......to the rest of the world. What are the two questions you are always asked?
1. What can you "do" a mile in?
2. Have you ever "done" a marathon?
Lets cut out all the intermediate distances in between and focus on the two that really matter.
......to the rest of the world. What are the two questions you are always asked?
1. What can you "do" a mile in?
2. Have you ever "done" a marathon?
Lets cut out all the intermediate distances in between and focus on the two that really matter.
The most annoying LetsRun Poster: DR. PHIL
Go back to Oprah and stay off the LetsRun Message board.
JoBo, son it seems laike you a are a bit young and immature to be posting hateful messages like that. Grow up please!
Actually, Dr. Phil has a good point to make. I too have advocated for years that America should focus its distance efforts on the mile and the marathon. Why? The public actually shows some interest in these events and they could possibly act as a springboard for other distances.
For example, the guy who, after years of work, can "only" manage a 3:51 mile, might wind up being our next great steepler or 5,000 guy because he has honed his middle distance strength and speed.
Conversely, a "failed" 2:12 marathoner who falls apart late in the race could combine his long distance strength with some speedwork to become a great 10,000m. runner.
But, back to the mile and marathon. With our size and body types, we can still take the Africans with a middle distance focused program. Before the African explosion, there were quite a few white guys who could run 3:46 - 3:50. That tells me fast times are genetically possible.
The Japanese have shown that marathon focus can produce great results. Look at their recent efforts for both genders! Also, name a great Japanese 5 / 10K runner? Tough, eh? That's because the 'thon is everything to a Japanese athlete.
Long post. Now, I need to get some coffee.
Look at El G, he's African, but technically caucasian, no?
You say "we". Why do you assume that all of "us" (Americans) are white? Pretty damn racist if you ask me, funny man.
Well actually, PR is not being racist...just assuming. I say that we only counted 12% of Americans in 2000 were black. That's a lot of whites and hispanics left over.
Good catch. My intent was not to be racist rather, just taking on the (sadly) accepted notion that the Africans are gentically more gifted and that "euro-genes" can't cut it any longer.
I'll re-phrase: Before the African explosion, many runners born and residing in Europe, North America, and Australasia were able to muster times in the 3:46 - 3:50 range.
O.K. That should be more PC.
What difference does it make what the rest of the world cares about? Do you run for the approval of others?
Yes and No! I like cranking out 14 minute 5k's myself. However, since we complain about coverage and interest of our sport, we may need to focus more on the events that the common folk has some sort of understanding and appreciation for (although it might not be much). Truth be known, no one really cares other than us that Regina broke a 3000m world indoor record or whatever it was. They might be more excited (and even make an ESPN newscast) if "the mile" wr was broken though.
Let's face it there are actually just three events. And it is not just the rest of the world but also the media in this country as well. To them there are only three events in track. They are the 100 (world's fastest human), the marathon (the most enduring), and the mile/1500 (the thoroughbred of running and the "magic" of the four minute mile. Everything else unfortunately is just filler as far as they are concerned.
Which illustrates what was so great about Steve Prefontaine. Through his personality and determination he actually got the media interesed in something besides the big three.
(the first post above by "duh" was me. "duh" was supposed to be the title, not the name)
I was very young when Pre died so I can't be sure, but I tend to get the feeling that he got the media a lot more interested by dying than he ever did by his personality. It seems like the James Dean thing. Much bigger in death than he was in life.
I wonder if anyone who remembers that time can chime in.
Average_Joe wrote:
(the first post above by "duh" was me. "duh" was supposed to be the title, not the name)
I was very young when Pre died so I can't be sure, but I tend to get the feeling that he got the media a lot more interested by dying than he ever did by his personality. It seems like the James Dean thing. Much bigger in death than he was in life.
I wonder if anyone who remembers that time can chime in.
It's a bit off-topic, but it reminds me of something that television critic Tom Shales said about the early death of Andy Kaufman, which led to a number of books and movies about his life: "A tragedy, yes, but a good career move."
On the original topic, a lot of excellent long-distance runners have had to deal with the mile-and-marathon thing. I recall that Craig Virgin suggested that it was what ultimately pushed him into the marathon -- being a great 10,000 and cross-country runner wasn't enough for many casual observers of the sport. Pat Porter resisted, but was always being asked when he would be running a marathon. Lynn Jennings finally made a serious marathon effort, but perhaps too late.
Ok, you guys raised some good points about getting the media interested in the sport by concentrating on three events, therefore getting the cash, but is money what sports, especially track and field is all about? People constantly complain about big time hockey or baseball athletes earning millions; is this topic then really that different? A man or woman who is dedicated enough and has a certain amount of natural talent has a chance of making a living in the track world, but for the average runner it should be about the enjoyment of the sport. I'm a big fan of the mile, but personally find the 100 meter and marathon boring (although there are great athletes in those events). Everyone has there preference, but if our sport was consolidated into a 3 event sport, it would ruin track and field, especially for those who participate in it, and that's what matters most.
I agree with the observation in the original post, but disagree with the suggestion (if it was serious) that 'we' should simply forget about all other events.
My best 10k is far superior to my best (and only) marathon. But if I was to tell a non-runner I've run under 32mins for 10k it means absolutely nothing to them, whereas if they find out I've dipped under 3 hours in a marathon they think I'm some kind of superman. It's weird, but it's just the way it is.
I think that a three event format would be perfect for U.S. television. The three events are:
100 meters (M and W)
Mile (M and W)
Field Event (Shot Put - M; Long Jump - W)
Shown on tape delay and with the field events edited to the best 6-8 marks and false starts edited out, this could easily fit into a 30 minute package. Give a single sponsor exclusive rights and on-screen "bugs" (those little translucent logos in the corner) and you would have minimal commercial interruption.
There you have it. Quick and easy.
I believe that a weekly televised meet in this format could draw average sports fan interest and create heros to be followed throughout the Olympic cycle. The best part is that we are competitive (or can be) in these events and that would spark enthusiasm, pride, and hope for Olympic viewers and U.S. track fans.
And I could be the live commentator, right after Star Serach on Wed. night!
I think JoBo was just reiterating another post that Dr.Phil had started about most annoying people on the board.
JLo (or JoBo-one in the same), please quit skipping and get back to your class.
Yeah. Good! Arsenio and Larry Rawson.
Larry: Marion is looking at a share of the Golden League jackpot if she can keep her winning streak intact. Look out for Sevatheda Fines of the Bahamas to give her a challenge tonight.
Arsenio: That kinda' bling-bling could get that fine lookin' MJ a beach house in the Bahamas, eh Raw-Dogg?
I see many budding TV programmers on Let's Run!
bazza wrote:
But if I was to tell a non-runner I've run under 32mins for 10k it means absolutely nothing to them, whereas if they find out I've dipped under 3 hours in a marathon they think I'm some kind of superman. It's weird, but it's just the way it is.
I don't think so. Many people run local 5K's and 5 mile races, but I can't think of 10 people I know who have actually run marathons.
If you tell them your 10K time, they'll understand how solid it is based on their poor 5K times.