About That London US Women's 4x100


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 01, 2012 8:03 am

TrackDaddy wrote:
DJG wrote: Why the push to always have the big names (Jeter, Felix, Richards-Ross, the current ones) who are focused on their individdual events, when it is obvious that very good exchanges will more than make up for a slight loss of max. speed?


Because BIG NAMES sell shoes and if you have one (a BIG NAME) its a pretty reliable indication that you can run really fast.

Sell shoes? What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? :?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby TrackDaddy » Tue May 01, 2012 8:10 am

Jazz

At the end of the day its about money.

What reason would Nike or Adidas have for wanting to influence who may or may not get relay consideration other than selling shoes (so to speak)? Relay camp in-fights have at times been traced back to sponsorship.

A lesser known athlete who hasn't excelled in their individual event even though they have a shoe contract is less likely to have the same affect as a Big Name.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 01, 2012 8:14 am

DJG wrote:[Well because Terrence Trammell, to name one, is a very good, reliable and experienced relay runner. I just wonder what Lolo and Kelli White (Lolo is very marketable) could do, given the chance. Hurdlers are much less likely to get nervous and have "happpy feet", going over hurdles does help to focus the concentration. Something the Big Names could use.

And Lolo still runs relays a couple of times a year at LSU meets whenever she's in town. Also, let's not forget that she ran on many sub-43 relay teams while she was at LSU at 1st, 2nd and 3rd legs, and those teams won 17 of 18 races her junior and senior years.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Tue May 01, 2012 8:30 am

ATK wrote:
DJG wrote:Like I said, USATF has trouble following their own procedures. The order of the US OLyTrials
100/200 finish is not the deciding factor, being in the top four is supposed to be.
Dodson got himself in trouble, I recall. Anderson and Padgett were given spots to make up for
past relay mishaps.
The other way Jeter doesn't run is she sits out the prelim and the US gets DQ'd.
Not that that ever happens.

Dodson ran in Daegu....so his trouble was irrelevant by then.
None of the finishers ahead of Anderson and Padgett were involved in any relay mishaps. Anderson actually was herself back in 2009....

There is no way that the selection is "supposed" to be. If that's what they want, whether we like it or not, that what we will see. You fail to give a valid argument on why the US would leave the 2nd fastest women in history off the relay if she was healthy.


USATF does have relay protocols and procedures on how it is "supposed" to be. The top four in the 100 US Trials final have earned on merit (a valid argument to me anyway) the right to be considered for the 4x1 relay. These athletes have a right to know that they will be given the opportunity to run on the 4x1. If it were any field event, do you think the fourth place finisher should be given a spot on the OLY team because they have a better PR over someone who beat them when it mattered most?
The current relay protocols, as written, are basicly worthless. Eg: look at how many members of the relay pools ran the practice meets leading up to Daegu - a stated condition for being on the relay.
There is a way it is "supposed to be", but USATF doesn't stick to it.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby ATK » Tue May 01, 2012 8:48 am

DJG wrote:The current relay protocols, as written, are basicly worthless. Eg: look at how many members of the relay pools ran the practice meets leading up to Daegu - a stated condition for being on the relay.
There is a way it is "supposed to be", but USATF doesn't stick to it.

Exactly.....
which is why Jeter will be on the relay whether me or you likes it or not.
ATK
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 01, 2012 9:01 am

What I would like to know is whether it's Jon Drummond's decision to ignore the protocols, or is he being forced to ignore them by higher-ups.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Tue May 01, 2012 3:13 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:What I would like to know is whether it's Jon Drummond's decision to ignore the protocols, or is he being forced to ignore them by higher-ups.


Drummond in consultation with the Head Coaches and Sprint Coaches are calling the shots,
as far as I can see. The higher-ups at USATF have taken the postition that it is up to the athletes to perform. They are the pros, after all.

Last year, Drummond annouced his "preferred" lineups at the meeting held the last day of
the US championships. How surprised the High Performance people were is anyone's guess.

New Head Coaches and New Sprint Coaches for London. So one draw the conclusion that Drummond is making the final decisions regarding the 4x1's.

