Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where were the ladies in 1950s?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Re: Where were the ladies in 1950s?

    <"Women's Track & Field World, published from '67 through the early- '80s, carried news that male-dominated T&FN left out."
    Those issues ought to be worth sumpin!>

    I had fairly complete issues of WTFW (Vince Reel) from about 1967 thru 1975. Unfortunately I had to get rid of most of them whilst travelling around the world seeking employment. I still have about 15 issues with me, and now I guess I will hold on to them, rather than throw them out, along with TFN (fairly complete) 66 thru about 90.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Where were the ladies in 1950s?

      do I detect a hook being dangled? I think you ARE allowed to peddle this kind of stuff here.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Where were the ladies in 1950s?

        <do I detect a hook being dangled? I think you ARE allowed to peddle this kind of stuff here. >

        No. I have scribbled/made corrections in many issues. Further they will make good (re)reading in my old age.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Where were the ladies in 1950s?

          Originally posted by michael lewis
          The woman was Fran Sichting, from Oregon, and Sports Illustrated opined that she might be "the fastest woman to come down an American track in years", I believe the year was 1973 or 1974. She was either American 220 champ or runner up one of those years and I think she was something like third in the 100. She had a 200 PR of 23.17 but it was hubby or the Olympics and unfortunately he lived long enough for her to keep baking his muffins.
          Sichting update:

          http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/20 ... 712193.txt

          Comment


          • #35
            Glad to see that Sichting is coaching, and still in the sport. Wonder if she got rid of that lumberjack?

            Comment


            • #36
              Given the name change, one would assume so.

              Comment


              • #37
                ok guys
                i don't usually do this but if you want an EXTENSIVE history of the women from start in u.s in 1895 at vassar college thru 1980 get
                american women's t&f:a history 1895-1980
                i list every olympian, pan amerIcan,ETC
                interviews with helen stephens (1936 100 olympic gold, just like jesse)and betty robinson (1928 olympic 100 gold) etc,etc,etc - you will learn everything and accurately
                we were therE=i was one who ran for nyc Pal the tean mae faggs was with when she was on 1948 oG=I WAS ON 59 PAN AM TEAM

                WE WERE NOT COVERED BY ANYONE EXCEPT CINDERBELLE-A NEWSLETTER THAT MR LARNEY AND PAT RICO ED. MR LARNEY WAS THE DAD OF 2 TIME OLYMPIC JAV MARJORIE AND THEN VINCE REEL'S WOMENS T&F WORLD

                T&FN HAD ONE LINE WRITTEN BY HAL BATEMAN IN1960=WILMA RUDOLPH WINS SULLIVAN AWARD

                WE WERE NOT COVERED BY t&fn UNTIL 1974 =SORRY GARRY,BUT THEY THOUGHT WE HARDLY EXISTED=MADELINE WAS NOT HAPPY TO HEAR THAT AFTER HER 800M GOLD IN 1968!

                ASK ANYTHING = MY SECOND BOOK WAS JUST PUBLISHED AT END OF DEC (1981-2000)
                48 INTERVIEWS WITH MANY OLYMPIANS =113 PHOTOS
                SO THERE IS A VERY COMPLETE HISTORY FOM 1895-2000 FOR US!

                I USUALLY DON'T DO THIS BUT RECENT CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED THINGS

                I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ltricard
                  o.....
                  T&FN HAD ONE LINE WRITTEN BY HAL BATEMAN IN1960=WILMA RUDOLPH WINS SULLIVAN AWARD.....
                  wrong

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Any of you who do not have Louise Tricard's book would be well advised to obtain them - great works both.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by gh
                      Originally posted by ltricard
                      o.....
                      T&FN HAD ONE LINE WRITTEN BY HAL BATEMAN IN1960=WILMA RUDOLPH WINS SULLIVAN AWARD.....
                      wrong
                      I am sure our talented Editor can "defend" himself. I presume by T&FN we mean the magazine. I see that the Sept. 1960 issue had some coverage of women's events in the Rome Oly on p. 26. One column with all results, the top six finishers listed, and very short write up of a few highlights. Headline says "Rudolph Wins Three Golds" and there was a picture of WR (apt initials) winning one of her individual golds.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                        What year did TAFN start giving women annual rankings like the men?
                        The US women's rankings page of this web site says it was 1976.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          garry-
                          i think the exact quote is in the book - i do have the issue of T&FN
                          so, what do have?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            What year did TAFN start giving women annual rankings like the men?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              we are speaking of the one liner about wilma rudolph winning sullivan award-don't confuse the issue

                              the quote in in the 1960 chapter of my book is at the end - i HAVE the issue

                              if i were home i'd give you the exact quote and page

                              garry- waiting for your correction - whjich even though the above person seems to think like you as you know you (t&fn) did not start to cover the women until 1974..............................

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                ok - i got the WRONG
                                it was 1961

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X