I don't think for a moment that Cordner would have considered himself an historian, other than perhaps having written a definitive work on the history of the mile. He was a hard-core fan who absorbed a ton of stuff over his long lifetime, but the history of the sport wasn't his passion or his calling.
tandfman wrote:Maybe bambam recognized that as a t&f historian (rather than an Olympic historian), Hymans has Mallon beat.
Most of my work is now on the Olympics, for all sports. I defer to Richard and DJ. But I have some plans for T&F stuff down the road. Will have to cut back a bit on the day job, first.
tandfman wrote:Maybe bambam recognized that as a t&f historian (rather than an Olympic historian), Hymans has Mallon beat.
I think bambam is missing something. I'm not certain there's anyone in the U.S. more knowledgeable about 19th century U.S. track than Mallon.
Other names:
Worldwide 19th century, Dave Terry (GB). Easily the best.
U.S., Hal Bateman.
I know bambam would like to cut back on his day job to write more. If someone would step forward and show me that there is a reasonable living to be made writing t&f history I'd cut back on my day job!
Gordon18 wrote:Avante seems to know his trackandfield history, just pm him.
I do believe I could stump any track historian with a little trivia contest.
trivia and history aren't remotely the same thing
Why do you say that, G?
Not wanting to speak for GH, but history isn't trivial. Call the background and history of the sport esoteric if you must, but that's what helps make the sport and thus isn't trivial.
And yes, anyone could come up with trivia that doesn't indicate anything other than knowing an obscure fact which may or may not be consequential to anyone.
If I ask you what future politician once held the Tennessee school record in the discus, that's trivia. If I ask you what prominence he later obtained, that moves into history.
As an analogy think of the world's great Scrabble players. The ones who know all X 2-letter words that are acceptable, and all Y 3-letters (there are such lists; I've seen them).
Okay, dj and gh have illustrated their points quite well.
Trivia and history may be related in some form, but definitely arent synonymous.
And having read Avante/ Brutal/Texas's posts for some time now on a couple of different message boards, I'd say he definitely qualifies as a historian IMO when it comes to the MEN'S sprints.
Kudos to you, friend.
I believe I read where he admitted before- maybe on the Sprintzone or TrackShark messageboards -that he has little to no interest in the women's sprints which for the life of me I can't grasp.
Agree completely with the above comments by dj and gh. To know individual facts is one thing ("trivia"). To be able to make informed judgments about the relative importance of those facts, and to weave them together into a meaningful narrative is something else entirely ("history"). These two ideas are absolutely distinct.
Gordon18 wrote:Avante seems to know his trackandfield history, just pm him.
I do believe I could stump any track historian with a little trivia contest.
trivia and history aren't remotely the same thing
I disagree! All trivia is is a question pertaining to the history of something. Without the historical knowledge there will be no trivia. You wouldn't know what to ask. If I ask who was the first nationally acclaimed sprinter from a HBCU school you will need to know about Tuskegee and Mozelle Ellerbe. Who was the first national caliber sprinter from the SWAC? No not Stone Johnson from Grambling. You better know your history to get this one. Well?
Without historical knowledge you won't do too well in trivia.
Avante wrote: When high school boys can dust world class women.
That's why all college sports are so boring and stupid - the pros can beat them!
Wasn't Ato Boldon still at UCLA when he won his 96 Olympic medals? Didn't Richard Thompson win the NCAA and a World Championships silver in the 100m? College guys have been hanging with the pros for years.
i am interested in the historians. the passing of mr. nelson caused me to think of the people who know the sport and see that value for all of us. trivia and contests of trivia are not the reason i started this thread.
gh wrote:As an analogy think of the world's great Scrabble players. The ones who know all X 2-letter words that are acceptable, and all Y 3-letters (there are such lists; I've seen them).
Does that make them linguists?
I know you were just trying to make an analogy, but your example is not very good. I am a tournament Scrabble player and am currently ranked 426th in North America. That hardly makes me a great player. Yet I (and every other top 1000 player) knows the 90+ 2's and 1000 3's cold, plus we know all the "hooks": For example ALA has the front hooks G, N or T and the back hooks E,N, R and S. A great player is one who knows the entire dictionary, and there are several who do.
Conor Dary wrote:I can say I have done well in the past in trivia contests with some respected people in the sport. But to take that knowledge seriously is silly.
A trivia fact is an epsilon of knowledge, and a lot of epsilons, as they say in calculus, still adds up to almost nothing.
History is cool but if you don't learn anything.........
Last edited by Avante on Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
bhagwan wrote:i am interested in the historians. the passing of mr. nelson caused me to think of the people who know the sport and see that value for all of us. trivia and contests of trivia are not the reason i started this thread.
are there other people who can be acknowledged?
I agree it does go far deeper than trivia. To have been there when dirt tracks were all they had and the high jumpers were doing the western roll....cool!
jhc68 wrote:Marlow assumes that there is a difference (aside from age) between college athletes and pros. Not a safe assumption, IMHO.
I was thinking football/basketball primarily. If Avante is not interested in women's sprints because they are 'inferior', he has no business following college ball, which is obviously inferior to pro ball.
You can't be serious! Give me the NCAA Div 1 Title Game anyday over the Superbowl. The college game is far more exciting.
I just don't get excited over 10.85 100's at the World Class level.