One thing we know, the US will use two subs in the 4x1's as they have going back to 2000.
The results of this are plain as day.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby beebee » Tue May 01, 2012 4:01 pm

preston wrote:
beebee wrote:"Nothing to indicate"? How about the margin of victory this early in the season against the world's second best team on a cold day with a relative nubie leading off? Btw mr. condescension, the reason that woman's 4x100 wr is so "hard" is because the then East German girls(?) were doped like race horses. You believe whatever you wish.

Condescension isn't necessary, because you obviously see things from a child's point of view, or a hard-headed newbie with little historical context for track and field, Penn Relays or USA v. Jamaica rivalry. I mean who actually talks about "margin of victory" in an April race? :lol: And, who can cite "drugs" when its impossible to know who HAS and who HASN'T taken drugs? Because certainly every team since the GDR was absolute clean of PED's or any other illicit substances, no? :lol: Or maybe you're just not that informed. Maybe you weren't paying attention to previous years when Jamaican's did just enough not to get hurt - which probably would have been their intention on a cold Saturday in April. Or, maybe you weren't paying attention earlier this year when Jamaicans actually pulled out of a meet in Kingston, because...wait for it...it was too cool (google: Gibson Relays, Feb '12).

Penn Relays means nothing to professional Jamaicans; it's "home turf" for the USA and they defend it with a sense of purpose. Nothing wrong with either, imo, and it tells us absolutely NOTHING about what will happen in August. This would be informative if you wanted to learn, but...you'll believe whatever you wish. :wink:


"Penn Relays means nothing to professional Jamaicans" Hilarious! They came that far to get spanked? No World Class athlete EVER MINDS LOSING! You wouldn't be spewing such crap if the Jamaicans ladies had beaten the U.S. girls so soundly. As I said, believe what pleases you friend...I'm certain that the US ladies feel a whole lot better today than their Jamaicans rivals.
beebee
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 01, 2012 4:15 pm

DJG wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:What I would like to know is whether it's Jon Drummond's decision to ignore the protocols, or is he being forced to ignore them by higher-ups.


Drummond in consultation with the Head Coaches and Sprint Coaches are calling the shots,
as far as I can see. The higher-ups at USATF have taken the postition that it is up to the athletes to perform. They are the pros, after all.

Last year, Drummond annouced his "preferred" lineups at the meeting held the last day of
the US championships. How surprised the High Performance people were is anyone's guess.

New Head Coaches and New Sprint Coaches for London. So one draw the conclusion that Drummond is making the final decisions regarding the 4x1's.

One thing we know, the US will use two subs in the 4x1's as they have going back to 2000.
The results of this are plain as day.

It sounds like you are of the opinion that Drummond has dictatorial powers, and he gets the final call on substitutions without anyone else being able to overrule him.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Wed May 02, 2012 6:46 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
DJG wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:What I would like to know is whether it's Jon Drummond's decision to ignore the protocols, or is he being forced to ignore them by higher-ups.


Drummond in consultation with the Head Coaches and Sprint Coaches are calling the shots,
as far as I can see. The higher-ups at USATF have taken the postition that it is up to the athletes to perform. They are the pros, after all.

Last year, Drummond annouced his "preferred" lineups at the meeting held the last day of
the US championships. How surprised the High Performance people were is anyone's guess.

New Head Coaches and New Sprint Coaches for London. So one draw the conclusion that Drummond is making the final decisions regarding the 4x1's.

One thing we know, the US will use two subs in the 4x1's as they have going back to 2000.
The results of this are plain as day.

It sounds like you are of the opinion that Drummond has dictatorial powers, and he gets the final call on substitutions without anyone else being able to overrule him.

He's the relay coach and that's what he was hired to do.
So yes, I believe he is calling the shots. I just disagree with his using two subs in the prelims.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby t_monk » Wed May 02, 2012 7:21 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:Penn Relays means nothing to professional Jamaicans; it's "home turf" for the USA and they defend it with a sense of purpose.

Penn Relays means nothing to pro Jamaicans? Really? I've been going to the Penn Relays for the last ten years and Jamaica has practically hijacked that meet from the U.S., culminating with all the pomp and circumstance imaginable at this past weekend's meet. On Saturday, when the Penn President announced that the Jamaican flag will fly over Franklin Field at all future Penn Relays, the mostly Jamaican crowd went crazy. If the Penn Relays is so unimportant to pro Jamaicans, why is it so important to Jamaican fans? Why does Philadelphia become North Kingston on the weekend on the Penn Relays?


