Actually in human foot racing the sprints are a very limited set of
events. They are normally the races a runner can complete
anaerobically. This would be the 60 meters (indoors) and the 100 and
200 outdoors. Traditionally the 400 is called a "long sprint" - in may
the 200 was the long sprint and the 400 was considered a middle
distance event. It cannot be run anaerobically but there are some
people that are very good at it, but that is all they seem to be good
at. Michael Johnson is the first human ever to be world class in the
200 and 400. The middle distance events are the 800 and mile ( metric
or statute ). The distance events are 5 k, 10 k, 20 k and marathon. It
turns out that very few runners have been world class in more than one
distance event. They seem to be very specialized.
I don't see anyone whining. All I see is a legitimate questioning of
why endurance is what it is as currently defined and if there might not
be a better way - considering the current membership of the AERC. The
AERC is the members, the defintions and rules are living breathing
documents. Questioning the status quo is always good.
For the analogy to marathon and 10 k to be valid
there would need to be separate events for each distance, 50, 55, 60,
65, etc.
<sigh> There are! They are called 50s, 55s, 60s, etc. And I know that
over the years, AERC HAS offered stats on these different distances. Yes,
their points all count toward "endurance"--but are they any different from
a group of races called "sprints" and then labeled 50, 100, 220, etc.? I
think not.
No matter HOW it is written, SOMEBODY will pick it apart and whine.
Heidi
-- We imitate our masters only because we are not yet masters
ourselves,
and only
We
imitate our masters
only because we are not yet masters ourselves, and only
because
in doing so we
learn the truth about what cannot be imitated.
