200 Question

what about spearmon? the 200 is by far his primary event

19.32 wrote:

As I watch the 200 on WCSN I got to thinking that their is no such thing as a 200 specialist.

events like the 200 should be dropped from track meets. track meets are too long as it is and this is an event that more so than most is cared about by no one.

Admittedly this is subjective but Spearman is a second rate 400 meter runner (PR 45.12) that could not make it in that event.

Think of it this way, imagine they added the 3k, 5k, 8k, 10k and the long and short xc courses to the WC. Would you find the same guys winning over and over or specialists in in each event?

The 200 should be dropped as it is not unique enough to qualify as its own event.

I think your argument could apply to most events. Think about the 5k. Most 5k runners are either milers moving up or 10k runners moving down. 800 meter runners are divided into 1500 meter types (Webb, Seb Coe) or 400 meter types (Mark Everett). If anyone is enough of a specialist, you just claim they just can't hack it in their chosen other event.

Maybe the test for whether the event is redundant should be if an athlete can compete at a high level over three events.

i don't know if this is truethink kipketer... didn't he basically only excel at the 800?how about el g? imo, despite the gold in the 5k, he had more ability in 1500 - i don't think he could've set the wr in the 5k where he did in the 1500wariner - despite what people think on this board, he is only really a 400 runnerthe 200? i'm sure there are some out there who don't have the endurance for the 400 or the reaction time for the 100the future will tell but it could be that mj was a much better 200 runner than 400 runner(how long will that 19.32 stand???)

Had a similar situation wrote:

I think your argument could apply to most events. Think about the 5k. Most 5k runners are either milers moving up or 10k runners moving down. 800 meter runners are divided into 1500 meter types (Webb, Seb Coe) or 400 meter types (Mark Everett). If anyone is enough of a specialist, you just claim they just can't hack it in their chosen other event.

Maybe the test for whether the event is redundant should be if an athlete can compete at a high level over three events.

Had a similar situation wrote:

Maybe the test for whether the event is redundant should be if an athlete can compete at a high level over three events.

It not an athlete can dominate, it's whether a series of athletes dominate and they have a common demonator. Would you agree that when a runner doubles at the Olympics or the WC, more often than not the 200 is one of those distances (either the 100/200 or 200/400)?

Fortuntely Track is not as stupid as swimming where the top swimmer wins 75 metals in one WC. That sport has WAY too many events.

Or, maybe track should take the swimming approach and then we could have the 3k, 5k and 8k steeple, the 3k, 5k 8k, track distances, 3k 5k 8k road distances and the 3k, 5k, and 8k XC. Steeple, track, road and XC - our freestyle, butterfly, brest and backstroke.

Good Point! Guys like phelps are good at swimming, but the events are all so similar (yes, theyre different, but...)

The more events you add to track, the weaker you make every event. if you have the 3000 and steeple, youre gonna split what is now solid steeple talent and neither race will be as fun to watch. however, there are guys out there like Solinski who would just go nuts if the 3k were a commonly raced event like the 5k, but you can only go so far with creating new events so more people can show off their speed at unimportant distances.

the 200 is the same as the 800 and is a great race.

it brings athletes from both sides

200m - 100 guys vs 400 guys - speed vs endurance

800m - 400 guys vs 1500 guys - speed vs endurance

Spearmon could be a world class 400m runner no problems at all, same with bolt aswell.