Because of the High School athletes who generally tend to dominate.
t_monk
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Speedster » Thu May 03, 2012 12:49 am

USATF have now put NBC Penn Relays footage onto their Youtube channel so I can see the full race. Madison/Felix/Knight/Jeter looked really good the whole way around, second change was average but impressive run for April.

Knight gets a lot of stick for her conditioning but I thought she looked as good as a I have seen her, fitter than indoors earlier this year. She ran a good bend as well and removing Felix and Jeter from the equation, she's as good a bend runner as anyone else in the frame and if she gets in the top five in either sprint in the US Trials, I think she should be included in the pool.

Jamaica have some work to do but I am confident they will improve, by how much between now and London remains to be seen.
Speedster
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby gh » Thu May 10, 2012 7:46 am

Tarmoh 11.13 PR in the Caymans last night.

Given her extensive stick experience with the hyper-successful A&M teams, she may well be worth some OG consideration.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby ATK » Thu May 10, 2012 7:49 am

gh wrote:Tarmoh 11.13 PR in the Caymans last night.

Given her extensive stick experience with the hyper-successful A&M teams, she may well be worth some OG consideration.

Consideration yes, but I wouldn't put her over any of the ladies who ran on that Penn 4x1, and a few other ladies behind them.
ATK
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Speedster » Thu May 10, 2012 12:57 pm

ATK wrote:
gh wrote:Tarmoh 11.13 PR in the Caymans last night.

Given her extensive stick experience with the hyper-successful A&M teams, she may well be worth some OG consideration.

Consideration yes, but I wouldn't put her over any of the ladies who ran on that Penn 4x1, and a few other ladies behind them.


Tarmoh ran the second leg exclusively in 2011 at A&M, given they might rest Felix for the final, she's worth considering for the heat run.
Speedster
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby ATK » Thu May 10, 2012 1:58 pm

Speedster wrote:
ATK wrote:
gh wrote:Tarmoh 11.13 PR in the Caymans last night.

Given her extensive stick experience with the hyper-successful A&M teams, she may well be worth some OG consideration.

Consideration yes, but I wouldn't put her over any of the ladies who ran on that Penn 4x1, and a few other ladies behind them.


Tarmoh ran the second leg exclusively in 2011 at A&M, given they might rest Felix for the final, she's worth considering for the heat run.

That's fine, and yes very feasible. But I was thinking along the lines of the final line up.
ATK
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby gh » Thu May 10, 2012 2:23 pm

ATK wrote:
gh wrote:Tarmoh 11.13 PR in the Caymans last night.

Given her extensive stick experience with the hyper-successful A&M teams, she may well be worth some OG consideration.

Consideration yes, but I wouldn't put her over any of the ladies who ran on that Penn 4x1, and a few other ladies behind them.


I'd def. give her a look over Knight, whose lack of collegiate experience makes her far less familiar with a baton. Knight's best 100 the last two years? 11.40 in '10, 11.22 in ’09. It's not as if she's got big 100 credentials of current standing.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby mump boy » Thu May 10, 2012 2:30 pm

There's an article on Athletics Weekly this week where prominent track supporters are asked for predictions for the season. There are a couple of ubiquitous twins who predicted UK women's to medal in the 4x1, legendary stat man Ian Hodge has the same prediction.

Great minds and all that :wink:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby guru » Thu May 10, 2012 2:32 pm

gh wrote:
ATK wrote:
gh wrote:Tarmoh 11.13 PR in the Caymans last night.

Given her extensive stick experience with the hyper-successful A&M teams, she may well be worth some OG consideration.

Consideration yes, but I wouldn't put her over any of the ladies who ran on that Penn 4x1, and a few other ladies behind them.


I'd def. give her a look over Knight, whose lack of collegiate experience makes her far less familiar with a baton. Knight's best 100 the last two years? 11.40 in '10, 11.22 in ’09. It's not as if she's got big 100 credentials of current standing.



I'm with you, but for some reason that(the points you made) doesn't seem to matter.
Last edited by guru on Thu May 10, 2012 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby gktrack » Thu May 10, 2012 2:40 pm

gh wrote:I'd def. give her a look over Knight, whose lack of collegiate experience makes her far less familiar with a baton. Knight's best 100 the last two years? 11.40 in '10, 11.22 in ’09. It's not as if she's got big 100 credentials of current standing.

Not to mention Tarmoh ran a nice 22.51 (-0.1) in St. Martin a few days before the Cayman meet, only a few tenths off her PR from last year at Eugene (22.28, 1.0w) - she's rounding into nice form.
gktrack
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:42 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby TxHottrack » Thu May 10, 2012 2:47 pm

gh wrote:
ATK wrote:
gh wrote:Tarmoh 11.13 PR in the Caymans last night.

Given her extensive stick experience with the hyper-successful A&M teams, she may well be worth some OG consideration.

Consideration yes, but I wouldn't put her over any of the ladies who ran on that Penn 4x1, and a few other ladies behind them.


I'd def. give her a look over Knight, whose lack of collegiate experience makes her far less familiar with a baton. Knight's best 100 the last two years? 11.40 in '10, 11.22 in ’09. It's not as if she's got big 100 credentials of current standing.



I think Knight will surprise many of you this Olympic year. Knight work on her start, she is going to run a monster leg on the 4x100. I even predict Knight to be an Olympic finalist in the
200 mtrs. Knight can run with the best, again, she just need to work on her start.
TxHottrack
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby gh » Thu May 10, 2012 3:22 pm

Lifetime, Tarmoh and Knight are 1-1 in 200 meetings. Tarmoh has two times faster than Knight's PR.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby trackonthebrain » Thu May 10, 2012 5:43 pm

gh wrote:Lifetime, Tarmoh and Knight are 1-1 in 200 meetings. Tarmoh has two times faster than Knight's PR.



Lifetime? GH, are you serious?

Remember they ran together in the youth and junior ranks. They were even on relays together coming up.

And what's the "fuss" about Tarmoh on the relay all of a sudden? You're using Tarmoh's 200 PR to make your case (where Tarmoh's PR beats Knight by only hundreths of a second)?

Really? Since when?

Why not use their 100 PR like you usually do? Better yet, why not wait until Knight runs a 100 this year before making the comparison - or they meet face to face? Tarmoh's running well this year - but so is Knight. The 11.13? Let's see what Knight runs this year as soon as she runs a 100. Tarmoh has run her 100 - let Knight run hers.

What's the rush?

Why pick on Knight, only? Aren't there other ladies she might replace rather than Knight?

Knight has had major champs experience in the relay. Tarmoh hasn't - and she "bombed" at Worlds. And she was in the pool last year, wasn't she? Why were Knight and Anderson selected instead of her? What does that tell you?

Who runs a 22.2 at Nationals and then a 23.4 at Worlds 6 weeks later (admitted low blow, lol - but I'm a Knight fan)? Other low blows - don't forget Tarmoh's history. She didn't exactly shine at Tenn before moving on to A&M either. And I think she's training with Jeter now so...of course she'll do well...

I'm not against Tarmoh. I pick her to go crazy this year - but ditto for Knight.
trackonthebrain
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby ATK » Thu May 10, 2012 7:00 pm

trackonthebrain wrote:And what's the "fuss" about Tarmoh on the relay all of a sudden? You're using Tarmoh's 200 PR to make your case (where Tarmoh's PR beats Knight by only hundreths of a second)?

Im pretty sure he began his case speaking on Tarmoh and Knights 100m credentials.

I would give Knight the nod considering her world class experience, racing with the pros for about 4 years now. Also her consistency at being competitive at this stage in the past year plus is nothing to push to the side.
Also its pretty obvious that she is doing something special that only the relay gods can see. She was 4th at US's behind Solomon and Tarmoh, but still made it on the final relay team over them, and the other 100m runners.

And like everyone knows, open times don't necessarily translate to a fast relay.
ATK
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby TxHottrack » Fri May 11, 2012 4:52 am

Agreed. I don't have anything against Tarmoh, but I rather have B Knight on the relay oppose to Tarmoh. On the first leg in the 4x100, she didn't ley Fryser-Price get away from her, and at Penn, she ran a hell of 3rd leg on that 4x100. I would like to see what she opens with in the 100, and Tarmoh might get the best of her, but that doesn't mean that B Knight is not a better leg for the 4x100. However, It's going to get really tough by USA Champs. The USA women are looking very good in the sprints area....other areas as well.
TxHottrack
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Speedster » Fri May 11, 2012 5:57 am

Who is to say both won't be in the pool for the 4x100m? On early form I wouldn't bet against it.

Tarmoh ran a full NCAA season last year and was burnt out by the time she got to Daegu, which was late in the year for a World Championship, had it been earlier she might have held onto form. Knight ran PRs at Trials and a good leg in Daegu and what looked like a better leg at Penn Relays.

But with Tianna Madison's super indoor runs and what appeared to be a great leg at Penn, perhaps Knight and Tarmoh might be the two subs during the 4x100m heats?
Speedster
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 15, 2012 11:49 am

For a perfect illustration of why neither the Jamaican or American women have broken the WR despite superior footspeed to the WR holders, check out this video that I came across yesterday. It's a great video of the 1988 Women's final in which the U.S. edged out the East Germans.

[pirate video removed by mods]

The Americans' first exchange was as good as the East Germans' exchange, but that's to be expected when you have an LSU alumnus receiving the baton. But then look at the second exchange to Flo-jo and the third exchange to Ashford. The U.S. lost significant ground to the East Germans on both of those exchanges because neither Flo-jo or Ashford got out agressively. Conversely, the East Germans got out like they were running an open 100. If instead of "waiting" for the baton, Flo-jo and Ashford had gotten out as agressively as Sheila Echols did, this race would not have been close, but luckily for us, we had superior footspeed to make up for our inferior passing.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby mump boy » Tue May 15, 2012 1:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:For a perfect illustration of why neither the Jamaican or American women have broken the WR despite superior footspeed to the WR holders, check out this video that I came across yesterday. It's a great video of the 1988 Women's final in which the U.S. edged out the East Germans.



The Americans' first exchange was as good as the East Germans' exchange, but that's to be expected when you have an LSU alumnus receiving the baton. But then look at the second exchange to Flo-jo and the third exchange to Ashford. The U.S. lost significant ground to the East Germans on both of those exchanges because neither Flo-jo or Ashford got out agressively. Conversely, the East Germans got out like they were running an open 100. If instead of "waiting" for the baton, Flo-jo and Ashford had gotten out as agressively as Sheila Echols did, this race would not have been close, but luckily for us, we had superior footspeed to make up for our inferior passing.


US were lucky Marlies was injured, Flo Jo barely made up any ground on was it Auerswald :?

those commentators are appalling apparently the last US pass was 'very good' !!
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Gabriella » Wed May 16, 2012 3:25 am

Yep, our Ingrid, aka The Sewing Machine :D

We've been through this before, and on this thread too, but the GDR would start from a sprint start, not standing start; they would pass the baton after around 12-13 steps, as opposed to the 8 average from other teams; they would use the upward baton pass, not downward. So, this combination of getting the most acceleration from their start, using more of the exchange zone to get into full speed and using a safer baton pass, means more gained!

I never understand why most teams use the downward pass nowadays :? To me, there's much more risk and it's much more difficult to get your thumb round the baton, whereas with the upward pass, the baton safely goes in between the fingers and thumb.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed May 16, 2012 6:01 am

Gabriella wrote:Yep, our Ingrid, aka The Sewing Machine :D

We've been through this before, and on this thread too, but the GDR would start from a sprint start, not standing start; they would pass the baton after around 12-13 steps, as opposed to the 8 average from other teams; they would use the upward baton pass, not downward. So, this combination of getting the most acceleration from their start, using more of the exchange zone to get into full speed and using a safer baton pass, means more gained!

I never understand why most teams use the downward pass nowadays :? To me, there's much more risk and it's much more difficult to get your thumb round the baton, whereas with the upward pass, the baton safely goes in between the fingers and thumb.

