How many of you would want to watch a lady softball game or a lady basketball game prior to the real deal that being a major league game or an NBA game, I wouldn't!
I don't really care to watch 10.95 100's prior to 9.95 100's in other words I'm not a fan of female track but as ya know we are stuck with it. I would love to just watch the best out there which the women are not. There are a ton of high school boys who would smoke Marion Jones.
Gawd, this message doesn't even merit a reply, but I know it will get 10 million. Oh well, let me be the first: This is the single stupidest post I have yet seen on this board. I'll stick my neck out and guess that the overwhelming majority of us love women's track. (I love women's basketball and other women's sports, as well.) If you don't like the women's events, go to the concession stand and get yourself some nachos. I'm not gonna let anyone deprive me of the chance to watch all the magnificent ladies out there, especially my Lady Longhorns at the U. of Texas.
I think it actually ties for first place as the most stupid post. Equal with "Bad things and good things" on the other board, which I actually printed out to reply to, but decided not to waste my time.
If times make a meet more exciting than the competition, the California high school championships wouldn't sell out every year. Likewise, the NCAA would also be a "substandard" meet.
I do agree that meets are too long, but that has as much to do with poor management as men & women together. The Ohio high school finals, boys and girls together, are done in about 2 hours and 15 minutes, the perfect amount of time for a sporting event.
Anyone here old enough to remember how boring track meets were when it was only us guys out there? We even bored ourselves. No one who was a competitor, coach or spectator would want to return to the bad old days of all-male track and field. Ugh! BRUTAL really is brutally stupid.
The CA HS champs sell out every year because the parents of the kids show up. Add the fans and parents together, not enough seats. But set up a big invitational, international stars, now you're talking problems in filling the stands. People have been driven away by bad presentation, lack of participation, and 'stars' that most people can't relate to - read 'arrogant' sprinters that have no conception of how poorly their act plays in Peoria, no matter how much the media plays it up. There is a lot more for potential competitors - the kids - to do these days. Look at Britain. The numbers of kids getting into the sport were dropping off by the mid 80's, despite the hey day of Coe, Ovett, Cram and Elliot. What did they have for the national jr. XC champs this year in GB, less than 100 runners? It used to be close to 1,000 up until around 1980 or so. The stands in Europe don't fill like they once did. Time to stop warbling about what's wrong, and make suggestions so that we are talking about what could be right with our favorite sport.
Brutal's remarks aren't necessarily stupid. Noone has offered an explanation why all the most popular sports are male only. Also, his critics contradict themselves when they say it's about competition and then cite women, like Radcliffe, who dominate in runaways. High performance is important.
Sorry, Brutal's remarks ARE stupid. Competitive track meets (at all levels) with both genders ADD to the fan base and encourage youth interest in the sport. I agree that there are a world of ways to improve the public presentation of running sports and field events,and more innovation is desparately needed. But retreating to the stone ages of gender separation is counter productive.
One example was staged here in Santa Barbara, CA, until our national economic woes caused the event to run out of sponsorship funds. World class through high school vaulters of both sexes competed on run-ways and pits built over the beach sand in a two day event. It put enthusiastic crowds into up close/personal contact with athletes and generated great interest from track buffs, local kids and casual beach tourists. It was a lot more fun than an old male only track meet. And the star of the show was a certain Ms. Dragila.
I say that what is wrong with track and field has a lot more to do with cranky throw-backs like Brutal than with female competitors!
>Noone has offered an explanation why all the
>most popular sports are male only.
Well, since you asked . . . it's still a sexist society in America, even though it's less so than in the past. Outside our borders it's usually worse, too. Women do a disproportionate amount of domestic work (I will supply documentation upon request) which leaves them with a lot less time to sit on the couch, drink beer, and watch sports.
Sports history reveals that antifeminists who argued that women should not participate in sports were largely concerned with gender roles and the power balance involved in them. One aspect of athletics is learning to compete in a competitive capitalist society, and the white males of yesteryear did not want women (or African-Americans) to learn those lessons (and many still don't want them to now).
I wouldn't necissarily say that ALL the most popular sports are male-only. Horse racing and auto racing are pretty popular, and they are overwhelmingly but not exclusively male (and that's usually a product of access rather than ability). You could argue that women's tennis is more popular right now than men's tennis.
And what's the headline on everyone's sports section this morning?
