HF2002
Registered User
I'm not sure how much I agree. It's not wrong to give the winner credit because if they win it, they deserve it.The Messenger said:For the guy to run 13 miles and say he is as good or deserves as much respect for his accomplishment IS WRONG TO ME .. To me that means by regular standards that he was nothing more then leader of the race 1/2 way through the event .. BIG DEAL I would say .. the lead changes many times in the second half and the first half is the easiest .. in the second half is where the race is won and lost as the hills and weather and course take it pounding on the body and endurance and stamina and pacing yourself and your body holding up are all key parts of the event as the champion is crowned .. The shorter the event the less these become factors ...
In team sports, the shorter the event the harder it is to win. You have to be on your game every night because the stakes are so much higher, and everyone knows this going in. There's no time to coast, there aren't any "dog days of the season", and teams should be healthier. Perhaps we'll see a winner based on which players actually play rather than the players who don't play.
I agree the conditions are unique with a shortened season, but I don't think it takes away from previous winners or diminishes the winner's accomplishment. It's just different.