury-plagued since graduating from Lynn Tech and Oliver Ames respectfully. Both were among the all-time greats in Mass. Prep history. NeTrack
t-and-f: Junior nonesense
Ritz also missed the American junior record for 5000m by two days. Had he been born Jan 1, 1983 instead of Dec. 30, 1982 he would have smashed the AJR of 13:38.39 by Franklyn Sanchez last year. Why this nonesense with junior status where the cutoff of a couple of days prevents competing as a junior for an entire year? Why not have a systme in which an athlete could compete as a junior and set records as a junior up until his or her 20th birthday, at which point the status would end? Uder this new system, the fact that Ritz was born two days earlier would make him ineligible for junior status TWO DAYS EARLIER, he would not lose the entire year. Especially for record purposes, someone born just after the new year (an arbitrary date) could set junior records up until he or she was almost 20, while someone like Ritz must stop just after their 19th birthday.
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
John Friedman wrote: Why this nonesense with junior status where the cutoff of a couple of days prevents competing as a junior for an entire year? Why not have a systme in which an athlete could compete as a junior and set records as a junior up until his or her 20th birthday, at which point the status would end? Uder this new system, the fact that Ritz was born two days earlier would make him ineligible for junior status TWO DAYS EARLIER, he would not lose the entire year. Especially for record purposes, someone born just after the new year (an arbitrary date) could set junior records up until he or she was almost 20, while someone like Ritz must stop just after their 19th birthday. A big problem with age-group standings that can change in the middle of the season is the administrative nightmare it can cause. Scenarios like qualify for the World Juniors as a 19-year-old, but then you can't compete in the Worlds becuase your 20th birthday came in between. But even if that weren't the case, a by-birthday system can be even more unfair becuase of the limited nature of the track season. It's not as if you can go out an compete 365. i.e., if you turn 20 in January you get one fewer Junior track seasons than does somebody who is born in December of the same year. (many other months at either end, of course, do the same thing) gh
t-and-f: 2002 US ANNUAL
Well, gang, the 2002 FAST Annual combined once again with the USATF Media Guide is now available from yours truly. I thought I would pass this on since there has been discussion on the list regarding All-Time lists. The book has AT lists at least 50 deep for each event, the 2001 50-deep year lists, AT college and junior lists, 2001 junior lists, walk lists, and the huge index which is back to including resident foreigners this year. The USA portion of the book contains great bio material, a recap of the 2002 indoor season, standards, media contacts, past national champs, many great photos, etc. 630 pages!! Superior paper quality this year so that the book, even though with a greater page count than last year, is about 1/2 inch thinner than the 2001 book. Edited by Jill Geer for the USA portion and yours truly for the FAST section. A really good book. Paid up FAST members will be receiving their copy within the next couple of weeks. I am travelling to SEC this weekend and then the Big 10 but I will try to get all orders out at once. Cost is 20.00 regular post, 24 by priority mail and 32.00 air post to Europe. Get 'em now before the postal increase goes into effect!! As always, checks payable to me and sent to 4432 Snowbird Circle, Cerritos, California 90703. Many thanks, Scott Davis
RE: t-and-f: All-Time US Women's 10k List
And I'm certain it's not a line of b.s., because she said some very nice things about Tom Derderian! Clearly making her story a line of b.s. :-) Cheers, Buck Some things you just can't resist. -Adam
RE: t-and-f: IAAF World Half-Marathon Championships
As a fan of American distance running, note in the 'take what you can get' file that the American men's team ran a very good race across the board. Four guys were under 1:04 (1:03:26 Morris, 1:03:42 Larson, 1:03:51 Jurcevich, 1:03:57 Sell) and Campbell at 59th(1:05:24) was the highest 5th place runner save for the Japanese fellow (55th). Jurcevich ran a PR and Sell ran a HUGE PR. It seems to me that the depth is improving, and I have always believed that the 'flyers' who are truly podium threats stem from that depth. Let's hope... Cheers, Buck Jones -Original Message- From: Paul Merca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: IAAF World Half-Marathon Championships Full results are at: http://www.iaaf.org/whm02/ Paul Kosgei of Kenya and Berhane Adere of Ethiopia were the winners today in Brussels. Paul Merca
RE: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
Ritz isn't the first- Angelo Taylor is a December 29 baby and his 47.90 at 19 would have bettered the 48.02 mark of Danny Harris. When if's and but's are candy and nuts we'll all have a Merry Christmas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John N. Friedman Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Junior nonesense Ritz also missed the American junior record for 5000m by two days. Had he been born Jan 1, 1983 instead of Dec. 30, 1982 he would have smashed the AJR of 13:38.39 by Franklyn Sanchez last year. Why this nonesense with junior status where the cutoff of a couple of days prevents competing as a junior for an entire year? Why not have a systme in which an athlete could compete as a junior and set records as a junior up until his or her 20th birthday, at which point the status would end? Uder this new system, the fact that Ritz was born two days earlier would make him ineligible for junior status TWO DAYS EARLIER, he would not lose the entire year. Especially for record purposes, someone born just after the new year (an arbitrary date) could set junior records up until he or she was almost 20, while someone like Ritz must stop just after their 19th birthday.
