revisionist history: men's 100 WR


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bekayne » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:58 pm

Dixon wrote:It's also a shame Canada and Cuba didn't have teams in that 64 4x1.

Back then Canada had a predetermined number of athletes on their Olympic team, so no one would be sent just to run a relay. A relay team would have been just Jerome & some teenagers.
bekayne
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:40 am
Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby Powell » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:08 am

gh wrote:The 8th-place team in Tokyo ran 39.6; Cuba's national record at the time was 40.6, and Canada's 41.1!


But did their top sprinters actually run the relay on anything like regular basis?

A better measure of their potential would be the individual bests of their 4 best 100 runners at the time.
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rhymans » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:37 am

In 1960 there was Lynn Eves 9.5y/10.5, George Short 10.5 and Bob Fisher-Smith 9.8y - even with a healthy Jerome they would not have been a threat. In 1964 it was worse - A fit Jerome would have been supported by three 9.8/10.7 men
rhymans
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:42 am

In the Canada of 1964, being a 9.9 guy (yards that is!) was considered a major achievement.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bekayne » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:29 am

rhymans wrote:In 1960 there was Lynn Eves 9.5y/10.5, George Short 10.5 and Bob Fisher-Smith 9.8y - even with a healthy Jerome they would not have been a threat.

Ah, three teenagers (Jerome was also still a teen). Fisher-Smith wasn't sent to Rome, so he was replaced by Terry Tobacco. And Jerome was replaced in the SF by Sig Ohlemann. Who ran the 800 in Rome.
bekayne
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:40 am
Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bekayne » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:40 am

gh wrote:In the Canada of 1964, being a 9.9 guy (yards that is!) was considered a major achievement.

No wonder Harry Jerome ran the trials that year still wearing his tracksuit.
bekayne
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:40 am
Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby user4 » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:58 am

bekayne wrote:
gh wrote:In the Canada of 1964, being a 9.9 guy (yards that is!) was considered a major achievement.

No wonder Harry Jerome ran the trials that year still wearing his tracksuit.


Not so terribly bad for a northern climate country with a population of under 20 million.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby Dixon » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:10 pm

gh wrote:
Dixon wrote:What a shame Bullet Bob was in that shabby lane one and not in the middle of the track between Jerome and Figuerola, and it's too bad Pender was injured and didn't get his usual zoom start. If Hayes had been in the a middle lane and behind Pender we would have seen a 9.95 in 1964.

Who didn't PR in Sac in 1968?

It's also a shame Canada and Cuba didn't have teams in that 64 4x1.


Not it's not: they would have been embarrassments. They weren't in it because they didn't have enough quality sprinters to qualify.

The 8th-place team in Tokyo ran 39.6; Cuba's national record at the time was 40.6, and Canada's 41.1!

Instead of challenging Hayes in any way, Jerome and Figuerola would have needed binoculars to see him.


My point was ....it's too bad they didn't have the athletes to have a 4x1. I was getting at Jerome and Figuerola on that anchor leg. While Hayes turned in a great performance there wasn't one sprinter there that made the finals of the 100m.

As we know we had to run Stebbins and Drayton instead of Pender and Jackson due to injury, so we were vulnerable.

Give Jerome or Figuerola a three m lead and,..hmmmmm?
Dixon
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby Dixon » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:12 pm

bekayne wrote:
Dixon wrote:It's also a shame Canada and Cuba didn't have teams in that 64 4x1.

Back then Canada had a predetermined number of athletes on their Olympic team, so no one would be sent just to run a relay. A relay team would have been just Jerome & some teenagers.


Too bad that was the case. And too bad they didn't have any sprinters to go along with Jerome.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby Dixon » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:16 pm

user4 wrote:
bambam wrote:Whatever became of Ray Norton? We track the Olympic athletes pretty closely, but I have no idea what he later did for a career, etc., after his brief foray in the NFL. When David Maraniss wrote that book on Rome 1960 a few years ago I talked to him about Norton and he also had no idea what he later did.

Any ideas? Does anybody know?


Absolutely boggles the mind that Ray Norton finished dead last in Rome. If ever there was a perfect sprint specimen for any era it was Ray Norton. He wins the US OT convincingly and from there to Rome, it was all up hill.

Pure speculation but I suspect he was ill. It was not the first time for the US, there was Frank Wykoff in 1928 and Mel Patton in 1948.


I have his rookie football card, his only card actually since he failed at pro football with the Niners.

I have also thought something just wasn't right with him at the Olympics. Not unlike Kirani James recently at the Worlds.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby johnclark » Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:49 am

The average difference between the hand and auto times in 1960 was around 0.15 seconds, so Hayes' 10.06 corresponds well to 9.9 seconds hand timed.

I could never understand why they factored in only a 0.05 seconds delay in Tokyo to approximate hand times - it was at least 0.10 seconds too little. I agree that Hayes undoubtedly should be credited with the first 9.9 seconds.

Obviously we will never know how Hayes' lane one draw hurt his time, but you could easily imagine him running faster than Hines' 10.03 at the Night of Speed.

