Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia giving up on the sprints?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by mal
    The real issue is Australia is that there is little interest in track and field.

    Similar circumstances exist in the US as well, it's just that they start with 300 million and Oz starts with 20 million.

    By the time you pare it down, there isn't enough Australian sprinters of quality to fill up all the lanes.

    To be brutally honest, and totally non-racist, this is a major issue for our sport around the World. The fact that runners of West-African/Caribbean descent totally dominate the sprint events is obvious. It is at least equally obvious that runners of East-African/North-African descent dominate the distance events. There seems to be an increasing number of nations/runners at least considering the possibility of not being able to compete in a lot of these events, at least in terms of making an Olympic final or World Top 16. Of course, this does not mean that any individual, of any race (no pun), in any Country may not be able to take on the challenge. But it certainly seems to mean that some/many are losing interest. This is one of my principle reasons for being opposed to having more than 3/4 per Country in Olympic/World events. Thoughts ?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rasb
      To be brutally honest, and totally non-racist, this is a major issue for our sport around the World. The fact that runners of West-African/Caribbean descent totally dominate the sprint events is obvious. It is at least equally obvious that runners of East-African/North-African descent dominate the distance events. There seems to be an increasing number of nations/runners at least considering the possibility of not being able to compete in a lot of these events, at least in terms of making an Olympic final or World Top 16. Of course, this does not mean that any individual, of any race (no pun), in any Country may not be able to take on the challenge. But it certainly seems to mean that some/many are losing interest. This is one of my principle reasons for being opposed to having more than 3/4 per Country in Olympic/World events. Thoughts ?
      I tend to agree with the 3 per country per event although some might claim it's racist/jingoistic ideology. To be totally marketable any sporting event really needs an "us against them" premise. Though if an Olympic steeple final (for example) featured 3 kenyans, 2 ethopians, 2 kenyans and 1 ethiopian now running for saudi arabia, 2 more running for the US, 1 for denmark, 1 for australia. 1 for luxembourg etc, I wonder if anyone would care at all

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mal
        The real issue is Australia is that there is little interest in track and field.
        Not sure how you're measuring interest, but I've randomly met a couple of Aussies in the past year who were in their 20s or 30s and were well aware who Raelene Boyle is, and they were hardly track fans. Not a big sample size I'm sure, but good luck finding me a Canuck in their 20s who knows who Harry Jerome was.

        Originally posted by Smoke
        Now to all the Americans out there, this is a sprint problem! We just have a lack of gold.
        If a pinkish-white fellow can run 43.45, what would an equivalent performance over 100 meters be? 9.82 according to this [and 19.65 for 200] -

        http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competi ... 08_742.pdf
        Take good care of yourself.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mennisco
          Originally posted by mal
          The real issue is Australia is that there is little interest in track and field.
          Not sure how you're measuring interest, but I've randomly met a couple of Aussies in the past year who were in their 20s or 30s and were well aware who Raelene Boyle is, and they were hardly track fans. Not a big sample size I'm sure, but good luck finding me a Canuck in their 20s who knows who Harry Jerome was.

          Originally posted by Smoke
          Now to all the Americans out there, this is a sprint problem! We just have a lack of gold.
          If a pinkish-white fellow can run 43.45, what would an equivalent performance over 100 meters be? 9.82 according to this [and 19.65 for 200] -

          http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competi ... 08_742.pdf
          Yes, but isn't he a one-off case? When else in the last four or five years has a similarly complected American medalled in the 400, or even on the 4x400 relay?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 26mi235
            Yes, but isn't he a one-off case? When else in the last four or five years has a similarly complected American medalled in the 400, or even on the 4x400 relay?
            Andrew Rock in the Helsinki 400 and 4x4? You're right though, he's quite the anomaly - but he makes me think the best white guy should be better than a mere 10.00, to date. We "need" another Borzov, a Won Hundred Wariner. If Barack can get elected, anything is possible in America.
            Take good care of yourself.

            Comment


            • #21
              100/200 and 400 are two distinct disciplines

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by gh
                100/200 and 400 are two distinct disciplines
                200/400? I still consider Michael Johnson a former sprinter. Before him, there was Marita Koch.....
                Take good care of yourself.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Australia giving up on the sprints?

                  Originally posted by gh
                  the sprints may be simply too hard - especially for a largely white population....>>
                  They don't all swagger like Shirvo, now do they?

                  :shock:
                  Take good care of yourself.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Australia giving up on the sprints?

                    Originally posted by Mennisco
                    Originally posted by gh
                    the sprints may be simply too hard - especially for a largely white population....>>
                    They don't all swagger like Shirvo, now do they?

                    :shock:
                    Isnt it interesting that AUS has M200 record dating back to the 1960s and has not produced a female sprinter near Boyle's caliber from the late 70s. Regardless of what is happening elsewhere in the world it is clear that their ability to compete on the world stage is as much a function of their own output/pro(re)gress as it is anything else.

                    The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves if we are underlings.
                    ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      i don't think boyle holds the ozzie 100/200 records anymore

                      so, ozzie gals have improved from the '70s, but the world has improved far more with waveloads of american/carib gals

                      if these nations had been present at current depth back in he '70s, then you'd have to say boyle wouda been at best something like a 5th or 6th placer in a final, making subsequent ozzie gals performances not so bad

                      as for men, norman holds an altitude aided 200 mark of 20.06 which probably is nearer 20.2 at sea-level - ozzie guys have been capable of this since then

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by eldrick
                        i don't think boyle holds the ozzie 100/200 records anymore

                        so, ozzie gals have improved from the '70s, but the world has improved far more with waveloads of american/carib gals

                        if these nations had been present at current depth back in he '70s, then you'd have to say boyle wouda been at best something like a 5th or 6th placer in a final, making subsequent ozzie gals performances not so bad

                        as for men, norman holds an altitude aided 200 mark of 20.06 which probably is nearer 20.2 at sea-level - ozzie guys have been capable of this since then
                        Eldy, please exercise some care in your analysis.

                        Where is the 20.2 AUS man?.. remember, 40 years have past since then, tracks have gotten faster, training/nutrition/supplementation far better and the AUS recent national best hovers around 20.5... you are way too quick and too coarse with your study. Today a Norman would be producing 19.7s. If track were on the Oz radar screen we would see multiple sub and 20 sec. 200m dashers.

                        Boyle was 17 years old when she finaled in 72 with a 11.23, that is worth sub 11 every day of the week today... we dont see anything like that today.

                        you are wrong, such equivalent athletes are out there and they are just not competing, they could be world finalists today (sub10/20, sub11/22) and that is all one can ask for regardless of the country you represent. The fault dear Eldrick lies not in our stars but in ourselves.

                        The answer to all of this is to bring back the notion that to be your best is a reward in itself, to be your national champion is an exceptionally high honor. Why would AUS governing sports body make decisions regarding national investment in sports based on the "present" likelihood of an olympic medal in an event. Such short sightedness and lack of insight will lead to a greater collapse in performance in ALL sports.
                        ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Australia giving up on the sprints?

                          Originally posted by Vault-emort
                          Originally posted by catson52
                          Amongst all the butchery practiced in the name of benign colonialism on many continents, the Aussies present a strong case to be ranked number one.
                          ah yes, those empire-building Aussies who colonised Australia......

                          and a quote from wikipedia:

                          From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States militia, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere may have declined by as many as 100 million
                          Do you realize that you trying to act knowledgeable on this topic by quoting historical information from "Wikipedia"?Although the information is of merit its probably smarter not to say you sourced from there.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mal
                            The real issue is Australia is that there is little interest in track and field.

                            Similar circumstances exist in the US as well, it's just that they start with 300 million and Oz starts with 20 million.

                            By the time you pare it down, there isn't enough Australian sprinters of quality to fill up all the lanes.
                            And that's the truth.... Could not have said it better.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              paulie

                              copobianco ran 20.18 in wc in '93 which is comparable to norman's best, but albeit on better track

                              i disagree wih your assertion that norman wouda been a 19.7 guy today

                              his best is ~ 20.2 sea-level & within the following 10y ( contemparary era for him ), there were 1/2 dozen guys who ran 20.0 - 20.1, meaning they were significantly faster than norman & by your extrapolation making them 19.5 - 19.6 guys today !

                              19.7 is very rarified territory & not a number to be bandied around lightly

                              in whole of '80s, only 2 guys clocked 19.7s - King & deloach, who no one woud argue against, were a class above norman

                              if they coud "only" manage 19.7, then it defies logic that an inferior runner in norman coud

                              i can see him around 20-flat nowdays, but nothing better

                              as for boyle, you need to check those facts ( i'm not sure myself ) - she was 21y in '72, if she ran 11.23 @ 17y, then it was a altitude making it more like 11.3 - nice but not super-dooper for a 17y ole

                              i certainly woudn't call a low-altitude 11.23 back then a guaranteed < 11 today - maybe about 11.10 but no way <11

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by eldrick
                                i don't think boyle holds the ozzie 100/200 records anymore

                                so, ozzie gals have improved from the '70s, but the world has improved far more with waveloads of american/carib gals

                                if these nations had been present at current depth back in he '70s, then you'd have to say boyle wouda been at best something like a 5th or 6th placer in a final, making subsequent ozzie gals performances not so bad
                                Eldrick, this isn't one of your better days. Those American girls aren't as feminine as Iris Davis, Wyomia Tyus and Barbara Ferrell. No comment on the other black women you've brought up.
                                Take good care of yourself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X