RE: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
But even if that weren't the case, a by-birthday system can be even more unfair becuase of the limited nature of the track season. It's not as if you can go out an compete 365. i.e., if you turn 20 in January you get one fewer Junior track seasons than does somebody who is born in December of the same year. (many other months at either end, of course, do the same thing) but in this case, the two people would be born 12 months apart, and so it would fair to let the younger runner have another track season as a junior. as for the status changing in-season issue, I think it would be fairly straightforward - you compete as a junior until you are 20. If this means that the 4th place at the trials must step in because the winner turned 20, so be it - note that none of these people would be competing at all in the year anyway, so they might be grateful for another few months at track. this seems to be the fairest way. john
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
On Mon, 6 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Friedman wrote: Why this nonesense with junior status where the cutoff of a couple of days prevents competing as a junior for an entire year? Why not have a systme in which an athlete could compete as a junior and set records as a junior up until his or her 20th birthday, at which point the status would end? Uder this new system, the fact that Ritz was born two days earlier would make him ineligible for junior status TWO DAYS EARLIER, he would not lose the entire year. Especially for record purposes, someone born just after the new year (an arbitrary date) could set junior records up until he or she was almost 20, while someone like Ritz must stop just after their 19th birthday. A big problem with age-group standings that can change in the middle of the season is the administrative nightmare it can cause. Scenarios like qualify for the World Juniors as a 19-year-old, but then you can't compete in the Worlds becuase your 20th birthday came in between. I don't see how this would be a difficult concept to grasp for even the most incompetent of bureaucrats. Or, you just restrict participation in qualifying meets to those who will be eligible to compete in the world champs. The test of Is Athlete X's 20th birthday before Date Y will not clog up the system. But even if that weren't the case, a by-birthday system can be even more unfair becuase of the limited nature of the track season. It's not as if you can go out an compete 365. i.e., if you turn 20 in January you get one fewer Junior track seasons than does somebody who is born in December of the same year. (many other months at either end, of course, do the same thing) I don't understand this point, probably because it's not valid. The January birthday gets the same number of outdoor seasons as the Decmber birthday -- he just gets them a year earlier. Since he's 11 months older, this is not a serious problem. Under the eligible-until-20th-birthday rule, both the december 2001 and january 2002 20th birthday get the summer 2001 track season to compete as juniors. Only under the current rule does a month's difference in birthdays result in a year's reduction in eligibility. How is the birthday rule more unfair than calling someone who is 19 years, 2 days (Ritz on Jan 1) a senior, robbing him of a year of juior eligibility? Anyone born on January 1 gets 363 more days of junior eligibilty than Ritz. They can compete as juniors when they are older than he is now. This is totally ludicrous. When someone can compete as a junior who is older than another athlete who must compete as a senior, the system is screwed up. Ritz is currently 19 years, 5 months, right? If Sanchez was older than this when he set his record, then it really doesn't make sense to call his performance the junior record. While the overlap of birthdays and big meets will never give everyone the chance to peak at 19 years, 364 days at the world juniors, a system that allows junior competition until the 20th birthday will at least ensure that all under-20 performances are record-eligible. This strikes me as the only fair way to look at the relative impressiveness of a mark, anyway. -Paul
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
