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 ATK » Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:21 am

Relating to the womens 4x100 topic, Alex Anderson ran 10.88 +5.9 at Texas this weekend.
Converts to about 11.14.
ATK
 
Posts: 3805
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:37 am

DJG wrote:Of course, sprinters are taught to hug the curve and lean in. But not on relays where you know an athlete will be standing on the outside of the lane to your inside. Relay runners know this.

So you're saying that runners should run in the middle of the lane on relays, right?
DJG wrote:To call this a fluke is to disregard the last ten years or more of US relay running.

Can you point to another incident like this in a major national or international competition?
DJG wrote:JC, Is this my post you are referring to? I believe you inferred that this means "run in the middle of the lane." It does not. It means stay inside your lane. Whether the Brit left, early, late, or no at all, has no bearing, IMO, he was inside his lane and Patton ran into him. That's how I saw it then and I have found no footage of video that shows otherwise.
What was the official ruling by the IAAF after thar race? Were the Brits DQ'd for obstruction?

The Brits upperarm, which was over the line at the point of impact, hit Patton's thigh, which was not over the line. Send me your email address in a pm and I'll send you the HD video from the critical video angle.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:29 pm

At speed, the runners in the middle of their lane might still be leaning in to the inside lane. You cannot run 11+mps on a curve standing straight up.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:57 pm

I'm sure Patton's upper body was over the line at the instant of impact, but his upper body was not what came into contact with the Brit. If you think about it, a sprinter's hands and arms will cross the line even in a straightaway if he/she is trying to hug the line, since the hands and arms will extend 12 to 18 inches beyond than the footprint depending on the runner. Here are the links to a few photos to demostrate what I'm talking about:

http://www.lsusports.net/pics32/800/XO/ ... 024607.jpg

http://www.lsusports.net/pics32/800/AR/ ... 024607.jpg

http://www.lsusports.net/pics32/800/CI/ ... 024607.jpg
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:22 pm

If you want to know what happens when a sprinter runs in the middle of the lane, a great example is the second exchange between Justin Gatlin and Coby Miller at the 2004 Olympics in Athens. Miller, who was running the third leg, ran in the middle of the lane, which didn't leave Gatlin with enough room to work with. This meant that Gatlin had to try to avoid clipping Miller's feet, while at the same time passing the baton across his body without straying into the adjacent lane.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:32 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
DJG wrote:Of course, sprinters are taught to hug the curve and lean in. But not on relays where you know an athlete will be standing on the outside of the lane to your inside. Relay runners know this.

So you're saying that runners should run in the middle of the lane on relays, right?
No
DJG wrote:To call this a fluke is to disregard the last ten years or more of US relay running.

Can you point to another incident like this in a major national or international competition?
DJG wrote:JC, Is this my post you are referring to? I believe you inferred that this means "run in the middle of the lane." It does not. It means stay inside your lane. Whether the Brit left, early, late, or no at all, has no bearing, IMO, he was inside his lane and Patton ran into him. That's how I saw it then and I have found no footage of video that shows otherwise.
What was the official ruling by the IAAF after thar race? Were the Brits DQ'd for obstruction?

The Brits upperarm, which was over the line at the point of impact, hit Patton's thigh, which was not over the line. Send me your email address in a pm and I'll send you the HD video from the critical video angle.


I'm saying that the the incoming runner knows that there is an out-going runner in the adjacent inside lane positioned on the outside of that lane. No incoming runner should be surprised, or caught "off-guard" by this. The US's lead over GB was no different from that of Jamaica's over T&T. Was Blake surprised to see the T&T anchor still sitting there in his three-pt stance as he went by? Watch the video and tell me Blake wasn't in the middle of his lane as he passed T&T. He adjusted his position to the middle of the lane as he went by, it appears to me, to avoid contact. If the T&T anchor had turned to run then, Blake would not have run into him.

Watching the youtube videos again, I got the impression that Patton was distracted by the fact that he saw Dix leaving early. Maybe that contributed to his not seeing the Brit sitting in his 3-pt stance in lane 3.
The IAAF officials did not DQ anyone, the US and GB were listed as DNF. T&T, also affected in lane 5, almost certainly lost medalling.

The US relays will get better when apologists stop making excuses for all the foul-ups.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:22 am

DJG, what you seem to be missing is the fact that the Brit's sudden arm movement is what caused the problems, not his positioning on the outside of the lane, since Patton had already accounted for that. Does this type of thing happen frequently or is this a rare incident, that is the question? You implied that this sort of collison happens regurlarly. If that is the case, surely you can provide us with some others examples. Otherwise, I will continue to write it off as a fluke accident.

Also, I'm at least willing to entertain the idea that incoming runners in unevenly matched races might want give themselves a little more room to account for any sudden movement by outgoing runners from other teams as they approach the acceleration zone. But the idea that runners should be taught to run in the middle of the lane is definitely not the answer since that creates a whole new set of problems. Perhaps Patton could have swung slightly wide and reestablished position on the inside of the lane after he passed the Brit, but it was imperative the he hugged the line as he approached Dix.

By the way, why did you say Dix left early? Based on the go mark, which you can see pretty good on HD TV, it appears that he left right on time. Evidently, the U.S. was just trying to stretch the zone more than Jamaica.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Dutra5 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:52 am

DJG wrote:
JC, Is this my post you are referring to? I believe you inferred that this means "run in the middle of the lane." It does not. It means stay inside your lane. Whether the Brit left, early, late, or no at all, has no bearing, IMO, he was inside his lane and Patton ran into him. That's how I saw it then and I have found no footage of video that shows otherwise.
What was the official ruling by the IAAF after thar race? Were the Brits DQ'd for obstruction?


Whether the British left early, late or exactly on time matters little. What matters is they left when they did and the timing was such that Patton was in the exact spot he was when the British runner began to accelerate and in doing so moved his arm into Patton's lane. It was circumstantial and a fluke whether you wish to call it that or not.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby notorious » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:36 am

If the Jamaican ladies get back to the form they were in in 2008 and 2009, there is no way in hell that Jamaica will lose barring a dropped baton or poor exchanges.


If Fraser gets back to her 2009 form (10.73 and 10.79)
If Kerron gets back to her 2009 form(10.75 twice)
If Sherone gets back to her 2008 form(10.8+)

and Veronica being Veronica (10.76), the relays will be over.

A WR is a strong possibility for the Jamaican team.

The Jamaican team was subpar in 2011. Fraser wasn't on form, Kerron just coming off an injury and Sherone just having an okay year. VC ran great on the anchor to give us a national record.
notorious
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:26 am

They have actually outrun the US how many times? One advantage the Jamaicans have in those 100 times, good as they are, is better starts. That does not help nearly so much in the 4x100. Jeter can and does outrun all other anchors almost all the time. US with three very good exchanges beat Jamaican even with good exchanges.

It should be close, with the advantage to Jamaica, but we have to see how the season pans out. So far we have sen mainly collegians, SRR in a surprise 10.89w, and Jeter's 22.31. It is only April and some of the key players will not show us where they are until the May meets, especially in Jamaica. Even later in the season, however, we will not be sure SAFP is not in 10.75 form and if the US collegians are in the mix, which ones are at the top of their game and who is coasting down (none of them are good enough to be good at this level is they are not at the top of their game).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote:DJG, what you seem to be missing is the fact that the Brit's sudden arm movement is what caused the problems, not his positioning on the outside of the lane, since Patton had already accounted for that. Does this type of thing happen frequently or is this a rare incident, that is the question? You implied that this sort of collison happens regurlarly. If that is the case, surely you can provide us with some others examples. Otherwise, I will continue to write it off as a fluke accident.

Also, I'm at least willing to entertain the idea that incoming runners in unevenly matched races might want give themselves a little more room to account for any sudden movement by outgoing runners from other teams as they approach the acceleration zone. But the idea that runners should be taught to run in the middle of the lane is definitely not the answer since that creates a whole new set of problems. Perhaps Patton could have swung slightly wide and reestablished position on the inside of the lane after he passed the Brit, but it was imperative the he hugged the line as he approached Dix.

By the way, why did you say Dix left early? Based on the go mark, which you can see pretty good on HD TV, it appears that he left right on time. Evidently, the U.S. was just trying to stretch the zone more than Jamaica.


JC, Freak as in "markedly strange or abnormal", is not a word that comes to my mind when describing contact between runners which happens frequently in all races, eg. btwn the hurdlers which resulted in a DQ for Robles, contact between Felix and Montsho in the 400 in lanes, in distance races, etc. Do I have a 4x1 example just like the one we're discussing (WCorOG)? Not on hand. But because something doesn't happen often, doesn't make that event freakish.
Contact of runners in track is the norm, not the exception. And certainly not freak accidents.

Hugging the line is not imperative, getting the baton to the next runner is.
These lanes are wide enough to accommodate both runners for good exchanges, without having to run the curve on top of the line. (By IAAF rules, the Brit did nothing wrong, although I get the impression that some consider this was willful intended "obstruction", how dare the Brit start to run and swing his arms when he did.]

The US didn't stretch the other two exchanges, so I doubt they were trying to stretch the 3rd.
But tell me where your HD TV shows Patton looking just before the collision.
[Thanks for the offer to send me video, but I never give my email out to someone I don't know.]
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:23 am

DJG wrote:JC, Freak as in "markedly strange or abnormal", is not a word that comes to my mind when describing contact between runners which happens frequently in all races, eg. btwn the hurdlers which resulted in a DQ for Robles, contact between Felix and Montsho in the 400 in lanes, in distance races, etc. Do I have a 4x1 example just like the one we're discussing (WCorOG)? Not on hand. But because something doesn't happen often, doesn't make that event freakish.
Contact of runners in track is the norm, not the exception. And certainly not freak accidents.

So you're comparing the 4x100 relay, where contact almost never happens unless a runner falls, to the 110 hurdles where contact happens frequently, perhaps in 50% of the races at the elite level? Come on man, come on. That's like comparing the frequency of physical contact in the 1500 to the 100. You know better than that. And IMO, the Felix/Montsho contact, which had no effect on the outcome, was also unusual, lest you can name another outdoor 400 race where two runners made contact.
DJG wrote:The US didn't stretch the other two exchanges, so I doubt they were trying to stretch the 3rd.

Patton had clearly reached the go mark when Dix left. Who am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes? Perhaps he misplaced the go mark, but how are we supposed to find out if he did?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:04 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
DJG wrote:JC, Freak as in "markedly strange or abnormal", is not a word that comes to my mind when describing contact between runners which happens frequently in all races, eg. btwn the hurdlers which resulted in a DQ for Robles, contact between Felix and Montsho in the 400 in lanes, in distance races, etc. Do I have a 4x1 example just like the one we're discussing (WCorOG)? Not on hand. But because something doesn't happen often, doesn't make that event freakish.
Contact of runners in track is the norm, not the exception. And certainly not freak accidents.

So you're comparing the 4x100 relay, where contact almost never happens unless a runner falls, to the 110 hurdles where contact happens frequently, perhaps in 50% of the races at the elite level? Come on man, come on. That's like comparing the frequency of physical contact in the 1500 to the 100. You know better than that. And IMO, the Felix/Montsho contact, which had no effect on the outcome, was also unusual, lest you can name another outdoor 400 race where two runners made contact.
DJG wrote:The US didn't stretch the other two exchanges, so I doubt they were trying to stretch the 3rd.

Patton had clearly reached the go mark when Dix left. Who am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes? Perhaps he misplaced the go mark, but how are we supposed to find out if he did?


You win, JC. The bloody Brits did us in again and now we have to run on their home track.
Who knows what the Brits will do this time to crush our hopes for gold!!

And supposedly, it is not a good coaching strategy to stretch exchanges when you have three
new exchanges on tap due to using two subs on the relay. But hey, some like to gamble and roll the dice. We'll have to wait til Aug 9, 10,11 to see what snafu awaits US in London.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:46 am

DJG wrote:You win, JC. The bloody Brits did us in again and now we have to run on their home track.
Who knows what the Brits will do this time to crush our hopes for gold!!.

I never blamed the Brits for that incident.

DJG wrote:And supposedly, it is not a good coaching strategy to stretch exchanges when you have three
new exchanges on tap due to using two subs on the relay. But hey, some like to gamble and roll the dice. We'll have to wait til Aug 9, 10,11 to see what snafu awaits US in London.

But weren't you one of the folks last year who advocated the abandoning of the conservative approach and stretching the zone to run faster?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:00 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
DJG wrote:You win, JC. The bloody Brits did us in again and now we have to run on their home track.
Who knows what the Brits will do this time to crush our hopes for gold!!.

I never blamed the Brits for that incident.

DJG wrote:And supposedly, it is not a good coaching strategy to stretch exchanges when you have three
new exchanges on tap due to using two subs on the relay. But hey, some like to gamble and roll the dice. We'll have to wait til Aug 9, 10,11 to see what snafu awaits US in London.

But weren't you one of the folks last year who advocated the abandoning of the conservative approach and stretching the zone to run faster?


JC, The US has demonstrtated to me that you will not be consisitently successful in 4x1 relays at this level if you repeatedly use two substitutes from the prelims to the finals. Stretching the exchanges must be done with the same people who have the confidence that comes from practicing and performing well together before the OG or WC final; the US has taken a "more the merrier" (Subs) approach to relay running with results that leave much to be desired.
{RE: Track Coach #199, available through T&FN}

When you say the Brit "obstructed" Patton, it seems you are placing blame. IMO
My apology for misinterpreting your post.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:58 am

DJG wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:But weren't you one of the folks last year who advocated the abandoning of the conservative approach and stretching the zone to run faster?


JC, The US has demonstrtated to me that you will not be consisitently successful in 4x1 relays at this level if you repeatedly use two substitutes from the prelims to the finals. Stretching the exchanges must be done with the same people who have the confidence that comes from practicing and performing well together before the OG or WC final; the US has taken a "more the merrier" (Subs) approach to relay running with results that leave much to be desired.
{RE: Track Coach #199, available through T&FN}

I agree with you 100% on this point. The more-the-merrier approach might be good for the 4x400, but I think it's bad for the 4x100. Over the years, I've noticed that the best college teams never make 4x100 substitutions between rounds no matter how deep they are with sprint talent. Of course those coaches aren't juggling politics with winning like U.S. coaches seem to do.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby mump boy » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:23 am

The US could have a guaranteed silver and possible gold with any combination of about 20 of their sprinters, if they bothered to actually practice. If the big guns would rather drop the baton than put in some relay practice just select people who will put in the work.

I wish we had that luxury, we just have slow people who don't bother practicing enough :(
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby 72 » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:27 am

It's not rocket science passing a little stick, even for the half wits who occasionally represent the USA in short relays.

Mind you , if it were rocket science, the USA team could always employ some Germans to run for you guys. :D

If you foul up again in London in the 4x100m relays I hope the Brits complain about it again; I am not putting any bets on our lot getting the sticks round for men and women in both heats and possibly finals.
72
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:53 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jjk4ever » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:12 am

[/quote]

Guru, Last time I saw BK she was false starting at a indoor meet while wearing a track
outfit that appeared to belong to a much smaller athlete. [/quote] :D :D :D

Hey some of us liked that small tight uni on her thick body!! I miss the days of Jose Marie Perec 96 OLY outfits...

Would love to see the Barber Twins get a relay spot(s) along with BK. Agree Anderson and Jeter are the locks with maybe Muna in the 3rd slot and wildcards for 4th.

And as someone said there are Sanya and Felix.........
jjk4ever
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:04 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:26 am

jjk4ever wrote:And as someone said there are Sanya and Felix.........


Each could do a second relay if they do not double with individual events. They become less compelling cases if they double (although M. Hooker's absence make them more likely...).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby ATK » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:47 am

26mi235 wrote:
jjk4ever wrote:And as someone said there are Sanya and Felix.........


Each could do a second relay if they do not double with individual events. They become less compelling cases if they double (although M. Hooker's absence make them more likely...).

Pretty sure Felix is as locked in as Jeter on the relay, double or not.
ATK
 
Posts: 3805
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby t_monk » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:32 pm

ATK wrote:
26mi235 wrote:
jjk4ever wrote:And as someone said there are Sanya and Felix.........


Each could do a second relay if they do not double with individual events. They become less compelling cases if they double (although M. Hooker's absence make them more likely...).

Pretty sure Felix is as locked in as Jeter on the relay, double or not.


Co-Signed!
t_monk
 
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:34 am

jjk4ever wrote:


Guru, Last time I saw BK she was false starting at a indoor meet while wearing a track
outfit that appeared to belong to a much smaller athlete. [/quote] :D :D :D

Hey some of us liked that small tight uni on her thick body!! I miss the days of Jose Marie Perec 96 OLY outfits...

Would love to see the Barber Twins get a relay spot(s) along with BK. Agree Anderson and Jeter are the locks with maybe Muna in the 3rd slot and wildcards for 4th.

And as someone said there are Sanya and Felix.........[/quote]

I'm fairly certain the Nike's team USA uni's will bare little similarity to what BK was sporting at that indoor meet.
Nike may even have fog lights on the uniforms just in case that legendary London Pea soup
makes an appearnace.
[That's it! The Brits will flood the stadium with fog just before the 4x1's!!!!]
Quick, someone make some "glow-in-the-dark" batons.
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby IanS_Liv » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:50 pm

DJG wrote:Nike may even have fog lights on the uniforms just in case that legendary London Pea soup
makes an appearnace.
[That's it! The Brits will flood the stadium with fog just before the 4x1's!!!!]
Quick, someone make some "glow-in-the-dark" batons.

:lol: I'm on the phone to the organisers right now ... Just think of it as revenge for the smog of LA 84.

I suggest your teams practice under those cooling showers they have for marathons. Expect rain at some point. Maybe we should substitute batons with bowler hats, black umbrellas and rolled up copies of the Times.
IanS_Liv
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby notorious » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:26 pm

With Marshavet Myers out, Jamaica's chances increases dramatically of winning.

The mistake Jamaica made in 2011 was using the "weakest" link on the third leg(Sherone Simpson).

VC has been Jamaica's strongest anchor since 2004. She is also our best curve runner. I don't have a problem moving her to third leg to give us a big lead as long as Kerron Stewart runs anchor and she is in her 2008 and 2009 form(10.75 twice)
notorious
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby t_monk » Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:37 pm

notorious wrote:With Marshavet Myers out, Jamaica's chances increases dramatically of winning.

The mistake Jamaica made in 2011 was using the "weakest" link on the third leg(Sherone Simpson).

VC has been Jamaica's strongest anchor since 2004. She is also our best curve runner. I don't have a problem moving her to third leg to give us a big lead as long as Kerron Stewart runs anchor and she is in her 2008 and 2009 form(10.75 twice)


Dream line up: SAFP - SS/CR - VCB - KS
t_monk
 
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby notorious » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:02 pm

t_monk wrote:
notorious wrote:With Marshavet Myers out, Jamaica's chances increases dramatically of winning.

The mistake Jamaica made in 2011 was using the "weakest" link on the third leg(Sherone Simpson).

VC has been Jamaica's strongest anchor since 2004. She is also our best curve runner. I don't have a problem moving her to third leg to give us a big lead as long as Kerron Stewart runs anchor and she is in her 2008 and 2009 form(10.75 twice)


Dream line up: SAFP - SS/CR - VCB - KS


As long as KS is in her 2008/2009 shape, I don't have a problem with that lineup. VC wouldn't like it however. She knows nothing but anchoring.
notorious
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Speedster » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:30 am

[quote="notorious]As long as KS is in her 2008/2009 shape, I don't have a problem with that lineup. VC wouldn't like it however. She knows nothing but anchoring.[/quote]

Which is why I don't see it happening, when was the last time VCB ran third? From what I can remember she's always run anchor, she did run second 12 years ago in Sydney. I assume she would have anchored in JC and at Arkansas?

Without proper practice at this new order, the least risky line up will be SAFP/KS/SS/VCB which has run 41.70 NR, and ultimately I think this will be the team if everyone is healthy, in form and makes it to London.

I would love to see Sanya on the US 4x100 team, off a fly she's probably one of the fastest in the US, but she would take Felix backstraight and I don't see that happening. Its first and third up from grabs in the US team at the moment.
Speedster
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:12 am

IanS_Liv wrote:
DJG wrote:Nike may even have fog lights on the uniforms just in case that legendary London Pea soup
makes an appearnace.
[That's it! The Brits will flood the stadium with fog just before the 4x1's!!!!]
Quick, someone make some "glow-in-the-dark" batons.

:lol: I'm on the phone to the organisers right now ... Just think of it as revenge for the smog of LA 84.

I suggest your teams practice under those cooling showers they have for marathons. Expect rain at some point. Maybe we should substitute batons with bowler hats, black umbrellas and rolled up copies of the Times.


Practice under cooling showers?? Haven't you heard, "we don't need no stinkin' practice!"
Do you make bowler with chin straps? umbrellas for batons is good (give us the ones with the extra-long handles, please, and by Times, of course you mean New York's not LoonDon's?

We're the Brits in LA '84? I thought you sided with....
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:55 am

Speedster wrote:
notorious wrote:As long as KS is in her 2008/2009 shape, I don't have a problem with that lineup. VC wouldn't like it however. She knows nothing but anchoring.


Which is why I don't see it happening, when was the last time VCB ran third? From what I can remember she's always run anchor, she did run second 12 years ago in Sydney. I assume she would have anchored in JC and at Arkansas?

Why would you assume this? A lot of college coaches put there studs on second leg. FYI, Walter Dix, Justin Gatlin, Xavier Carter and Richard Thompson never anchored in college.

Speedster wrote:I would love to see Sanya on the US 4x100 team, off a fly she's probably one of the fastest in the US, but she would take Felix backstraight and I don't see that happening. Its first and third up from grabs in the US team at the moment.


If Allyson doesn't abandon the two-point stance that she used in Daegu, I would take her off the team. She looked like she was running an 800, and as a result, gave up a lot of ground to Kerron Stewart in the first 20-30 meters.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby JumboElliott » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:32 am

Tyson Gay and Wallace Spearmon didn't anchor at Arkansas. Also, last season's anchor for Florida State was Brandon Byram, who was probably the weak link on the chain even thought they had the individual champions in both the 100 and 200 and another finalist in the 100. They still won despite the fact that Kemar Hyman made a poor pass to Makusha.

Jamaica would be best off keeping it from being settled by Campbell trying to chase down Jeter, because that's a tall order.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:53 am

JumboElliott wrote:Tyson Gay and Wallace Spearmon didn't anchor at Arkansas. Also, last season's anchor for Florida State was Brandon Byram, who was probably the weak link on the chain even thought they had the individual champions in both the 100 and 200 and another finalist in the 100. They still won despite the fact that Kemar Hyman made a poor pass to Makusha.

Jamaica would be best off keeping it from being settled by Campbell trying to chase down Jeter, because that's a tall order.

Good points. Spearmon ran second leg, Gay ran third leg and Makusha ran second leg for Florida State last year. Not much has mentioned about baton handling abilitry on this thread, but many, if not most, of the best coaches consider this just as much as footspeed. If your fastest runner also has the best hands, it's a waste to put him/her on anchor.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby Speedster » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:37 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Speedster wrote:
notorious wrote:As long as KS is in her 2008/2009 shape, I don't have a problem with that lineup. VC wouldn't like it however. She knows nothing but anchoring.


Which is why I don't see it happening, when was the last time VCB ran third? From what I can remember she's always run anchor, she did run second 12 years ago in Sydney. I assume she would have anchored in JC and at Arkansas?

Why would you assume this? A lot of college coaches put there studs on second leg. FYI, Walter Dix, Justin Gatlin, Xavier Carter and Richard Thompson never anchored in college.


My assumption was based on a lack of specific knowledge on VCB at Arkansas, not that you couldn't put your best athlete second, it does happen eg: Devers in 96, Cuthbert in 92. I did the research and VCB did run once on the second leg, but it appears she ran last twice in 2004.
http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/ViewA ... =205359271, but she has anchor the JAM senior team more, all the way back to the Penn Relays in 2000.

I guess my point is the team has run a NR in 2011 with this order and an Olympic year might not be the time to tinker with it, with athletes learning new changes without a lot of practice.
Speedster
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: London

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby gh » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:37 pm

In the '60 Olympics, Germany ran 100 winner (and WR holder) Armin Hary on second leg.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:58 pm

Ato Boldon ran second leg for Trinidad's national team.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:37 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Speedster wrote:
notorious wrote:As long as KS is in her 2008/2009 shape, I don't have a problem with that lineup. VC wouldn't like it however. She knows nothing but anchoring.


Which is why I don't see it happening, when was the last time VCB ran third? From what I can remember she's always run anchor, she did run second 12 years ago in Sydney. I assume she would have anchored in JC and at Arkansas?

Why would you assume this? A lot of college coaches put there studs on second leg. FYI, Walter Dix, Justin Gatlin, Xavier Carter and Richard Thompson never anchored in college.

Speedster wrote:I would love to see Sanya on the US 4x100 team, off a fly she's probably one of the fastest in the US, but she would take Felix backstraight and I don't see that happening. Its first and third up from grabs in the US team at the moment.


If Allyson doesn't abandon the two-point stance that she used in Daegu, I would take her off the team. She looked like she was running an 800, and as a result, gave up a lot of ground to Kerron Stewart in the first 20-30 meters.


Hope you are sitting down JC, I fear I am about to shock you again.
A two-point stance is fine with me - better sight lines to the go-mark.
High Schools allowed several marks, half-tennis balls with some height and depth in some cases.
Colleges allowed two tape marks.
But the IAAF allows only one tape mark which is not easy to see with your head down
twisting sideways or looking through your legs as some do.
I'll take a slight loss in acceleration (very slight as it is) in exchange for good line-of-sight sight
and leaving on time. Any day or night (lighting) and twice on Sundays.
[and incoming runners will see you better and not run into you!!! Just had to throw that in]
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:54 pm

DJG wrote:Hope you are sitting down JC, I fear I am about to shock you again.
A two-point stance is fine with me - better sight lines to the go-mark.
High Schools allowed several marks, half-tennis balls with some height and depth in some cases.
Colleges allowed two tape marks.
But the IAAF allows only one tape mark which is not easy to see with your head down
twisting sideways or looking through your legs as some do.
I'll take a slight loss in acceleration (very slight as it is) in exchange for good line-of-sight sight
and leaving on time. Any day or night (lighting) and twice on Sundays.
[and incoming runners will see you better and not run into you!!! Just had to throw that in]

You make a good point about less depth perception from the three-point stance. If an athlete is having trouble seeing from the three-point stance in practice, I guess the two-point stance should be used, but make no mistake, the two-point stance is slower. By the way, Walter Dix used black tape at the world championships. Have you ever seen anyone else use black tape before?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby lonewolf » Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:[. Have you ever seen anyone else use black tape before?

We sometimes offer LJers choice of colored tape for runway markers..black, red, blue, gray, green, pink, yellow and white..inventory varies...it is not athletic tape..it is slicker, stickier and more durable.. dunno where it comes from.. just appears in the equipment box
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:33 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
DJG wrote:Hope you are sitting down JC, I fear I am about to shock you again.
A two-point stance is fine with me - better sight lines to the go-mark.
High Schools allowed several marks, half-tennis balls with some height and depth in some cases.
Colleges allowed two tape marks.
But the IAAF allows only one tape mark which is not easy to see with your head down
twisting sideways or looking through your legs as some do.
I'll take a slight loss in acceleration (very slight as it is) in exchange for good line-of-sight sight
and leaving on time. Any day or night (lighting) and twice on Sundays.
[and incoming runners will see you better and not run into you!!! Just had to throw that in]

You make a good point about less depth perception from the three-point stance. If an athlete is having trouble seeing from the three-point stance in practice, I guess the two-point stance should be used, but make no mistake, the two-point stance is slower. By the way, Walter Dix used black tape at the world championships. Have you ever seen anyone else use black tape before?


Quick response...the lenghth and width (38cmx5cm???) is much smaller than what the NCAA allows for marks, the color is not specified as I recall but it should be of a different color
from the other track markings. Will have to double check unless someone else can answer your question. WIll be at Princeton this week, Penn Relays next.
{2-pt slightly slower, yes...but the mark is adjusted (back) to compensate.}
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

Re: About That London US Women's 4x100

Postby DJG » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:35 am

And USATF should give eye-exams to all the members of the relay pool. :D
DJG
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:33 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aaronk, MDelano and 10 guests