¶2012 OG: m4x400–Bahamas 2:56.73 WL

[unclezadok]

So the USA anchor ran one second faster than a guy with a broken leg ran from the blocks. That's a problem.

[jjimbojames]

Jimbo whereare the official splits, I can't find them. And BBC siad Green was 44.6

I think I may mean the BBC splits as can't seem to find 'official' anywhere now!

[jazzcyclist]

Angelo Taylor under performed, but would have lost regardless.

Underperformed is an understatement. 44.85? Jesus Christ!

When is the last time an anchor for an Amercian national team ran that slow at a global championship?

[jazzcyclist]

So the USA anchor ran one second faster than a guy with a broken leg ran from the blocks. That's a problem.

[gm]

Jimbo whereare the official splits, I can't find them. And BBC siad Green was 44.6

I think I may mean the BBC splits as can't seem to find 'official' anywhere now!

The splits for GB in the official results are 45.2, 44.6, 45.53, 44.09

[mal]

Angelo Taylor under performed, but would have lost regardless.

Underperformed is an understatement. 44.85? Jesus Christ!

When is the last time an anchor for an Amercian national team ran that slow at a global championship?

He was the last man standing.

And I don't get why anyone is surprised. Every run the last 2 monhts he has been dying in the last 100m. It is insanity to expect anything different.

I would have gone with a guy like Spearmon. He'd have been more fresh, and I suspect a bit quicker.

[EPelle]

For those on Taylor's case, this was his first Olympic anchor leg. This carries an enormous responsibility. He's run on fast teams, but he's not held the anchor position of any Olympic team. This isn't to suggest that he became totally unnerved. However, this is a fact which can't be overlooked.

[jazzcyclist]

Angelo Taylor under performed, but would have lost regardless.

Underperformed is an understatement. 44.85? Jesus Christ!

When is the last time an anchor for an Amercian national team ran that slow at a global championship?

He was the last man standing.

And I don't get why anyone is surprised. Every run the last 2 monhts he has been dying in the last 100m. It is insanity to expect anything different.

I would have gone with a guy like Spearmon. He'd have been more fresh, and I suspect a bit quicker.

I'm not questioning Taylor's selection on the team. I know the bullpin was empty but it's still depressing. As for Spearmon, there's nothing he has done in the past in the open 400 or 4x400 to indicate he would have done any better.

[iain]

Jimbo whereare the official splits, I can't find them. And BBC siad Green was 44.6

I think I may mean the BBC splits as can't seem to find 'official' anywhere now!

The splits for GB in the official results are 45.2, 44.6, 45.53, 44.09

Could you please link? Thanks!

[toyracer]

Angelo Taylor under performed, but would have lost regardless.

Underperformed is an understatement. 44.85? Jesus Christ!

When is the last time an anchor for an Amercian national team ran that slow at a global championship?

He was the last man standing.

And I don't get why anyone is surprised. Every run the last 2 monhts he has been dying in the last 100m. It is insanity to expect anything different.

I would have gone with a guy like Spearmon. He'd have been more fresh, and I suspect a bit quicker.

I'm not questioning Taylor's selection on the team. I know the bullpin was empty but it's still depressing. As for Spearmon, there's nothing he has done in the past in the open 400 or 4x400 to indicate he would have done any better.

Perhaps Tyson Gay instead?

[ATK]

Angelo Taylor under performed, but would have lost regardless.

Underperformed is an understatement. 44.85? Jesus Christ!

When is the last time an anchor for an Amercian national team ran that slow at a global championship?

He was the last man standing.

And I don't get why anyone is surprised. Every run the last 2 monhts he has been dying in the last 100m. It is insanity to expect anything different.

I would have gone with a guy like Spearmon. He'd have been more fresh, and I suspect a bit quicker.

I'm not questioning Taylor's selection on the team. I know the bullpin was empty but it's still depressing. As for Spearmon, there's nothing he has done in the past in the open 400 or 4x400 to indicate he would have done any better.

I agree 100%. I don't think there was a better US team that could have been put on the track in the final.
No argument could be made for Spearmon or Gay to kick off a 400/400h from the relay ever, even in the past IMO.
Spearmon has a 45.2 from 2006, nothing else.
Tyson Gay, has a 44.8 in 2010 but never was in good enough shape to prove he is 4x4 worthy in a championship.

Arguments for Tinsley could have been made, but they would have been speculation and assumption. Taylor has run sub 45 in May, and sub 48 in London. I'm pretty sure before the final no one was arguing Taylor's place on the relay. He just massively under performed. I thought the split was 44.6, but 44.8 just hurts even worse.

[sprinta44]

Mark Butlers Splits are completely inaccurate. Track and Field news should not post those as official splits because they are not. For example the trinidad and Tobago teams Offical splits per Omega clock were Gordon 45.1, Solomon 43.9, Alleyne Forte 45.5, Lendore 44.7. Those were directly from Omega after the race that they posted. Don't know why they came down, but those were the offical splits for that team as I know due to inside information... So Butler should not post stuff as official.

[gm]

Results with splits are at http://www.london2012.com/mm/Document/s ... eutral.pdf

Omega doesn't have any more insight than a guy in the stands with a watch about the first two splits.

[cigar95]

One comparison is possible for the two "competing" sets of splits - the ones GH posted show Trinidad with a substantial lead at the first pass. The ones listed by Omega show the first four very close, with Bahamas slightly ahead. A review of the video should give some idea which of those two is more correct.

I also note that for the Omega splits, most of the first two legs do not add properly to the 2-lap times they list.

As a big SoCal high school honk, I'm really interested in those first two legs for the USA. I would have thought (and hoped for) Nelloms a bit faster than 45.2 on his leg, as I'm not sure Mance has a 43.5 in him at this point in his career. (Still, there's something magical about second legs on the 4x400, as we've seen numerous times over the years.)

[no one]

But that is the exact thing I have been arguing to these 2 clowns. One loss means nothing in turns of what nation is dominant at what event.


-------------------------------------------

somebody skipped their medication. There is no 'argument' here, just histrionics and overreaction.

[iain]

All of the Omega splits for legs 1 and 2 are rounded down eg 45.33 = 45.3 or 44.99 = 44.9

[gm]

All of the Omega splits for legs 1 and 2 are rounded down eg 45.33 = 45.3 or 44.99 = 44.9

Omega could not possibly have splits for the first two legs unless they sat there with a stopwatch and timed them all. The would need eight extra cameras, each lined up at a different spot, to get auto splits for the first two legs.

[iain]

All the official splits are to hundredths, I don't know how they do it, with cameras or whatever.

[nbonaddio]

After some days to marinate and think about this, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. This was the best team the US could trot out there, given who was available. Even with a healthy Wariner and Mitchell, this was still the best lineup.
2. Angelo was in the wrong spot; despite experience, he wasn't the fastest and hasn't been closing all that well in any hurdles race. The anchor should have been Tony McQuay.
3. To say that the US "lost" this race is tremendously disrespectful to the Bahamas, who flat out won it from them. The US ran the 14th fastest time in history.
4. A healthy Merritt would have made this a US victory.
5. In terms of what it means, it means very little. It shows that Bahamas has some serious talent and other countries must not be considered credible threats, but like the US loss in Tokyo, it does not portend anything.

[mal]

Perhaps they threw the anchor at him due to 'experience'. Though experience has nothing to do with taking off, hugging the turn and bringing it home. Its not like he was weaving thorugh an asteroid belt.
In this case experience meant old. And old means "not as good as I once was, and not as good once, as I ever was".

Given his last few months, where he was clearly searching for something that wasn't there anymore, I'd have put him in first leg, which can make it a 390 leg if necessary, and give him some relief.

In the end it may be like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Bahamas team ran fast, and this team ran as fast as it could. Taylor wasn't the weakest link. He was just the unfortunate who couldn't match the guy on his leg.

[iain]

Though it by no means signals a new era, I would say that although the US still has lots of good runners, apart from Merritt it no longer has a real 'star performer' who can completely blow away the field, as eg Warinet did on second in '09.

[ATK]

Taylor wasn't the weakest link. He was just the unfortunate who couldn't match the guy on his leg.

Completely disagree. Taylor was the weakest link.

[jazzcyclist]

Taylor wasn't the weakest link. He was just the unfortunate who couldn't match the guy on his leg.

Completely disagree. Taylor was the weakest link.

Exactly! His 44.85 split speaks for itself.

[gh]

For the 11,000th time: the Omega splits are taken by a single camera at the finish line. Which means that for legs and and 2 everybody's split is faster than reality because the change point isn't the finish line for the first/second leg (unless somebody is in lane 1).

Hence the T&FN/Butler splits being in 10ths for the first leg. They're either taken by somebody competent with a watch or off T&FN video (which is also only good to the 10th).

[user4]

After some days to marinate and think about this, I've come to the following conclusions:

2. Angelo was in the wrong spot; despite experience, he wasn't the fastest and hasn't been closing all that well in any hurdles race. The anchor should have been Tony McQuay.

This is the one that surprises me the most. Why was McQuay not on the final leg? Could it have been his very poor showing in the open 400 ? Certainly Taylor was underwhelming in the 400H. I suspect that was the reason.

[Peter Michaelson]

gh:

If what you say is true, then how can Omega have Trinidad and Tobago's leadoff at 45.1 when Butler has him at 44.6? You are saying Omega should be faster.

[Alan Shank]

For the 11,000th time: the Omega splits are taken by a single camera at the finish line. Which means that for legs and and 2 everybody's split is faster than reality because the change point isn't the finish line for the first/second leg (unless somebody is in lane 1).

Hence the T&FN/Butler splits being in 10ths for the first leg. They're either taken by somebody competent with a watch or off T&FN video (which is also only good to the 10th).

We all know that. You did not address the issue of some of Butler's split not adding up to the total time, especially GBR. Maybe you just typed something wrong?
Cheers,
Alan Shank

[jazzcyclist]

For the 11,000th time: the Omega splits are taken by a single camera at the finish line. Which means that for legs and and 2 everybody's split is faster than reality because the change point isn't the finish line for the first/second leg (unless somebody is in lane 1).

Hence the T&FN/Butler splits being in 10ths for the first leg. They're either taken by somebody competent with a watch or off T&FN video (which is also only good to the 10th).

I don't know if your post was directed at me, but I got 44.85 from your earlier post.

[cigar95]

gh:

If what you say is true, then how can Omega have Trinidad and Tobago's leadoff at 45.1 when Butler has him at 44.6? You are saying Omega should be faster.

More to the point, and with all due respect to GH, if all the Omega splits were all taken at the finish line, then the runner in lane 9 would be seeing a split along the lines of 39.7, the guy in lane 8 might be 40.2, and so on. Even the inside runner in lane 2 would be off by an entire half-lap stagger.

The splits they published weren't that preposterously far off, so someone at Omega was at least making an attempt at real splits.

[iain]

^Yup

[gm]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47745&p=788904&hilit=+sparks#p788904

[iain]

But the omega split was 44.55 and the UKA one was 43.5 but you were arguing 43.5 was wrong?

[mump boy]

For the 11,000th time: the Omega splits are taken by a single camera at the finish line. Which means that for legs and and 2 everybody's split is faster than reality because the change point isn't the finish line for the first/second leg (unless somebody is in lane 1).

Hence the T&FN/Butler splits being in 10ths for the first leg. They're either taken by somebody competent with a watch or off T&FN video (which is also only good to the 10th).

We all know that. You did not address the issue of some of Butler's split not adding up to the total time, especially GBR. Maybe you just typed something wrong?
Cheers,
Alan Shank

MArk is one of the most hardworking, attentive people you could ever meet. He had probably been up for 24 hours when he did this, it is unboubtedly a mistake

[EPelle]

Two obscure facts of the day: 1-I believe that since setting the world record in Tokyo, the USA men are 1 for 3 in Olympic or World Championship 4x4 cities with two "o" vowels in its name (London (loss), Edmonton (DQ); Tokyo (win);). How will it fare in Moscow and/or Rio De Janeiro?

2-No nation has had a team in every Olympic 4x400m final held.