How is the birthday rule more unfair than calling someone who is 19 years, 2 days (Ritz on Jan 1) a senior, robbing him of a year of juior eligibility? Anyone born on January 1 gets 363 more days of junior eligibilty than Ritz. They can compete as juniors when they are older than he is now. This is totally ludicrous. When someone can compete as a junior who is older than another athlete who must compete as a senior, the system is screwed up. Can any more be added to the above? Stupid me. I have always thought that a junior record meant that you had to be under 20 on the day of the competition. I didn't think it was dependent on some chinese or other sort of calendar. That is how it is, right? You guys are all just kidding and filling in space because the list has been so quiet of late? Some truths are just plain self-evident and this is one of them. Regards, Martin
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
In a message dated 02-05-06 10:08:16 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why this nonesense with junior status where the cutoff of a couple of days prevents competing as a junior for an entire year? Why not have a systme in which an athlete could compete as a junior and set records as a junior up until his or her 20th birthday, at which point the status would end? Uder this new system, the fact that Ritz was born two days earlier would make him ineligible for junior status TWO DAYS EARLIER, he would not lose the entire year. Especially for record purposes, someone born just after the new year (an arbitrary date) could set junior records up until he or she was almost 20, while someone like Ritz must stop just after their 19th birthday. This is a very good point. Take this situation: I know a set of twins that used to run track and one was born at 11:53 pm on Dec. 31st and the other was born at 12:07am on Jan. 1st. Does the second twin miss Junior status because she was born minutes later? Larry A. Morgan, Sr. Elizabeth Heat TC
Re: Re: t-and-f: Junior nonsense
Paul Alsdorf writes: Ritz is currently 19 years, 5 months, right? If Sanchez was older than this when he set his record, then it really doesn't make sense to call his performance the junior record. Sanchez was just 19 years and a couple of weeks, but that doesn't weaken your argument. The fact that such a thing could happen indeed illustrates that the system is flawed. Paul then says While the overlap of birthdays and big meets will never give everyone the chance to peak at 19 years, 364 days at the world juniors, a system that allows junior competition until the 20th birthday will at least ensure that all under-20 performances are record-eligible. This strikes me as the only fair way to look at the relative impressiveness of a mark, anyway. I still maintain that the by-birthday system is also flawed becuase of seasonal restraints. Not all events are the same, but let's look at the 5K, since that's our example to begin with. For all practical purposes, the window for setting an AJR in that event is roughly April 1 through June 15 (maybe less). If you find someone with a 3/30 birthdate, then he is a Junior (in the competitive window) when he's 19y,0M, 19y1M, 19y1.5M. Somebody with a 6/16 bd is a Junior when he's 19y10.5M, 19y11M, 19y12M. Bottom line is that age-based competition is artificial, no matter what you do. gh
t-and-f: Armon LJ Series from UCLA-USC Meet
Armon series as follows: 738 (+08), f, 730 (+07), 800 (+19), p, p Scott
Re: t-and-f: 5K stats goof
Let's not forget the Arkansas duo of Cragg (13:22.07) and Lincoln (13:36.12). Their 26:58.19 is only 4+ secs off of the Torres/Ritz combo. If Cragg and Lincoln both run the 5k at NCs, we could have a repeat of the indoor 5K battle between Arkansas and CU. --- Mike Prizy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Six seconds each is in the bag, but does it have to be this year? They'll be at 26:30 next season. Combine Ritz and the Torres twins, and that three-person time could be history also. Ed and Dana Parrot wrote: one sharp-eyed list member has already caught this bit of foolishness on my part: In '79 Oregon totalled 26:41.7 w/ Chapa (13:19.3) and Salzar (13:22.4), but again, that's not even the best Duck total (!). That came the next year, with McChesney (13:18.6) and Salazar (13:23.62) totalling 26:42.2. 'tis but a trifle. So, any bets on whether Ritz and Torres can knock off 6 seconds each and surpass the Ducks? If they do it after NCAA's, it would still count? - Ed Parrot __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com
t-and-f: Junior nonsense
Message text written by Ed Grant For the world, US and other junior meets, however, a standard date has to be used (otherwise, you;d have people eligible for the qualifying meet and not for the championship). Heck, Ed. You could have people eligible for the heats of a championship race but not for the final.
