Yifter had such a fast kick that Virgin, or anyone else, would have had to run a world record, just as Lasse Viren did in 1972. Craig Virgen was no Laase Viren.
Yifter's best even was the 5,000, and McChesney on a good day would not have been able to match Yifter's kick, as someone else has already pointed out.
Sorry for the typos. I meant "Virgin" and "Yifter's best event was the 5,000"
To What do you think
What do you think ? wrote:
Henry, do you feel you would have won the 5,000 and the 10,000 ?
Also as a recovering alcholic myself I feel no event drove me to drink, I would have drank too much be it good times or bad times. Do you agree ? thanks and best of luck in recovery.
I planned it really good only the to see the heavyweight Muhamid Ali Landing in Nairobi to stop Kenyan team along with American team.
"Let us not go Russian games." Basically he was saying don't let Henry Rono to run anymore.That is what is in my head right now.
Henry
I agree in 1980 McChesney would have been unlikely to make any impact. I still feel in awe of his running from 1982, probably the greatest year for American 5000 runners with the exception of one meet in Tokyo in 1964.
I was the type of running nerd that put magazine pictures up in my high school locker and along with Cram, Coe, Scott, Maree, Salazar, I recall a great clipping of McChesney in the Santa Monica uni, probably from a preview of the US trials.
That was a hell of a year, 1982. Scott ran 3:47 and I saw them show the finish that night on ABC "Nightline" with Ted Koppel. You had Centrowitz run 13:12, McChesney 13:14 or 15 and Salazar 13:11. Maybe I'm nostalgic because that was around exactly the time I got into the sport but in that era, despite his competitive record at NCAA's or U.S. Nationals that guy still stands out in my mind as impressive, more so than a three-time NCAA winner like Scherer from Michigan.
The top performances in that sport were the 13:00 by Moorcroft(unbelievable at the time) and Rono I think hit 13:06. And a kid in college, or just graduating, runs 13:15 which a year ago would have been an AR.
I know he was a tremendous talent, hard worker, but there are a lot that come through the ranks and don't handle the adjustment well. He ran on an unbelievable Oregon team with Chapa, Salazar, Centrowitz I bet was still around, Ken Martin, Don Clary, then you had fresman like Jeff Nelson, Jim Hill, Zishka transferring over. Those workout must have been wars every week!
McChesney in my mind made his mark. Olympian and near AR 5000 meter holder. If he never won 10 Pac-10 titles or 3 NCAA titles so what. I'd cut my wrist off to run 13:15 and never win a race. Why? Maybe I'm stupid. Just would love to feel how it is to be at that level. To know that at that time only maybe 20 men in the world has ever run that fast.
sorry I dont get it.
I bet he's saying at that time Ali was the most famous person in the world. Worldwide, forget about actors or politicians. And very political and influential in those nations.
If Ali said "boycott" that was all she wrote.
slaps, I enjoyed your comments very much, howvever,as was said earlier, we have no idea what would have happened on race day.
slaps wrote:
I bet he's saying at that time Ali was the most famous person in the world. Worldwide, forget about actors or politicians. And very political and influential in those nations.
If Ali said "boycott" that was all she wrote.
I'm saying Ali was send to Kenya by the US President Jimmy Carter.Ali told Kenyan Federation to boycott Russian games in January 1980.I know the exact date.Do you understand me now!!!
Henry
Now I understand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Three more characters that certainly would have been major players if their nation hadn't gone along with that stupid boycott: Dick Quax, Rod Dixon and John Walker.
Sorry guys, I should have said three more characters who certainly would have been....., instead of saying that certainly would have been....
I think the people that have referenced the basketball and football boom are on track (no pun intended). The explosion in these sports combined with a decline in American competitiveness at the distance events did us in.
When I think about sports coverage when I was a kid (70's and 80's) football, basketball and baseball were all big sports, but they weren't all-encompassing. I didn't run as a kid, but I knew who Frank Shorter, Bill Rogers, Alberto Salazar, Joan Benoit, and Mary Decker were. That's just from watching Wide World of Sports, the Olympics, and subscribing to Sports Illustrated. Now, T+F doesn't receive the same relative amount of coverage. ESPN would get more viewers doing a recap of the 2005 Raiders season than it would showing most track meets or road races. The average american isn't exposed, and when they are they're perception of the race is that some Kenyan won, followed by some other African guy, followed by some American guy that came in 5th. It's really not inspiring to them.
Also, with the kind of bucks that we're talking about at the present time with the glamor sports, advertisers and sponsors probably aren't too impressed with 30K fans attending the Texas relays. The UT spring football game will bring more interest than that.
Americans love winners. The more we get our butts kicked in international basketball, the more we'll just sit our fat butts on our couches and tell ourselves that our athletes are the best in the world. We'll console ourselves by saying that the best guys didn't go to the world championships or whatever and it's an easy sell. As for football, since no other country has such an unhealthy obsession with that, we're definitely the best and the Steelers are truly "World" champions. As for distance running, game day takes place in Europe or at the WC's or at the Olympics and from Joe Six-Pack's perspective, we're getting it handed to us.
When Jim McKay did the Wide World of Sports show track was exciting and exposed to the American public on a regular basis. Somehow we need to get the networks to market track again in a favorable light.
Don't count Virgin out!!!
His kick was there sometimes & sometimes not, but when it was on, he outkicked some of the best---I saw him out kick Deek, Dixon & Musyoki in a 5 miler--but then again Salazar outkicked him at nationals.
I think the heat & surging in MOscow would have helped Virgin. The key would have been if Craig could have gotten away from the 1980 10K pack, if so it's a totally different story & he looks good.
Well, I think it ruined the 84 games as well. My blood boils whenever this gets mentioned. I've said it before but I have to say it again, when the South Koreans and North Koreans entered the winter Olympic Games together considering all the problems they have had it really defined for me what the Olympic Games are about. Allowing politics to take over the most peaceful event in the world is tragic for the Athletes and the nations they represent. Those who were involved in the boycott should forever be ashamed.
What do you think ? wrote:
If you look at the Olympics 1976 and before, then look at the Olympics 1984 and after, the only logical conclusion is that it hurt USA track and field. Throw in the tragic death of a running superstar and its called fade away.
Except that it's simplistic to suggest that it happened in a vacuum.
Didn't Fresno used to host a big meet? And Florida? Is Searay growing/improving?
justthefacts wrote:
4. Outdoor meets between major college teams lost many fans when scholarships were cut from 32 to 18 and eventually 12.6. Many teams could no longer field full, competitive squads. The big meets between USC and UCLA, USC and Tennessee, etc. disappeared. Even the major Relay carnivals, once packed with fans, died back with only Penn Relays and Drake Relays having big crowds.
Coach D wrote:
This is not exactly true. The USC-UCLA dual meet this year would have filled most of Hayward Field. Mt. Sac still has large crowds, as does the Texas Relays. Kansas Relays, according to the official figures, had roughly 30,000 this year.
Jizzmo wrote:
5. And here is my crazy theory. Distances in metric. The US public do not appreciate or understand a 5000m or 10K, or worse yet the 1500. I realize that the rest of the world competes at the metric and we have to, but running some (not but SOME) US races at 1 mile, 2 mile, 3 mile etc... may help in marketing. Too me it's like putting on a track meet and having the anouncer speak in French. Sure people CAN figure it out, but if you want just your typical slob to understand and develop an appreciation, you need to try and speak their language (at least on occation.)
Distance were metric when Schul and Mills were winning and when Pre was 4th-placing.
hardset nipples wrote:
Jizzmo wrote:5. And here is my crazy theory. Distances in metric. The US public do not appreciate or understand a 5000m or 10K, or worse yet the 1500. I realize that the rest of the world competes at the metric and we have to, but running some (not but SOME) US races at 1 mile, 2 mile, 3 mile etc... may help in marketing. Too me it's like putting on a track meet and having the anouncer speak in French. Sure people CAN figure it out, but if you want just your typical slob to understand and develop an appreciation, you need to try and speak their language (at least on occation.)
Distance were metric when Schul and Mills were winning and when Pre was 4th-placing.
Jizzmo is absolutely correct about the US audience losing interest once the sport went metric. It's difficult to "prove" this but I have no doubt it played a significant role in track's public decline. Schul and Mills are completely irrelevant to this issue. Whatever fame they achieved in their day was due to the fact that they were Olympic gold medalists. That was more than enough--the "exact" distance they ran had no bearing on their "celebrity."
The difference metric made was in the week-in/week-out routine of HS meets, college meets, collegiate and national championships, etc. For better or worse, "all" Americans instinctively know what a quarter-mile, a half-mile or a mile is. The fact that 800 meters is "almost" a half mile basically means that US fans went from being genuinely interested in the results to "almost" interested, and then simply not interested.
Weren't there questions about the ability of the State Dept. being unable to guarantee the safety of a large contingent of USAnians traveling to a country that was on the other side of a war from US interests?