I think you making too much out of the pass technique, but you hit the nail on the head with regards to them using more of the exchange zone. The East Germans didn't run fast because of their upward passing. They ran fast because they used more of the exchange zone and because they got out hard. I'm not sure what you meant when you said they started from a sprint start and not a standing start. No one is allowed to start beyond the acceleration zone, so therefore everyone starts from a standstil. The key is that the East Germans started as agressively as if they were running and open 100, Flo-jo started like she was running an 800 and Ashford started like she was running a marathon.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Gabriella » Wed May 16, 2012 7:02 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I think you making too much out of the pass technique, but you hit the nail on the head with regards to them using more of the exchange zone. The East Germans didn't run fast because of their upward passing. They ran fast because they used more of the exchange zone and because they got out hard. I'm not sure what you meant when you said they started from a sprint start and not a standing start. No one is allowed to start beyond the acceleration zone, so therefore everyone starts from a standstil. The key is that the East Germans started as agressively as if they were running and open 100, Flo-jo started like she was running an 800 and Ashford started like she was running a marathon.


No, the pass technique is significant, because with the downward pass, teams are often fumbling to get the baton securely in the hand; the upward pass is way more efficient.

On 'sprint start' read 'set position'. Everyone else on the second, third and fourth legs is standing upright; but the GDR girls are all in the set position, allowing them to drive.

It is the combination of starting from the set position and using more of the exchange zone that means they exchange at a higher speed. The pass technique just allows them not to have to slow down so much, as often happens with the downward pass.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed May 16, 2012 8:26 am

Gabriella wrote:No, the pass technique is significant, because with the downward pass, teams are often fumbling to get the baton securely in the hand; the upward pass is way more efficient.

I wasn't comparing it to the downward pass, I'm comparing it to the forward pass, in which the incoming runner holds the baton in the vertical position and drives it between the thumb and forefinger of the outgoing runner.

Gabriella wrote:On 'sprint start' read 'set position'. Everyone else on the second, third and fourth legs is standing upright; but the GDR girls are all in the set position, allowing them to drive.

On this we agree. The three-point stance is defintely faster than the two-point stance. Allyson Felix give a perfect example of how much slower the two-point stance is in Daegu. However, as DJG pointed out, some people may opt for the two-point stance because they have trouble seeing the go-marks from the three-point stance.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Dutra5 » Wed May 16, 2012 8:51 am

mump boy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:For a perfect illustration of why neither the Jamaican or American women have broken the WR despite superior footspeed to the WR holders, check out this video that I came across yesterday. It's a great video of the 1988 Women's final in which the U.S. edged out the East Germans.

The Americans' first exchange was as good as the East Germans' exchange, but that's to be expected when you have an LSU alumnus receiving the baton. But then look at the second exchange to Flo-jo and the third exchange to Ashford. The U.S. lost significant ground to the East Germans on both of those exchanges because neither Flo-jo or Ashford got out agressively. Conversely, the East Germans got out like they were running an open 100. If instead of "waiting" for the baton, Flo-jo and Ashford had gotten out as agressively as Sheila Echols did, this race would not have been close, but luckily for us, we had superior footspeed to make up for our inferior passing.


US were lucky Marlies was injured, Flo Jo barely made up any ground on was it Auerswald :?

those commentators are appalling apparently the last US pass was 'very good' !!


On each of those exchanges it appeared the last step the outgoing US runner took prior to receiving the baton was their slowest. The pass from FloJo to Ashford was awful.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Tue May 22, 2012 11:37 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Gabriella wrote:No, the pass technique is significant, because with the downward pass, teams are often fumbling to get the baton securely in the hand; the upward pass is way more efficient.

I wasn't comparing it to the downward pass, I'm comparing it to the forward pass, in which the incoming runner holds the baton in the vertical position and drives it between the thumb and forefinger of the outgoing runner.

Gabriella wrote:On 'sprint start' read 'set position'. Everyone else on the second, third and fourth legs is standing upright; but the GDR girls are all in the set position, allowing them to drive.

On this we agree. The three-point stance is defintely faster than the two-point stance. Allyson Felix give a perfect example of how much slower the two-point stance is in Daegu. However, as DJG pointed out, some people may opt for the two-point stance because they have trouble seeing the go-marks from the three-point stance.


JazzC, That would be go-mark, as IAAF rules allow only One piece of tape, not two like the NCAA. I have watch hundreds of relays exchanges, and the teams that use the three-pt stance almost always leave after the incoming runner is well past their go-mark.
Runners in two-pt stances can drive (accelerate) just as well as three-pointers and the upward pass is not better than downward. The baton must be adjusted in the hand after the up
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Tue May 22, 2012 11:40 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Gabriella wrote:No, the pass technique is significant, because with the downward pass, teams are often fumbling to get the baton securely in the hand; the upward pass is way more efficient.



Gabriella wrote:On 'sprint start' read 'set position'. Everyone else on the second, third and fourth legs is standing upright; but the GDR girls are all in the set position, allowing them to drive.

On this we agree. The three-point stance is defintely faster than the two-point stance. Allyson Felix give a perfect example of how much slower the two-point stance is in Daegu. However, as DJG pointed out, some people may opt for the two-point stance because they have trouble seeing the go-marks from the three-point stance.


JazzC, That would be go-mark, as IAAF rules allow only One piece of tape, not two like the NCAA. I have watch hundreds of relays exchanges, and the teams that use the three-pt stance almost always leave after the incoming runner is well past their go-mark.
Runners in two-pt stances can drive (accelerate) just as well as three-pointers and the upward pass is not better than downward. The baton must be adjusted in the hand after the upward pass, with the downard pass no adjustment is necessary.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby lonewolf » Tue May 22, 2012 2:02 pm

DJG wrote:[ the upward pass is not better than downward. The baton must be adjusted in the hand after the upward pass, with the downward pass no adjustment is necessary.

Hmmm??? As a lifelong proponent of the upward pass, I have to ask..why is adjustment more necessary than for the downward pass?
Maybe things were simpler 60 years ago.....as I recall, the upward pass was standard.. we even ran blind upward passes on the 4x440..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 22, 2012 3:20 pm

DJG wrote:Runners in two-pt stances can drive (accelerate) just as well as three-pointers

I respectfully disagree. Check out Allyson Felix in Daegu 2011 to see what I'm talking about.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Tue May 22, 2012 3:37 pm

lonewolf wrote:
DJG wrote:[ the upward pass is not better than downward. The baton must be adjusted in the hand after the upward pass, with the downward pass no adjustment is necessary.

Hmmm??? As a lifelong proponent of the upward pass, I have to ask..why is adjustment more necessary than for the downward pass?
Maybe things were simpler 60 years ago.....as I recall, the upward pass was standard.. we even ran blind upward passes on the 4x440..


LoneWolf, I don't know about 60 years ago, but I was watching Chariots of Fire last night and the movie's depictions of relay exchanges in 1924 was pretty close to what I learned in 6th grade- the hand cupped on the hip and the baton placed into the cradle.
As for the adjustment, with the upward pass the outgoing runner is now holding the top of the stick and must adjust before passing to the next leg. With the downward pass, that is eliminated because the baton is positioned already for the next pass.
And the upward pass calls for the runners to be closer together as the arms do not get extended (stretched, as JC and I like) as much. If upward were better, more teams would use it. I rarely see anyone use it on any level.
As you most likely know, what was standard 60 yrs ago, is not standard today.
Last edited by DJG on Tue May 22, 2012 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Tue May 22, 2012 3:39 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
DJG wrote:Runners in two-pt stances can drive (accelerate) just as well as three-pointers

I respectfully disagree. Check out Allyson Felix in Daegu 2011 to see what I'm talking about.


I respectfully accept your disagreement. We have agreed too much lately and I'm not used to so much agreement.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Speedster » Tue May 22, 2012 9:38 pm

DJG wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
DJG wrote:Runners in two-pt stances can drive (accelerate) just as well as three-pointers

I respectfully disagree. Check out Allyson Felix in Daegu 2011 to see what I'm talking about.


I respectfully accept your disagreement. We have agreed too much lately and I'm not used to so much agreement.


It's all about what the athlete is most comfortable with, if that's what works for Allyson then there's no reason to tinker with it, especially in an Olympic year.
Speedster
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests