It's probably just coincidence, but I wonder if the
"second-coming" of U.S. distance running is connected in
any way with the "demise" of U.S. sprinting.
They probably don't have anything to do with each other,
but the timing is an odd coincidence. Also, of course,
we're talking two different levels- international elite
sprinting versus emerging national-class distance runners.
For the last two or three decades, even in an OFF year,
the U.S. could always come up with SOMEBODY who went
sub-20 at least once during the year.
Kenderis hasn't done anything spectacular- it's just that the
best of the rest of the world have dramatically fallen
off. Kenderis is running about the same times as most European
champions have run for the last 30 years- very similar,
in fact, to Borzov in '71-'72.
The U.S. saw the same phenomenon happen to their performances
in the 400 this year, and no Americans made the finals in the
400H either (although a hit 10th hurdle might be to blame a little bit)
At least Johnson came through in the 110H, and Greene
and the other Americans came through at Edmonton, although
their times left me wondering earlier this year on
"the tour".
I guess it's the "long sprints" that went bust this year.
Where have the sprinters gone? Has the "unattractiveness"
of the sport in the U.S. finally worked its way into
the sprint ranks- natural talent now wants to do something
different?
Or did the long career of Michael Johnson at the top at
both 200 and 400 cause a generation of high calibre sprinters
to move to other events in their search for green pastures?
That same impact hasn't been seen with the women- just the
men; although the women never performed as well as the U.S.
men on the international level in the long sprints, with
a few notable exceptions of course.
Maybe all those genes from West African roots have finally
got damaged by global warming or something. Does global
warming only effect men?
BTW, anybody know what happened to Meb in the 10K?
RT
