Three types of TAFNUTs?

[RAP]

A few years back I read an article in Track and field News indicating that all TAFNUTs fall into three categories. 1. Those who prefer records set. 2. Those who prefer down to the wire, neck and neck finishes. 3. I don't remember the third. What was the other category? Anyway, I fall into cat. 2. Is there anything better than the 1984 Olympic trials and the women's 100m hurdles? It doesn't get any better than that. I'll take that any day over some record won by 100 meters or more(especially if a stupid rabbit was used). Thank you.
RAP gone.

Re: Three types of TAFNUTs?

#2 definitely. I joined my junior high cross country team because I saw Rod Dixon win the NYC marathon. I've been hooked on this silly sport ever since.

Re: Three types of TAFNUTs?

The third type of fan is the one that likes to see a race end in a hand holding tie. I am definetely NOT in this category.

[joel]

Re: Three types of TAFNUTs?

Category 4: 99% of the world, who only watches once every 4 years, when there is the possibility of both a record and a close finish...with fellow countrymen handling the rabbit duties!

[tafnut]

Re: Three types of TAFNUTs?

As THE tafnut, I can tell you that we (I, using it in the royal way) will take any little crumb thrown our way. I like a record as much as a tight finish. True tafnuts are distinguished by their slavish following of the statistical side of the sport. My wife still laughs at me as I read all the fine print in the e-Tracknewsletters. "It's just a bunch of numbers!" Yes, it is, and no further explanation is necessary.

Re: Three types of TAFNUTs?

OK someone needs to speak up for the (apparently) minority opinion. Put me firmly in the # 1 category. The sad truth is that most US track fans have decided that "competitive" races are far more exciting than fast ones (WRs, etc.) simply because they don't SEE them on US soil anymore. (It's called sour grapes: whatever we don't have, can't be worth wanting.) Simply winning is race is no big deal: after all, EVERY race has a winner. And if two mediocre runners happen to be equally mediocre, then you automatically have a close and "exciting" finish (NOT!). Running fast--performing better than any or nearly any other athlete in history--is RARE, and shows that the athlete has really been tested over the FULL distance, not some trivial fraction of it. Fewer track fans talked this way back in the '50s and '60s when it ALL was available on US soil: the best fields, world records, great competition, etc. We don't quite have that situation here anymore, sad to say. I'd be delighted if it came back, but I'm not holding my breath. While certain T&FN writers go all gooey over lazy jog-and-kick 13:38 5000s, the truth is that these races prove nothing except who can run 200 meters the fastest (and, after all, don't we have dedicated 200 meter events to determine this?). Give me a 12:39, 12:41, or 12:44 race ANY day (and I saw them all). If you want close, all-out competition--go to the meets at your local high school or college: you'll see plenty of exciting things there. If you want the highest QUALITY, you have to look elsewhere--and it often happens that the very best are simply head-and-shoulders better than the rest. In that case, watching El G, Geb, etc. win by a street can be a absolute thing of beauty--infinitely more inspiring than a boatload of slow-and-close races.