Tweet
We’ve done the 100 and the 400 for men, so let’s finish the sprints with the 200. There were a few more data points than the 200, but the only meets of significance (in order) were:
1. WC
2. GPF
3. Brussels GL
4. Rome GL
5. Paris GL
and USATF
Times were lousy but the Honors Won/Head-to-heads confirmed each other for the most part. So:
1. Capel – WC 1st, Paris 1st, USA 2nd
2. Patton – WC 2nd, GPF 4th, ISA 1st, Brussels 4th, Paris 3rd
3. JJ Johnson – WC 6th, GPF 1st, USA 3rd, Rome 4th
4. Crawford – GPF 2nd, Brussels 3rd, Rome 2nd
5. Buckland – WC 5th, GPF 3rd, Rome 3rd, Paris 4th
so where is:
A. Suetsugu – WC 3rd and then squat.
B. Campbell – WC 4th and then squat.
Only the relative weaknesses of the others would suggest that they deserve to be inserted above, possibly as high as 3rd and 4th, but I think they deserve 6th and 7th because they didn’t face the others enough.
1. WC
2. GPF
3. Brussels GL
4. Rome GL
5. Paris GL
and USATF
Times were lousy but the Honors Won/Head-to-heads confirmed each other for the most part. So:
1. Capel – WC 1st, Paris 1st, USA 2nd
2. Patton – WC 2nd, GPF 4th, ISA 1st, Brussels 4th, Paris 3rd
3. JJ Johnson – WC 6th, GPF 1st, USA 3rd, Rome 4th
4. Crawford – GPF 2nd, Brussels 3rd, Rome 2nd
5. Buckland – WC 5th, GPF 3rd, Rome 3rd, Paris 4th
so where is:
A. Suetsugu – WC 3rd and then squat.
B. Campbell – WC 4th and then squat.
Only the relative weaknesses of the others would suggest that they deserve to be inserted above, possibly as high as 3rd and 4th, but I think they deserve 6th and 7th because they didn’t face the others enough.
Comment