Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

susie faver hamilton

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anne Animus
    replied
    Re: susie faver hamilton

    Or how about moving down to 100 meters? At least she won't get pushed around by other athletes there. :-p

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    Should/could Suzy move up to the 5, or even 10, for next year?? Same thing, probably - outkicked in last 100m.. but maybe she could win America's hearts by doing what Kennedy tried at Atlanta - push it from 800m out, and hope to take some of the 'kick' out of the others. Nah, what'm I talkin about.. NO ONE can do that in big races.. Maybe the Marathon for SFH?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    BTW, I sincerely appreciate the civility with which this possibly hot-button topic has been handled, as opposed to what happens on other boards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    >I guess that means in 2000 there were only 20-odd
    >successful women in the whole world and all the
    >rest are useless pieces of shit?
    I never said that...only that Suzy Favor-Hamilton has underachieved according to her talent.
    Even an underachiever can still be far from "useless." It's called doing okay...mediocrity to some. Not the same as shitty.
    Some will say running fast cures mediocrity...I say running fast is only part of the equation for an elite athlete. Doing exceptionally well with only part of the equation is underachieving IMHO.

    >And I thought I
    >was an elitist!
    Stick with me, I'll train you!

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    >I'm in total agreement with Hmm on this one. Sure
    >all world class athletes are overachievers when
    >compared to the general population but that isn't
    >the point. The comparison has to be with their
    >athletic peers. And since she hasn't achieved
    >anything at all in races that count post college
    >her career has been one of total
    >underachievement. >>

    Let's see: winning a Golden League 1500 the status of Oslo, in a PR time, beating the Olympic 2-3-4-5 placers in the processs is "hasn't achieved anything"? I guess that means in 2000 there were only 20-odd successful women in the whole world and all the rest are useless pieces of shit? And I thought I was an elitist!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    No offense taken. I just read your soccer comment and we are on the same page there :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    I'm in total agreement with Hmm on this one. Sure all world class athletes are overachievers when compared to the general population but that isn't the point. The comparison has to be with their athletic peers. And since she hasn't achieved anything at all in races that count post college her career has been one of total underachievement.

    She's a beautiful runner to watch (and I mean that in the running-style sense, not that she's a hottie)and I also wish her well in Paris & Athens because she hasn't quit and is showing great perseverence. I suspect we are not going to agree on this one!

    BTW Pego...I wasn't trying to insult you with the cheese comment, was making an attempt at humo(u)r. I'm english and our sarcastic side gets misinterpreted by americans all the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    I'll just say one more thing and then shut up on this subject. How in the world can a world-class athlete be considered an underachiever? The amount of work and dedication, regardless of the natural talent is enormous. They are ALL overachievers, some just more than others. Can everybody on this panel live with that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    by-the-way, I did not object to being called a cheesehead. I objected to a statement "cheese got to your head" - a huge difference. [pego]

    I re-read you and stand corrected with apology on this one.

    >2000--reinvents herself, picks up some
    >needed sprint speed and improves to 3:57. Facing
    >killer kicker like Szabo (who could probably
    >outkick just about any man on the board) she does
    >the only thing she can do; she grabs the race by
    >the balls and runs from the front. Coming off the
    >final curve she's in the lead but you can tell
    >she won't win. But a medal still seems likely.
    >Then it all goes to hell and she goes down. A
    >phenomenally brave run and you people have the
    >gut to call it disappointing? Holy
    >shit! [gh]

    Actually, you picked out one of the examples that has soured me about her as a competitive athlete.
    I believe the above is the prime example of how she has gone from bullish competitor I used to respect to whiney, excuse-ready time trialer.
    In America, the general public loves a winner. It also loves someone who doesn't win but tries so hard they end up face down on the ground. We give lucrative product endorsment deals to both.
    Personally, I absolutely love underdogs who try, even if they fall short, as long as they have given their best, no excuses. I dispise those who fall short but then attempt to manipulate or spin my thinking about what happened.
    The last few years have seen nothing but examples of this from Hamilton. Excuses, excuses. and always a big scene made afterwards, whether it's badmouthing a person who beat her or simply laying around on the track like some beached flounder so everyone will see what an effort she made. And I see the gh example above as the worst case of it all: losing and knowing it, she took a dive to generate pity. Look at the tape-rotten acting. Throw both arms up and dive to the track.

    >phenomenally brave run
    So why end it that way: "Suze, if you're not going to win, make sure America knows you tried real hard!"

    I don't see how anyone can consider an athlete, no matter how genetically gifted, who can only run fast under optimum for her conditions (what do you think she was talking about when she said honest races in Europe?--ones that benefit her one dimensional/tuck in sustained speed running style) as anything but an underachiever to that talent at this stage of the game.

    For the record, I held hope for her after watching her lose to Szabo by a lean at the Pre meet a few years back, but then that summer she reverted to the overly-cautious bit and started offering excuses.

    This is all my opinion, of course.

    Would any of you consider the Portugese runner from the mid-eighties Fernando Mamede anything but an underachiever to his talent? Mamede ran a WR 10k and very fast times over 5k. In Europe he outkicked many people over the last lap at these distances. But at the 83 Worlds and 84 Olympics championship races, dispite having run faster than pretty much everybody else in those races, he froze up and quit, once literally (84).
    Mamede...tons of talent, very successful when running time trials...an underachiever?
    Or the flip side:
    How about Viren...falls during the Olympic 10k, gets up and beats everyone in a WR.
    Or the Brit in the 76 10k (blanking his name), got knocked down and broke his arm but finished 4th and nearly caught Foster for the bronze.

    Think these people (and many others) gave up because they "lost their stride?"
    I realize it's a lot harder to make up ground in a 1500...but to not even TRY and then show up with some lame excuse?
    Sorry, I don't respect that. And with her excuse/trashing the one who beat her, I see Hamilton getting even worse, a sure sign of the beginning of the end.
    Although having said that, I do think she will do well at Paris. There is a pause/getting ready for the Olympic year (or something/drugs testing?) that appears to be happening on the world scene from the 100 on up. If she runs smart, Hamilton's talent might get her home with a medal, since it doesn' look like the world is going to outmuscle her (or out "head" her) this season.
    Good luck and we'll see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    1996 SFH DOES make Oly team but in an ill advised plan doubles and only makes it in the 800. Sadly outgunned in the event, what were she and Dick Brown thinking????, she doesn't make it out of the heats in the 800.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    Since Hmmm did not respond, I ran a Google search.Number of hits? Kory Everson (as a Wisconsin athlete):0
    Suzy Favor Hamilton: over 4000

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    >How about, "SFH has
    >consistently failed to live up to her talent and
    >ability in important races that matter on the
    >world stage"? Then again, I guess that means she
    >hasn't achieved what she, the press, and T&F fans
    >felt she was capable of achieving. Isn't that
    >underachieving? >>

    Sorry, don't buy that either. I think people are remembering her long run of making U.S. teams with "no success" and applying her performances of today to those meets. Let me splain it to you Lucy.

    SFH won 3 US Junior titles, starting in '84, so you think of her as being around for ever. Then she won 4 NCAA titles. So all of a sudden she's 7 years into a high-profile UNITED STATES career. She also has a PR of "only" 4:08 and isn't remotely a world-class runner. At this point, many/most would quit.

    1991--first year out of school, improves to 4:06, doesn't move out of the heats of the WC, but in a year where she's 23rd on the yearly list, who would really expect her to?

    1992--improves to 4:04, doesn't move out of heats of OG. That's a year where it takes a sub-4:00 to get even 4th, let alone medal.

    1993--a 4:10 year (don't know why), doesn't make WC team, so doesn't let anybody down in a big international.

    1995--runs 4:05 makes it to WC semis. At 14th on yearly list, that's about as far as one would expect her to go.

    1996--4:08, doesn't make OG team, no screwup in the biggie.

    1997--improves to 4:03, misses WC final by 0.13. Since she's only #20 on the yearly list, this could be viewed as an OVERachievement.

    1999--hurt, no outdoor running

    2000--reinvents herself, picks up some needed sprint speed and improves to 3:57. Facing killer kicker like Szabo (who could probably outkick just about any man on the board) she does the only thing she can do; she grabs the race by the balls and runs from the front. Coming off the final curve she's in the lead but you can tell she won't win. But a medal still seems likely. Then it all goes to hell and she goes down. A phenomenally brave run and you people have the gut to call it disappointing? Holy shit!

    2001--a 4:00 again has her figured as a contender but she doesn't make it out of the semis. Why? Becuase she gets hit from behind and knocked off her stride. In her distress she makes an ill-advised comment about "saving it for Z├╝rich," or the like, but she was clearly out of it.

    But even if the '01 thing was a total head-caser, you're going to characterize that whole career as a disappointment. Maybe disappointing to fans and sportswriters (including T&FN?) who have built her up to being more than she is, but I see virtually nothing to fault in her big-meet performances, given her sad lack of native speed. She has worked her butt off to overcome that, hanging in there to PR at age-32. I say the woman deserves more respect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    Thank you, GH and "what the hey". I kind of felt alone for awhile, sniff, sniff. Hmmm, tell me about Kory Everson. And by-the-way, I did not object to being called a cheesehead. I objected to a statement "cheese got to your head" - a huge difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    In the context of semantics, GH, you're obviously correct.

    However, how about, "SFH has consistently failed to live up to her talent and ability in important races that matter on the world stage"? Then again, I guess that means she hasn't achieved what she, the press, and T&F fans felt she was capable of achieving. Isn't that underachieving?

    I'm now anticipating somekind of intellectual spanking from you professional wordsmiths. But what the hell, figure if you're getting up at 3am you'll be a bit knackered right now!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Suzy Favor Hamilton

    >>Talent allows one to run
    >fast. That is only
    >part of being a successful
    >competitor. No one
    >doubts that Suzy's parents
    >gave her some fine
    >gifts in the athletic
    >department. What she has
    >done with them is
    >underachieving. >>

    How do
    >you figure she has "underachieved"? As a basic
    >measure of talent, let's see what the all-time
    >top 10 high school list looks like (combined
    >1500/1600/mile, represented as mile
    >times):
    >So if what SFH has
    >done is "underachieving" I'd hate to see what
    >you think about such obvious bums as the rest of
    >the list!

    Again, if you are talking purely in terms of talent, yes, the woman has talent. If you are talking, as I stated I was, in terms of complete competitive athletics, she has underachieved according to her talent. Talent means little without a head for the sport. All the lists printed here just back up my point.

    Someone who can run 3:57 but bails out of championship races the minute she faces some adversity?

    Yeah, I call that underachieving. Especially when homers try to convince me otherwise!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X