preston wrote: "Seniority" counts for nothing if you're not, nor have you been, in a position to know; it also does nothing to make your OPINIONS more valid, especially since most of the things you are so strident about others may have more knowledge on than do you. Despite your 46/48/42/25 and 20.
Ah, yes, then I think we can wholeheartedly agree that you have no more validity than I. We are both two tiny drops in a huge bucket, neither of whose opinion counts one whit more than the other. I am very comfortable with that. You?
preston wrote: "Seniority" counts for nothing if you're not, nor have you been, in a position to know; it also does nothing to make your OPINIONS more valid, especially since most of the things you are so strident about others may have more knowledge on than do you. Despite your 46/48/42/25 and 20.
Ah, yes, then I think we can wholeheartedly agree that you have no more validity than I. We are both two tiny drops in a huge bucket, neither of whose opinion counts one whit more than the other. I am very comfortable with that. You?
suprisingly, I agree with that general sentiment (however, you're wrong )
preston wrote:suprisingly, I agree with that general sentiment
Then I suggest we proceed with that singular sentiment in mind as we post in the future. There is no need for 'callings-out', when all that may prove is that we ourselves are the deficient ones!
As a WP (Word Person), I am always fascinated by the evolution of language. Homosexual (straight-forward) Gay (Euphemism) Gay & Lesbian (aren't Lesbians . . . gay? ) Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual (necessary distinction) Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Trandgender (adds a growing minority) Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender & Queer (Q, as I understand it in this context, simply means 'others', i.e., people whose sexual orientation is not accurately reflected in the previous terms) Whither next, Flump?
Not wanting to derail the thread completely but I hate the word 'queer'. I know that we're supposed to have reclaimed it to reverse it's negative conotation but instead we've just given prominence to a horrible word that no one else would be using.
Why would anyone want to be described as 'queer'??? Why not reclaim pansy???
preston you were so busy trying to be right, I am convinced you never realized your premise IS false. In no way shape or form should college athletes dominate the national teams. Athletes leak around mid to late 20s and into their early 30s. As the sport has grown (albeit slowly) more and more are able to sustain a career longer than 3 years past college, which means less spots available. If you look at the team this year, a few of the college athletes should not have made this team at all, but the quality of the fields is a little down throughout the track-verse. i.e. the 400, and 200. Yet, as history has shown, 1 or 2 college kids made the respective squads. Before I get long winded, you don't have proof of your assertion. Many college kids made the squad and some post collegiates that could possibly be in school still. And lastly you are completely detached if you do not think there is a greater focus by USATF on post collegiates. That is just rhetoric on your part that denies all the grants, and shoe contracts out there.
Smoke wrote:Athletes leak around mid to late 20s and into their early 30s.
The leaking doesn't usually begin until their 70's.
Actually I agree with your premise. The 'age curve' of say the top ten world-wide (and hopefully nationwide) in all events, SHOULD be in their late 20's (mirroring most other professional sports) if athletics was fully developed and exploited from beginning of competitive career to end of competitive career.
One good study might be to go back and look at all world records achieved over the past 30 years, and average out the age of the athlete at the time they achieved the record.
Smoke, you're not convinced by anything, based upon your post, except your own arrogance in assuming that your "logic" (can we call it that?) is anything close to factual on this subject. I never said that college athletes should dominate the national team, that's a straw man that you've dishonestly created to fill in the many parts of your false narrative not supported by my post(s). I'm saying, and have said that the collegiate system is not equipped to produce the LEVEL of athlete that the pros do and because of this USATF needs to address it. I really don't think you even know what my "assertion" is - you just wanted to use "rhetoric" in a sentence (thank heavens, you didn't get longwinded ); otherwise you would recognize that the shoe contracts and grants don't benefit the vast majority of post-collegiates and certainly are not even available to many (all?) in certain events. Or did you think "unattached" and "unat" in the results referred to marital status? Many TOP collegiates (National Champions) are without shoe contracts and the USATF grant process that you uninformedly laud is more of a lottery than a support/development mechanism for athletes who might be able to contribute to USA medal success.
So, the next time you hunt and peck out a post I suggest you read the "inspiring" post thoroughly - or at least better than you've demonstrated to date; consider how many opportunities the USA loses when it sends none or one athlete in so many of the field events and how the "shoe companies" and "grants" are aiding those athletes. Oh, that's right I didn't mention facility use in my post so that must mean that I don't recognize athletes not having access in some cases. I won't worry about it though, you'll ust chalk it up to more "rhetoric", I'm sure.
)
); otherwise you would recognize that the shoe contracts and grants don't benefit the vast majority of post-collegiates and certainly are not even available to many (all?) in certain events. Or did you think "unattached" and "unat" in the results referred to marital status? Many TOP collegiates (National Champions) are without shoe contracts and the USATF grant process that you uninformedly laud is more of a lottery than a support/development mechanism for athletes who might be able to contribute to USA medal success. 