What is interesting is that, given Hines' and Greene's times at the NoS they did not run faster in Mexico City. Hines' 9.95 translates into 10.02 after wind and altitude correction and he was running on a synthetic track (although how much of an advantage this gave is tough to know - the early synthetic tracks were not necessarily that much faster than cinders etc). Greene's time in Mexico translates to 10.15.

I don't think anyone unambiguously ran faster than Hayes until Carl, but by then the synthetic tracks were clearly faster than 'natural' track of 1964.
johnclark
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:46 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:08 am

from my experience, the worst synthetic track ever built was superior (aka faster) to 99% of all the "dirt" tracks ever built.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby lonewolf » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:20 am

gh wrote:from my experience, the worst synthetic track ever built was superior (aka faster) to 99% of all the "dirt" tracks ever built.

Concur.. although I would up the ante to 100%.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby johnclark » Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:55 pm

lonewolf wrote:
gh wrote:from my experience, the worst synthetic track ever built was superior (aka faster) to 99% of all the "dirt" tracks ever built.

Concur.. although I would up the ante to 100%.


But if that is true, why did Hines and Greene not run faster in Mexico? If Hines and Greene could run 10.06 and 10.13 (wind adjusted) on dirt at the NoS, then why did they run 'only' 10.02 and 10.14 (after adjusting for wind and altitude) on synthetic in Mexico?

Hines won the Olympic Trials at altitude on dirt with 10.11 (10.17 after altitude correction) with Greene second in 10.15 (10.21). Greene won the National Championship with a wind-aided 10.0 (hand timed), ahead of Hines - that would translate to around 10.20 FAT with adjustment for a 2m/s wind. So Hines' 10.03 at NoS is awfully quick.

Is it possible that the FAT device at the NoS was a bit inaccurate and recorded faster times than reality? I find that a bit difficult to believe, but maybe its possible. I guess another possibility is that the wind was stronger than what was recorded, but its all speculation.
johnclark
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:46 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:37 pm

johnclark wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
gh wrote:from my experience, the worst synthetic track ever built was superior (aka faster) to 99% of all the "dirt" tracks ever built.

Concur.. although I would up the ante to 100%.


But if that is true, why did Hines and Greene not run faster in Mexico? If Hines and Greene could run 10.06 and 10.13 (wind adjusted) on dirt at the NoS, then why did they run 'only' 10.02 and 10.14 (after adjusting for wind and altitude) on synthetic in Mexico?...


1. Sacto may well have been among the 1% of tracks that was as good as the synthetic of the day.

2. We suspect (unquanitifiably) that heat and humidity can play a great part in sprint times. Those factors may well have been skewed in Sacto's direction.

3. With no FS blocks in play, the Sacto starter (with whom they would have been intimately familiar) may well have been far easier to anticipate than the Mexico City one.

If the starter was one who got into a regular rhythm (which as I recall some/most American starters of the era actually tried to do) it really changes the nature of the game.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby lonewolf » Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:39 pm

Wind, weather, altitude and performance are not a constant..the track is the apple/apple.

Anyone who has run on both dirt/cinders and synthetic tracks (excluding the asphalt/concrete monstrosities) knows, without scientific bounce tests,etc, that any smooth, spike gripping surface is faster than a crunchy/dusty/slippery dirt/cinder track.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby JumboElliott » Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:50 pm

Dixon wrote:It's also a shame Canada and Cuba didn't have teams in that 64 4x1.

According to Paul Drayton, it wouldn't have mattered. :mrgreen:
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rsb2 » Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:11 pm

johnclark refers to Hines winning the Olympic Trials at altitude on dirt in 10.11. The Olympic Trial, at Echo Summit, were on synthetic, Tartan I believe.
rsb2
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby norunner » Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:40 pm

rsb2 wrote:johnclark refers to Hines winning the Olympic Trials at altitude on dirt in 10.11. The Olympic Trial, at Echo Summit, were on synthetic, Tartan I believe.
Didn't they build that track at Echo Summit specifically to recreate the conditions in Mexico City as closely as possible? Wouldn't make much sense trying to copy the conditions and not use tartan.
norunner
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:16 pm

yes, it was "tartan" (don't know if Tartan); after the OT was over they chopped the track into manageable sections and relaid it at South Lake Tahoe High School, where it was used for decades thereafter.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby johnclark » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:33 pm

gh wrote:yes, it was "tartan" (don't know if Tartan); after the OT was over they chopped the track into manageable sections and relaid it at South Lake Tahoe High School, where it was used for decades thereafter.


Ah, cool, thanks for the correction - that makes a bit of a difference to the interpretation ... but its still weird that Hines ran 10.11 in the trials and 9.95 at OG - that's an enormous improvement!

If they were anticipating the starter at the NoS then that might be worth 0.10 on the times, bringing Hines up to 10.16 with a bit of wind correction as well, which seems in line with his other times.