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
This is a very good point. Take this situation: I know a set of twins that used to run track and one was born at 11:53 pm on Dec. 31st and the other was born at 12:07am on Jan. 1st. Does the second twin miss Junior status because she was born minutes later? Well, I can tell you that come tax time the following April, the twins' father would be able to claim a deduction for only the 11:53 baby and not the 12:07 one. Come to think of it, this not the only similarity I've noticed between the thinking at the IRS and the IAAF. Perhaps they draw from a common pool of bureaucrats. Kurt Bray _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
t-and-f: USATF News Notes: May 6, 2002
Contact:Tom Surber Media Information Manager USA Track Field (317) 261-0500 x317 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.usatf.org USATF News Notes Volume 3, Number 46 May 6, 2002 Drossin sets American Record Deena Drossin became the first American woman ever to better 31 minutes in setting a new U.S. 10,000 meter record Friday night at the Cardinal Invitational at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. Drossins time of 30:50.32 shattered the record of 31:19.89 set by Lynn Jennings during her bronze medal winning performance at the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona. In setting the womens U.S. 10,000m record, Drossin continues one of the most memorable individual strings ever for an American distance runner. Since November, the 29-year-old has won the U.S. womens marathon championship by running the fastest U.S. debut ever in that event of 2 hours 26 minutes 58 seconds at the New York City Marathon. In March, the 2000 Olympian set the U.S. 15K road record of 48:12 at Gate River, and she won the silver medal at the World 8K Cross Country Championships in Dublin. On April 7, the Arkansas graduate broke the 5K world road record at Carlsbad with her time of 14:54. It's been a great year, and I'm in good shape, Drossin said. I was coming here to set a personal best, and ideally an American record, and luckily everything worked out perfectly. The marathon gave me a fabulous base, which is allowing me to run well continuously throughout the past couple of months. If I didn't have that sound base behind me, this [record] would have been impossible. Drossins Olympic and U.S. world cross country team teammate Jen Rhines also had a good outing at Stanford, finishing third with a new PR of 31:41.16. Japans Yoko Shibui set a new national and U.S. All-Comers record in winning the event in 30:48.89. The previous All-Comers record was 31:01.63 by Portugals Fernanda Ribeiro at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. In the mens 10K, 2000 Olympian Meb Keflezighi ran the second fastest time ever by an American of 27:20.15. Keflezighi set the mens American 10K record of 27:13.98 at this event last year. I've had a good year so far, said Keflezighi, who successfully defended his U.S. 12K cross country title last February and won the USA 15K road title in March. I'm so much stronger this year than last year and more in control. The depth of the field wasn't like it was last year in this race, but it felt pretty good and comfortable. Other Americans finishing under 28 minutes included Dan Browne (4th-27:47.04), Clint Wells (7th-27:56.90) and Brad Hauser (9th-27:58.02). Kenyas Albert Chepkurui won the race in 27:19.79. American record holder Elizabeth Jackson won the womens steeplechase in the world-leading time of 9:55.41. Although the performance set a new stadium record, it was well off Jacksons American record of 9:41.94 set in 2001. In the men's 5000 meter race, the University of Colorado pair of Jorge Torres (13:26.00) and Dathan Ritzenhein (13:27.77) both broke Adam Goucher's school record, placing 2-3 behind Kenya's Martin Keino (13:22.91). Torres out-kicked Ritzenhein on the last lap behind Keino who pulled away with three laps to go. Byrd flies to new personal best 2001 World Outdoor Championships relay gold medalist Leonard Byrd set a world-leading personal best over the weekend in front of more than 40,000 fans at the IAAF Grand Prix in Brazil. In his first race of the season, Byrds time of 44.45 bettered his previous personal best of 44.83 set in 2001. A three-time collegiate All-American, Byrd ran the lead leg on Team USAs gold medal winning 4x400m relay team at the 2001 World Championships in Edmonton. The runner-up in the 400m at last years outdoor nationals, Byrd won the bronze medal in the 400m at the 2001 Goodwill Games in Brisbane, Australia. He finished the 2001 campaign ranked #7 in the world and #2 in the U.S. by Track Field News. Team USA finishes tenth in Brussels Team USAs mens and womens squads both finished in tenth place Sunday at the 11th IAAF World Half-Marathon Championships in Brussels, Belgium. U.S. mens finishers included David Morris, Albuquerque, N.M. (26th-1:03:26); Scott Larson, Boulder, Colorado (32nd-1:03.29), Jim Jurcevich, Columbus, Ohio (36th-1:03:51PR), Brian Sell, Rochester Hills, Michigan (39th-1:03:57PR) and Jeff Campbell, Rochester Hills, Michigan (59th-1:05:24). U.S. womens finishers included Rosa Gutierrez, Glendale, Oregon (52nd-1:16:28); Misti Demko, Hershey, Pennsylvania (53rd-1:16:51); Kim Pawelek, Jacksonville Beach, Florida (54th-1:17:30); Linda Somers Smith, San Luis Obispo, California (55th-1:17:38) and Monica Hostetler, Kendallville, Indiana (56th-1:18:02). Large crowd on hand for UCLA vs. USC dual meet UCLAs mens and womens teams were victorious over cross-town rival USC at their annual dual meet Saturday in front of 8,094 spectators at UCLAs Drake
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonsense
Ed Grant wrote: Netters: Isn't the logical solution to this junior nonsense a two-ply approach: For records, the age as of the date of the performance should count For the world, US and other junior meets, however, a standard date has to be used (otherwise, you;d have people eligible for the qualifying meet and not for the championship). Ed Grant How do the masters' age-groups deal with all of the arbitrary problems created by their day of age brackets? I think the chips fall where they may which is how it should be. I've seen road running series where athletes are in two different divisions for the annual championship. Regards, Martin
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonsense
How do the masters' age-groups deal with all of the arbitrary problems created by their day of age brackets? I think the chips fall where they may which is how it should be. I've seen road running series where athletes are in two different divisions for the annual championship. There really aren't very many problems created by masters ages if you just go by birthdate not birth year. If it is a multi-day or multi-race situation, there is a really simple solution which was alluded to - make your divisions inclusive of all older ages. So you might have a 40+, a 50+, a 60+ and a 70+ gand prix division. If the 70 year old guy is fast enough to win the 40+ division, more power to him. I have rarely if ever heard any complaints. This obviously doesn't fly for junior meets and records, but the answer for those seems pretty obvious too - if you cross the finish line (or have a field event trial completed) before midnight on your 20th birthday, you can set a record. For meets, you just select either the first or the last day of the competition (my own thought would be the last day) and say that all participants must not turn 20 on or before the that day. Certainly someone who missed the deadline by one day might be upset, but it isn't arbitrary other than the fact that age divisions aare inherently arbitrary. Team competition at the masters level also is less obvious, because while few would argue against a master being able to score in multiple younger individual divisions, it isn't as clear a choice in scoring for multiple teams. Some road series' allow this and some don't. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonsense
1) John Friedman writes: Why this nonesense with junior status where the cutoff of a couple of days prevents competing as a junior for an entire year? Why not have a systme in which an athlete could compete as a junior and set records as a junior up until his or her 20th birthday, at which point the status would end? Comment: I always assumed that it was in order to avoid official manipulations and arguments as to when exactly a meet is going to be scheduled. Or when the events in a meet are staged. (But golly gee whiz, Wally, can't you move event X to day one so that my guy can?) 2) Later John clarifies his views: As for the status changing in-season issue, I think it would be fairly straightforward - you compete as a junior until you are 20. If this means that the 4th place at the trials must step in because the winner turned 20, so be it Comment: A good argument, but I still don't think it addresses issues of deciding when a particular meet or event is to occur. 3) Meanwhile, Ed Grant says: Isn't the logical solution to this junior nonsense a two-ply approach: For records, the age as of the date of the performance should count. For the world, US and other junior meets, however, a standard date has to be used (otherwise, you;d have people eligible for the qualifying meet and not for the championship). Comment: I don't see how you can have a standard date if one year the World Junior Championships are in, say Melbourne, and the next time around they're in, say, Helsinki. If that's what Ed means by a standard date. Anyway, I prefer the status quo, with one definition of junior. Keep it simple. 4) Bob Hersh subsequently responds: Heck, Ed. You could have people eligible for the heats of a championship race but not for the final. Comment: Yeah, I think it would just produce a lot of complication to have to debate and sort out and produce qualifying rules on. 5) And finally, Mike Prizy comically on pre-birth time zone switcharoo travel: Yep! Happens all the time in Junior Olypics with track moms. Comment: I would think the really forward-looking prospective track mom could attain a fairly age-optimal junior by other means. Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonesense
Come to think of it, this not the only similarity I've noticed between the thinking at the IRS and the IAAF. Perhaps they draw from a common pool of bureaucrats. Actually, I agree with GH on this one- the logic is that NOBODY is going to plan the peak of their season to be two days before their 20th birthday. Goals revolve around opportunities, and opportunities are built on seasonal calendars. Otherwise a person could run 3:38 in May, 3:36 in June, 3:34 in July, and 3:32 in August, all on a planned progression, and if their 20th birthday is June 30th, nothing beyond the 3:36 would count for Junior record purposes. What do you want them to do, plan their peak to get a birthdate record, sacrificing themselves in comparison to what everybody in the world is doing? i.e. European Championshiops, World Championships, and so on. Of course, this also points out the weakness in logic in tracking an arbitrary 'junior' record to begin with- arbitrary in the sense that one person's 20 is another person's 18, is another person's 21. People mature at different rates. And an American's 20 is a Kenyan's 29, if you ignore Kenyan passports (hee hee, couldn't resist) One other observation- somebody who is in the ballpark for a national junior record in a track hotbed country, like U.S., Germany, or wherever, is probably gonna be pretty competitive at the international 'senior' level, and probably doesn't care that much one way or another whether they get the junior record. They have a lot bigger cheese in their gunsights (you like-a my mixed-a metaphors, Luigi?) RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: USA vs the World +20
Back in the early 80's when I was in high school, the all-relay meets were my favorite. I used to also put fantasy teams together for every country to determine how all the countries would rank...of course, USA men and East German or Soviet women always dominated. I would love to see an all relays event instead of a World Cup. If we could get the top stars committed (with a lot of $ and publicity) it would be a hugely popular event. On Wed, 1 May 2002 20:31:24 -0400 Edward Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be a typical American viewpoint, but I have always thought that replacing the World Cup with a World Relay Championship every four years would be a great event. Ed Koch -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:10 AM Subject: t-and-f: USA vs the World +20 It's about 20 years too late, but it would have been incredible to see this kind of competition in a 4x1500/mile back in the early 80s. Scott/Spivey/Byers vs. Coghlan/O'Mara/O'Sullivan vs. Coe/Ovett/Cram â” we surely would have seen a WR that would be Beamonesque Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: Junior nonsense
But, since Junior Olympics is divided into six two-year age divisions, track moms have to be a little more creative than Texas football moms, who can simply have that little lineman repeat the seventh grade so he's bigger than he would have been in his regular class. CHRIS KUYKENDALL wrote: 1) John Friedman writes: Why this nonesense with junior status where the cutoff of a couple of days prevents competing as a junior for an entire year? Why not have a systme in which an athlete could compete as a junior and set records as a junior up until his or her 20th birthday, at which point the status would end? Comment: I always assumed that it was in order to avoid official manipulations and arguments as to when exactly a meet is going to be scheduled. Or when the events in a meet are staged. (But golly gee whiz, Wally, can't you move event X to day one so that my guy can?) 2) Later John clarifies his views: As for the status changing in-season issue, I think it would be fairly straightforward - you compete as a junior until you are 20. If this means that the 4th place at the trials must step in because the winner turned 20, so be it Comment: A good argument, but I still don't think it addresses issues of deciding when a particular meet or event is to occur. 3) Meanwhile, Ed Grant says: Isn't the logical solution to this junior nonsense a two-ply approach: For records, the age as of the date of the performance should count. For the world, US and other junior meets, however, a standard date has to be used (otherwise, you;d have people eligible for the qualifying meet and not for the championship). Comment: I don't see how you can have a standard date if one year the World Junior Championships are in, say Melbourne, and the next time around they're in, say, Helsinki. If that's what Ed means by a standard date. Anyway, I prefer the status quo, with one definition of junior. Keep it simple. 4) Bob Hersh subsequently responds: Heck, Ed. You could have people eligible for the heats of a championship race but not for the final. Comment: Yeah, I think it would just produce a lot of complication to have to debate and sort out and produce qualifying rules on. 5) And finally, Mike Prizy comically on pre-birth time zone switcharoo travel: Yep! Happens all the time in Junior Olypics with track moms. Comment: I would think the really forward-looking prospective track mom could attain a fairly age-optimal junior by other means. Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas
