gh wrote:skiboo wrote:The 1988 US team probably lost at least 0.7 seconds simply by leaving Gwen Torrence off the second leg, which was run by Sheila Echols in a very slow 10.70.
the pedigree of many splits on that site is highly suspect, particularly since in many cases they don't even add up. Shame when bad data like that is presented as fact.
Different ways of analysing relay.
Split add up when the times are taken when the baton's holder reaches 100m, 200m and 300m points.
Split don't add up when the times are taken when each runner reaches 100m, 200m and 300m points.
The first method is used by former Czech biomech team (in charge of WC'87 and OG'88 IAAF reports)
The second method is used by former DDR biomech team (in charge of WC'93 and WC'09 IAAF reports)
Both biomech teams - highest pedigree - analysed the 37.79 race by French team (former WR in 1990)
Here are the results:
Morinière 10.70 Sangouma 8.77 Trouabal 9.17 Marie-Rose 9.15 (TCH analyse, total 37.79)
Morinière 10.62 Sangouma 8.92 Trouabal 9.28 Marie-Rose 9.21(GDR analyse, total 38.03)
And now to make things more confusing:
Morinière 10.62 Sangouma 8.92 Trouabal 9.28 Marie-Rose 9.21 (times given by the then-French relay coach Jo Maïsetti (not sure if those times are form Omega who used to take splits or if it's from various video measurements made in the staidum by Maïsetti or a mix of both - using the first methods as total is 37.79 - and generally accepted as it was given to the press in the following days after the race and even published in ATFS Annuals)
Hope it cmakes things clearer.