OK, so this is what I think is roughly the situation - happy to be corrected:

Night of Speed (dirt): Hines 10.03 + 0.03 for wind + 0.10 for anticipation = 10.16
Nationals (dirt): Greene 10.0 (hand timed) + 0.15 for FAT adjustment + 0.1 for wind (2.5 m/s) = 10.25
Olympic trials (synthetic): Hines 10.11 + 0.06 for altitude + 0 for wind = 10.17
Olympics (synthetic): Hines 9.95 + 0.06 for altitude + 0.01 for wind = 10.02

Two questions: Did Hines pull up a bit at the end of the trials, and can we trust the Mexico wind readings? I guess there is no answer to either of these. If Hines pulled up, then perhaps that means a time of a bit under 10.10 and if the wind was a bit stronger at OG then that leads to around 10.05. All total speculation.

VERY tentatively, the NoS and Nationals indicate times of around 10.20 on dirt and the OT and OG indicate times of a bit above 10.05 on synthetic. The difference of 0.1 to 0.15 seems ok for the effect of going from dirt to synthetic (but a bit less than the old 'one second per lap' rule-of-thumb). Hayes, in a chewed-up lane could perhaps have lost 0.05 or so, making his 10.06 into a sub-9.90 on a 1968 synthetic track (and goodness-knows what on the London 2012 track). All very rough calculation with enormous margins of error, but its fun to speculate ...
johnclark
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:46 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rhymans » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:23 am

As GH noted, temperature plays a big part, and it was quite cool for some of the Trials (partly due to lots of shadows caused by the conifers on the outside and inside of the track - the 100m final was mainly in the shade) - that's probably the biggest difference between Echo Summit and Mexico City
rhymans
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby norunner » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:23 am

johnclark wrote:Ah, cool, thanks for the correction - that makes a bit of a difference to the interpretation ... but its still weird that Hines ran 10.11 in the trials and 9.95 at OG - that's an enormous improvement!
If you think that's weird then Bolt in 2009 must have been freakish, he ran 9.86 at the trials and 9.58 in Berlin. You can't expect every race to be the same, maybe Hines wasn't in top form, maybe he just had a bad race, technical problems, slept bad the night before, these guys aren't robots.
norunner
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby johnclark » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:16 am

norunner wrote:
johnclark wrote:Ah, cool, thanks for the correction - that makes a bit of a difference to the interpretation ... but its still weird that Hines ran 10.11 in the trials and 9.95 at OG - that's an enormous improvement!
If you think that's weird then Bolt in 2009 must have been freakish, he ran 9.86 at the trials and 9.58 in Berlin. You can't expect every race to be the same, maybe Hines wasn't in top form, maybe he just had a bad race, technical problems, slept bad the night before, these guys aren't robots.


Here are all the FAT times for the trials and OGs for US 100m men from 1968 to 2004. I don't know the FAT times for the 1972 OT (not that it matters - 2 of the 3 did not run anyway). Times shown are after adjusting for wind.

1968
Hines 10.11 OT, 9.96 OG
Greene 10.15 OT, 10.08 OG
Pender 10.20 OT, 10.18 OG

1976
Glance 10.19 OT, 10.23 OG
Jones 10.31 OT, 10.31 OG
Riddick 10.24 OT, 10.35 OG

1984
Lewis 9.98 OT, 10.00 OG
Graddy 10.13 OT, 10.20 OG
Brown 10.15 OT, 10.27 OG

1988
Lewis 9.98 OT, 9.96 OG
Smith 10.08 OT, 10.03 OG
Mitchell 10.07 OT, 10.18 OG

1992
Mitchell 10.06 OT, 10.06 OG
Burrell 10.07 OT, 10.12 OG
Witherspoon 10.06 OT, injured OG

1996
Mitchell 9.96 OT, 10.02 OG
Marsh 10.04 OT, 10.03 OG
Drummond 10.06 OT, 10.14 OG

2000
Greene 9.94 OT, 9.85 OG
Drummond 10.00 OT, 10.07 OG
Johnson 10.00 OT, 10.29 OG

2004
Gatlin 9.92 OT, 9.87 OG
Greene 9.91 OT, 9.89 OG
Crawford 9.93 OT, 9.91 OG

This shows that while they are not robots, there is a very strong relationship between the times at the trials and at the Olympics. Mo Greene's improvement of 0.09 seconds in 2000 is comfortably the largest - except for Hines at Mexico, where he improved his trials time from 10.11 to 9.96 (wind adjusted) - an enormous 0.15 seconds.

Temperature etc may make a difference, but history shows that the runners don't vary their times much between the OTs and OGs. If anything, they can run a little slower at the OGs. Once you adjust for wind, the other stuff is a bit marginal (except if it rains, of course).

As for Bolt, it depends on the track at the Jamaican trials compared to the Berlin track. This could, of course, be a factor at the 1968 trials, but (a) the strong correlations shown above still hold, and (b) my understanding from the posts above is that there was a deliberate plan to replicate Mexico as much as possible, including altitude and track. Bolt definitely looks the strong exception to the trend here.
johnclark
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:46 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests