OK, I know some athletes aren't big on the indoor season ... or running consecutive weekends ... or whatever. But I still don't understand why track and field athletes, who suffer tremendously from underexposure, don't compete more than they do. Best comparison is boxing, where the big-ticket fighters have only 1 or 2 bouts a year, then go underground.
Some of these indoor meets in 2009, for example, are a joke. Other than the Big Three American shot-putters, most of the other events seriously lack involvement from the top athletes from Beijing, and even those who didn't qualify for Beijing. Tyson Gay, Walter Dix, Bolt, VCB, Wariner, Felix, etc., etc., etc., where are they? Do they make THAT much money where they can sit home and pick and choose? Are they that "worn out" from competing last season (even after 6-7 weeks off) that they can't run a 55-meter dash (for the sprinters)? Are they that fearful of injury or tiring themselves for the outdoor season or not "peaking" for the Worlds?
Bigger question: Why don't their sponsors demand they compete more often, if only to justify the sponsorship?
An NBA player plays 60 minutes a night, then practices for 2 hours the next day, then does it all over again with games and practices, and when you toss in all the travel, he does more in 8 months than the typical track athlete does in 2 years, so it can't all be about fatigue, fear of injury, etc.
Also, if these meets aren't offering enough scratch (that's money), what's the option for athletes? Sit at home and make nothing?
Why don't others follow the example set last year by LoLo Jones, who competed heavily last indoor and outdoor season and still was at her best when the OTs and Games rolled around? (Having said this, Lolo is nowhere to be found in 2009 so far.)
As usual, track and field is the big loser when this happens. Sorry about the rant, but when I saw the lineup for Millrose (pathetic) and Boston, I skipped the meet on TV and watched Kobe and LeBron instead. So much for the Olympic carry-over.
Surely, someone with more knowledge of track than myself can weigh in here and defend the athletes, which I'm assuming most readers of T&FN will do.
Some of these indoor meets in 2009, for example, are a joke. Other than the Big Three American shot-putters, most of the other events seriously lack involvement from the top athletes from Beijing, and even those who didn't qualify for Beijing. Tyson Gay, Walter Dix, Bolt, VCB, Wariner, Felix, etc., etc., etc., where are they? Do they make THAT much money where they can sit home and pick and choose? Are they that "worn out" from competing last season (even after 6-7 weeks off) that they can't run a 55-meter dash (for the sprinters)? Are they that fearful of injury or tiring themselves for the outdoor season or not "peaking" for the Worlds?
Bigger question: Why don't their sponsors demand they compete more often, if only to justify the sponsorship?
An NBA player plays 60 minutes a night, then practices for 2 hours the next day, then does it all over again with games and practices, and when you toss in all the travel, he does more in 8 months than the typical track athlete does in 2 years, so it can't all be about fatigue, fear of injury, etc.
Also, if these meets aren't offering enough scratch (that's money), what's the option for athletes? Sit at home and make nothing?
Why don't others follow the example set last year by LoLo Jones, who competed heavily last indoor and outdoor season and still was at her best when the OTs and Games rolled around? (Having said this, Lolo is nowhere to be found in 2009 so far.)
As usual, track and field is the big loser when this happens. Sorry about the rant, but when I saw the lineup for Millrose (pathetic) and Boston, I skipped the meet on TV and watched Kobe and LeBron instead. So much for the Olympic carry-over.
Surely, someone with more knowledge of track than myself can weigh in here and defend the athletes, which I'm assuming most readers of T&FN will do.
Comment