Not too keen on being called stupid or being accused of "flaming." I simply prefer to watch the men perform in track and field is that really all that big a deal to the point of labeling me as well anything to be honest?
I dig them old blues and think rap sucks does that make me stupid?
We each have our own likes and dislikes there aren't any right or wrong answers there it's all in the eye of the beholder. I just don't care to sit thru inferior performances. I'm not knocking the women they just don't interest me athlectically.
Please believe me when I tell ya if track and field is the topic I can more than hold my own with anyone........trust me!
>Not too keen on being called stupid or being
>accused of "flaming." I simply prefer to watch
>the men perform in track and field is that really
>all that big a deal to the point of labeling me
>as well anything to be honest?
What inflames the ire is not your preference for the men's side of the sport but the implication many read that you think women should stay home barefoot and pregnant and girls should look pretty and not be too smart. If you don't like women's track, fine -- I don't like sauerkraut. But I don't denigrate the people who make it.
Please believe me
>when I tell ya if track and field is the topic I
>can more than hold my own with
Do you honestly believe you're the only one here that can do so?
OK, Brutal, I will offer a limited apology! I am sorry that I made a personal attack. Actually, I didn't say YOU were stupid, I said your statements were stupid. We all (me included) certainly have made our fair share of dumb statements. And I am sure you can hold your own in terms of track knowledge. Probably no one ventures here to this website without a pretty keen interest in the sport.
But your original message was obviously intended to send sparks flying. And calling yourself Brutal sort of speaks for itself. To complain now about how people regard you seems a bit whiney and Oprah-ish (Be a man, Brutal!)
Also, I disagree with your attitude that "there aren't any right or wrong answers". You can certainly have preferences. I like blues way better than rap, too. But for the health of running sports, it IS a wrong answer to separate competitions by gender.
See, Brutal, you've gotten old and jaded and distanced from the personal element of the sport. If 22 foot long jumps don't thrill you, then what does, exactly? 25 footers or does it need to be in the 28 foot range? On that basis, the Texas school boy meets should be of as little interest to you as the women's events you disdain. Soon you won't want to be bothered by anything except men's WR performances and, then, you will be in the same category of selective fan as people who only watch those irritating Olympic highlights that the TV networks try to pretend is event coverage every four years.
Here's a suggestion for you, if you are not too old and cranky and hidebound: Go volunteer next year to walk on and help coach at a local high school. Coach girls, even! Become involved with people instead of being an elitist track snob. If you do, and you share the work and learning and emotions of competition out on the field again (I assume you were once a competitor), you will be amazed at how exciting a 30 foot triple jump can be. And one of those dreary 11 second 100's will blow you mind. Try it. You will like it and it will make you a better person, too.
Brutal either wants to get a rise out of everyone or is not as knowledgable as he por. Everyone who follows T&F knows the great times of today will only be average years later - so those looking for "great performances" via fast times are kidding themselves. The above performances were awesome - as was Billy Mills/Bob Schul winning in 1964, albeit in times already surpased by collegians this season (and most seasons, now).
Will Brutal look back in 20 years and still think he saw a great performance in seeing a 9.90 100m when the record is 9.55?
Guess you no longer enjoy the 200m or 400m since MJ put those records "out there". Hope Toth doesn't ruin the SP for you this year.
Women can do anything they want just
>don't expect me to get excited over 11.00 100's.
>That's really all this is about.
Then why title the thread "What's wrong with track and field!"? It's hard to imagine that you meant anything but that women are the problem.
Where do I
>say anything about barefoot and pregeant or not
>very smart? Try nowhere!
I never said you did. If you actually read my remarks said "the implication many read" -- the anger comes not from you, but from a reaction to your statements.
As far as track
Knowing factoids does not by itself make one educated. However, I can answer the 100 meters. Harry Jerome (disputed) and Roger Sayers, both in 1962. I'm apparently not old enough to have been around when anyone beat Hayes in any other events.
Here's some trivia for anyone to jump on:
Name the athletes that beat Paavo Nurmi in the 10,000 meters.
Name the athletes that beat Hal Davis.
Name the athletes that beat Jesse Owens in the sprints -- and how many times each beat him.
Name the reason why George Simpson's 9.4 over 100 yards was rejected as a world record.
Name the two athletes with the most career CCC wins.