the Seoul women's 4x1


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

the Seoul women's 4x1

Postby mump boy » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:42 am

ATK wrote:I agree 100% that baton passing is learned, but that doesn't make the record weak.
Hurdling, high jumping, hammer throwing, pole vaulting, triple jumping, etc (most non flat running events)are all events that require a big portion of learned abilities. But I wouldn't go and say all their records are weak.
The fact that it takes a good amount of time and practice for 4 ladies to actually break the record just shows how tough the record is/was. I think its pretty straight forward. If the record was that weak it would have been broken.


Oh good god, school children can pass a baton better than a lot of teams have over the past couple of decades :roll:

It doesn't show how tough the record is was it shows they couldn't be bothered to try and pass a baton correctly

This says it all,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XSoIMuVF4

not only do they not practice but although the changeovers are clean not one of the athletes is remotely at full speed when receiving the baton they lose yards each time and if it wasn't for Marlies being injured they would have lost the gold medal as well
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:05 am

mump boy wrote:This says it all,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XSoIMuVF4

not only do they not practice but although the changeovers are clean not one of the athletes is remotely at full speed when receiving the baton they lose yards each time and if it wasn't for Marlies being injured they would have lost the gold medal as well

The first exchange to Echols was okay, but the second and third exchanges were horrendous. Flo-jo and Ashford looked worse than if they were running a 4x400, they looked they were running a 4x1 mile.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby t_monk » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:15 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:This says it all,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XSoIMuVF4

not only do they not practice but although the changeovers are clean not one of the athletes is remotely at full speed when receiving the baton they lose yards each time and if it wasn't for Marlies being injured they would have lost the gold medal as well

The first exchange to Echols was okay, but the second and third exchanges were horrendous. Flo-jo and Ashford looked worse than if they were running a 4x400, they looked they were running a 4x1 mile.


A team like that running 41.9..... I'm not here for that.... #caseclosed #walksout
t_monk
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby mump boy » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:37 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
mump boy wrote:This says it all,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XSoIMuVF4

not only do they not practice but although the changeovers are clean not one of the athletes is remotely at full speed when receiving the baton they lose yards each time and if it wasn't for Marlies being injured they would have lost the gold medal as well

The first exchange to Echols was okay, but the second and third exchanges were horrendous. Flo-jo and Ashford looked worse than if they were running a 4x400, they looked they were running a 4x1 mile.


You should see the semi :shock:
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby j-a-m » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:02 am

ATK wrote:What gets me is when people claim a record is weak, or over due for being broken. I don't understand how that makes sense. Especially with a record that has been in the books for so long. If the record was really that weak, it would have been broken before. Getting close is not breaking it, and breaking it is not easy.

Agreed; the reality is the record wasn't broken for a long time, and that's a pretty good indication it wasn't "weak".
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby tgs3 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:22 am

j-a-m wrote:
ATK wrote:What gets me is when people claim a record is weak, or over due for being broken. I don't understand how that makes sense. Especially with a record that has been in the books for so long. If the record was really that weak, it would have been broken before. Getting close is not breaking it, and breaking it is not easy.

Agreed; the reality is the record wasn't broken for a long time, and that's a pretty good indication it wasn't "weak".


I'm not taking a side on whether the record was weak or not, but there's really only one race a year (or less) in which the countries that have a chance to break the record race their A team, so its not like there have been countless assaults against the record like there are for individual events.
tgs3
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:19 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:32 am

j-a-m wrote:
ATK wrote:What gets me is when people claim a record is weak, or over due for being broken. I don't understand how that makes sense. Especially with a record that has been in the books for so long. If the record was really that weak, it would have been broken before. Getting close is not breaking it, and breaking it is not easy.

Agreed; the reality is the record wasn't broken for a long time, and that's a pretty good indication it wasn't "weak".

The idea that any record that has stood for a long time must be hard, is very simplistic and faulty logic. Using that logic, the men's 4x1 mile and sprint medley records are also hard since they are both 27 years old.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby j-a-m » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:33 am

tgs3 wrote:I'm not taking a side on whether the record was weak or not, but there's really only one race a year (or less) in which the countries that have a chance to break the record race their A team, so its not like there have been countless assaults against the record like there are for individual events.

That's a good point. And it's actually similar for the decathlon, in that there are relatively few opportunities, and it's difficult to get good weather conditions over the course of two days.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Flumpy » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:35 am

ATK wrote:But they obviously didn't have the talent if they didn't break it...
Like you said, 100 times don't necessarily translate to the relay. If you don't have the baton passing down, you don't have the full relay talent. You cant say they should have destroyed the record if they only had 50% of the talent needed to do so.


Which is exactly the point mump was making in the first place.

why are you arguing with him when you obviously agree that he's 100% correct? :?
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:38 pm

tgs3 wrote:I'm not taking a side on whether the record was weak or not, but there's really only one race a year (or less) in which the countries that have a chance to break the record race their A team, so its not like there have been countless assaults against the record like there are for individual events.

There are more relay races than just global finals. There are domestic relays (eg. Penn, Drake, Texas, etc.) in addition to the DL relays (eg. Monoco, Zurich, etc.). In addition, there are no limitations on how often they can practice. However, I do agree with the larger point that there are a lot fewer opportunities for 4x100 races than for individual events.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby ATK » Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:09 pm

mump boy wrote:
ATK wrote: If you don't have the baton passing down, you don't have the full relay talent.


Which was my whole point :?

Baton passing can be learned with practice, speed not so much

Flumpy wrote:
ATK wrote:But they obviously didn't have the talent if they didn't break it...
Like you said, 100 times don't necessarily translate to the relay. If you don't have the baton passing down, you don't have the full relay talent. You cant say they should have destroyed the record if they only had 50% of the talent needed to do so.


Which is exactly the point mump was making in the first place.

why are you arguing with him when you obviously agree that he's 100% correct? :?


Thats not the point. You saying that the record is weak because baton passing can be learned and the teams have not taken the time to actually learn how to pass. That's false.

1. Teams have practiced, and teams have continuously failed. again the record would have gone down less than 27 years ago if it was that easy.
(Jamaica for example had SAFP - SS, both in the same training group, but had arguably the worst passes on the relay)

2. Again, if only two teams in the world are capable of taking the record down, then that just adds to the fact of how tough the record actually is.

3. The thought that the record would have gone down earlier is 100% speculation. What is 100% fact is that the record stood for 27 years before it was taken down. If your talking any kind of technical event that cannot be done off just raw talent, that was the longest standing record before it was taken in London.

Were not talking 10-15 years. Its almost been 3 decades. Teams have practiced, teams have failed. The record was not weak....
ATK
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby mump boy » Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:07 pm

ATK wrote:
mump boy wrote:
ATK wrote: If you don't have the baton passing down, you don't have the full relay talent.


Which was my whole point :?

Baton passing can be learned with practice, speed not so much

Flumpy wrote:
ATK wrote:But they obviously didn't have the talent if they didn't break it...
Like you said, 100 times don't necessarily translate to the relay. If you don't have the baton passing down, you don't have the full relay talent. You cant say they should have destroyed the record if they only had 50% of the talent needed to do so.


Which is exactly the point mump was making in the first place.

why are you arguing with him when you obviously agree that he's 100% correct? :?




Thats not the point. You saying that the record is weak because baton passing can be learned and the teams have not taken the time to actually learn how to pass. That's false.

1. Teams have practiced, and teams have continuously failed. again the record would have gone down less than 27 years ago if it was that easy.
(Jamaica for example had SAFP - SS, both in the same training group, but had arguably the worst passes on the relay)

2. Again, if only two teams in the world are capable of taking the record down, then that just adds to the fact of how tough the record actually is.

3. The thought that the record would have gone down earlier is 100% speculation. What is 100% fact is that the record stood for 27 years before it was taken down. If your talking any kind of technical event that cannot be done off just raw talent, that was the longest standing record before it was taken in London.

Were not talking 10-15 years. Its almost been 3 decades. Teams have practiced, teams have failed. The record was not weak....


This is a pointless discussion but fast teams have not practised enough (slow teams don't even practice enough, just ask us in UK) and any record for 400m that can be beaten by over .55 has obvious weaknesses

I'm out
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby ATK » Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:27 pm

your lost in assumption...
ATK
 
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby t_monk » Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:31 pm

mump boy wrote:This is a pointless discussion but fast teams have not practised enough (slow teams don't even practice enough, just ask us in UK) and any record for 400m that can be beaten by over .55 has obvious weaknesses

I'm out


Again... #TRUTH!!!!

I don't see why it is so difficult for ATK to understand.... Looking at that Flo-Jo team (Miss 10.5x herself) with Ashford (Miss 10.8x) with two more 11.0x-10.9x runners being SO FAR out of old world record.... kmt!
t_monk
 
Posts: 4338
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: New Haven, CT + Kgn, JA

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby skiboo » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:20 pm

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.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w4x100ok.htm

Torrence had run 10.99 with 0 wind in Seoul...
skiboo
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:00 am
Location: somewhere cold

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:42 pm

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.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w4x100ok.htm

Torrence had run 10.99 with 0 wind in Seoul...

I doubt that split is accurate based on the ground Echols made up on the other runners on her leg and she did run run 10.83 at the trials.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby j-a-m » Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:09 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Using that logic, the men's 4x1 mile and sprint medley records are also hard since they are both 27 years old.

Those events are rarely contested. The 4x1, on the other hand, is contested at OG and WC, and it's practised and contested a lot in high school and college.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Rog » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:59 am

jazzcyclist 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.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w4x100ok.htm

Torrence had run 10.99 with 0 wind in Seoul...

I doubt that split is accurate based on the ground Echols made up on the other runners on her leg and she did run run 10.83 at the trials.


I suspect it's very accurate, look how much ground Echols loses to Malchugina and Behrendt, neither of whom were within a quarter of a second on season's bests. Torrence was left off the team after being told she wasn't getting away well, and she flew home in disgust. Looking at Echols' run, you can understand why!

The Bulgarian outside is the replacement for Nuneva, who was injured in the 100 final, btw.
Rog
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby skiboo » Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:02 am

The US was really, really lucky that Heike Dreschler didn't anchor for East Germany. But then it wouldn't have turned out to be such a great race!
skiboo
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:00 am
Location: somewhere cold

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Rog » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:42 am

The whole race is full of what-ifs, though:

What if Jamaica had been at full strength? Jackson and Cuthbert were finalists in the 100, and Jackson and Ottey were 2nd and 4th in the 200;

What if Voronova hadn't been injured on the anchor leg?;

What if the GDR had included Drechsler and Krabbe, two of their three fastest (albeit with a dodgy 10.89 in Krabbe's case, however she was a superb relay runner). Also what if both Gohr and Moller had been in something remotely resembling their best form;

What if Bulgaria had been able to include a fit Nuneva in their team? After all, Nuneva was headed for silver in the 100 final before her injury.

If everything had gone right it would have been an even better race.
Rog
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:46 am

Rog wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that split is accurate based on the ground Echols made up on the other runners on her leg and she did run run 10.83 at the trials.


I suspect it's very accurate, look how much ground Echols loses to Malchugina and Behrendt, neither of whom were within a quarter of a second on season's bests. Torrence was left off the team after being told she wasn't getting away well, and she flew home in disgust. Looking at Echols' run, you can understand why!

The Bulgarian outside is the replacement for Nuneva, who was injured in the 100 final, btw.

So someone who was a 10.8 sprinter in July was only an 11.7 sprinter a couple of months later? I doubt it. I also doubt that Flo-jo ran 9.82. For someone with 10.5 speed, 9.8 on the curve would have been an optimum split for her (subtract 1.0s for the blocks and add 0.3s for the curve). However, due to the slow second and third exchanges, there's no way she ran optimumly. Just look at all the ground that she gave up to Aueswald at the beginning of her leg to see what I'm talking about. It's simply not plausible that Echols, who got out well, ran that slow and that Flo-jo, who got out slow, ran that fast.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby skiboo » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:18 am

jazzcyclist wrote:So someone who was a 10.8 sprinter in July was only an 11.7 sprinter a couple of months later?


Echols was no more a 10.83 sprinter than Flojo was a 10.49 performer. Same meet, same wind.
skiboo
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:00 am
Location: somewhere cold

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby drdan » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:45 pm

skiboo wrote:The US was really, really lucky that Heike Dreschler didn't anchor for East Germany. But then it wouldn't have turned out to be such a great race!


Does anyone know why the GDR didn't include Drechsler? Had she sustained an injury in the 200? I have some vague recollection that some of her teammates didn't like her, but can't imagine that the managers (esp the GDR!) would let that interfere.
drdan
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:58 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Flumpy » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:07 pm

Gabriella will know. Where is he???
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Blues » Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:28 pm

drdan wrote:
skiboo wrote:The US was really, really lucky that Heike Dreschler didn't anchor for East Germany. But then it wouldn't have turned out to be such a great race!


Does anyone know why the GDR didn't include Drechsler? Had she sustained an injury in the 200? I have some vague recollection that some of her teammates didn't like her, but can't imagine that the managers (esp the GDR!) would let that interfere.



I don't know if she sustained an injury in Seoul, but according to articles that I've read, prior to the Seoul Olympics the GDR's plan had been to try hard not to overwork Heike in Seoul, to try to avoid the same type of knee injury that occurred the summer before in Rome... Having healthy athletes that were able to win championships for the GDR in the future was extremely important to the GDR national sports program, and there was initially talk that Drechsler would skip the 100m so as not to be overworked, since it was thought that possibly Gohr or Gladisch-Moeller could win it. But after FloJo did what she did in the US trials, it was evidently decided that Drechsler should compete in the 100 (in addition to the 200 and LJ), since it was thought that she had the best chance of any of the GDR athletes of beating FloJo... Because of the government's determination to try to minimize Drechsler's workload in Seoul, she may have never been in the GDR's plans for the 4x100.

Gabriella or another informed poster may have different or additional information regarding the GDR's decision not to use Heike in the 4x1...
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby gh » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:44 pm

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.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w4x100ok.htm..l...


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.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:02 pm

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.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w4x100ok.htm..l...


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.

I agree 100% gh. Any knowledgeable person who watched the video should be able to figure out that the Flo-jo and Echols splits are dubious. The fact that skiboo thinks that Torrence was 0.7s faster than Echols in 1988 suggests to me some sort of bias or lack of knowledge on his part.

"Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." - Euripides
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Rog » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:32 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Rog wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that split is accurate based on the ground Echols made up on the other runners on her leg and she did run run 10.83 at the trials.


I suspect it's very accurate, look how much ground Echols loses to Malchugina and Behrendt, neither of whom were within a quarter of a second on season's bests. Torrence was left off the team after being told she wasn't getting away well, and she flew home in disgust. Looking at Echols' run, you can understand why!

The Bulgarian outside is the replacement for Nuneva, who was injured in the 100 final, btw.

So someone who was a 10.8 sprinter in July was only an 11.7 sprinter a couple of months later? I doubt it. I also doubt that Flo-jo ran 9.82. For someone with 10.5 speed, 9.8 on the curve would have been an optimum split for her (subtract 1.0s for the blocks and add 0.3s for the curve). However, due to the slow second and third exchanges, there's no way she ran optimumly. Just look at all the ground that she gave up to Zhirova at the beginning of her leg to see what I'm talking about. It's simply not plausible that Echols, who got out well, ran that slow and that Flo-jo, who got out slow, ran that fast.


You can't deny though that Echols lost a lot of ground to the USSR and GDR - about 4m - to supposedly slower runners. It's hard to imagine Gwen Torrence losing any ground at all, after finishing 5th in the 100 final.

I think Echols ran her 10.83 behind Flo Jo's 10.49, btw - she was a decent 100 runner (she won the World Cup the following year), but she wasn't 10.83 calibre and whatever she was worth, she didn't show it in that race.
Rog
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Gabriella » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:16 am

The record has lasted so long simply because, as mump has pointed out, the best teams who have the ability to break the WR haven't practised enough. It's that simple. Drake, Penn, Texas have all come on in recent years and are an opportunity for the US and Jam teams to practice at speed against opponents, but the teams aren't 100% selected at that point and have often changed after the NC's. That aside, their technical approach to how the relay is run is not the same as the GDR, French and other teams and often there has been too much politics at play. We've been over how best to run a relay before, but so often in the past we've seen 200m runners put on the curve simply because they run the 200m, rather than put them on the second leg where, often, they are faster over 120m then a 100m specialist. Koch, Drechsler, Krabbe, Malchugina..better 200m runners on the second leg because of the distance of that leg. Thankfully the US actually have learned to put Felix on leg 2 which is where she is best suited. But the Jamaicans never used VCB on the second leg when she was clearly the fastest Jamaican over 120m for many years. But they stuck her on the last leg because it's the glory leg and because of politics.

The GDR had an advantage in that they could select who they want and many of their athletes were at the same club so practiced exchanges every day. But modern teams can still send their athletes on relay training camps during the winter and insist on obligatory attendance, but most just dont.

On the Seoul race, there are other splits from Susanka, FTVS for IAAF biomechanical project

USA Brown 11.58 Echols 10.55 Joyner 9.88 Ashford 9.97
GDR Möller 11.70 Behrendt 10.17 Aueswald-Lange 10.06 Göhr 10.16
URS Kondratyeva 11.42 Malchugina 10.37 Zhirova 10.28 Pomoshchnikova 10.68

Either way, Echols was clearly not the 10.8 runner she supposedly was at the trials. Equally though, Behrendt's SB of 11.05 didnt represent her excellent form - she'd run 10.89w (dead heat with Gohr) 2 wks before Seoul to show she was ready. Note Aueswald Lange's fast 3rd leg - the second fastest ever on paper behind Flo-Jos 9.88. The US were wrong to put Flo Jo on leg. It made some sense because she was on leg 3 before, but again the assumption is that she was an excellent curver runner, when actually they could have used her better on leg 2. Regardless of the bundled exchange with Ashford, you can clearly see that she makes small ground up on Aueswald.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Gabriella » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:18 am

On Drechsler not being in the relay, she actually sustained a back injury during a lifting session in Seoul just before the Games started and nearly withdrew from the 100m. However, it does seem she was never to be in the team anyway. Horst-Dieter Hille, Gohr and Aueswald-Lange’s coach, didn’t want her in the team stating she didn’t practice enough. Prior to Seoul the GDR had experimented with Behrendt on leg 1 and Moller on leg 2 in a race in June; with Gunther replacing Behrendt on leg 2 a few times as well as the Seoul order. At their NCs Gunther DNF the 200m though, and in their last race before Seoul, where they ran the WL of 41.73, they ran their Seoul order. Drechsler had run on the 4x1 only once that year, at their NCs for her SC Motor Jena club, so was not practiced. There was a suggestion she would run in the 4x4 instead and with Neubauer not in great form it was becoming more likley, however Neubauer ran a great leg in the relay heats to secure her place. Drechsler's programme was already heavy with 4 rds of the 100, 4 rds of the 200 and LJ q and F though.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:29 am

Rog wrote:You can't deny though that Echols lost a lot of ground to the USSR and GDR - about 4m - to supposedly slower runners. It's hard to imagine Gwen Torrence losing any ground at all, after finishing 5th in the 100 final.

I think Echols ran her 10.83 behind Flo Jo's 10.49, btw - she was a decent 100 runner (she won the World Cup the following year), but she wasn't 10.83 calibre and whatever she was worth, she didn't show it in that race.

Based on where she recieved the baton, I think she may have lost 2m to the Russian, but it's hard to tell from the video how she compared to the East German since she's cut out of the video for the most part. Also keep in ming that Echols split would have been adversely affected by having to slam on brakes before she got to the 200m mark due to Flo-jo getting out so slow, while the Russian was able to run through the zone full speed since their third leg got out on time.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby mump boy » Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:26 am

Gabriella wrote:On Drechsler not being in the relay, she actually sustained a back injury during a lifting session in Seoul just before the Games started and nearly withdrew from the 100m. However, it does seem she was never to be in the team anyway. Horst-Dieter Hille, Gohr and Aueswald-Lange’s coach, didn’t want her in the team stating she didn’t practice enough. Prior to Seoul the GDR had experimented with Behrendt on leg 1 and Moller on leg 2 in a race in June; with Gunther replacing Behrendt on leg 2 a few times as well as the Seoul order. At their NCs Gunther DNF the 200m though, and in their last race before Seoul, where they ran the WL of 41.73, they ran their Seoul order. Drechsler had run on the 4x1 only once that year, at their NCs for her SC Motor Jena club, so was not practiced. There was a suggestion she would run in the 4x4 instead and with Neubauer not in great form it was becoming more likley, however Neubauer ran a great leg in the relay heats to secure her place. Drechsler's programme was already heavy with 4 rds of the 100, 4 rds of the 200 and LJ q and F though.


Ha

The Oracle has spoken :D
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:55 am

Great post Gabriella! While I do agree that Echols probably didn't bring 10.8 form to Seoul, I don't think she was 0.7s seconds slower than Torrence either.

But one thing to keep in mind when analyzing 4x100 splits is that if there's a bad exchnage that was caused by the outgoing runner getting out slow and/or leaving late, it is the incoming runner's split that will be adversely affected by it, since it inevitably causes the incoming runner to slow down before he/she reaches the 100m mark (scratch leg), 200m mark (second leg) or 300m mark (third leg), where the splits are timed. In the Seoul race, Ashford caused Flo-jo's split to be slower than it should have been, and Flo-jo affected Echols' split in the same manner. More recently, Sherone Simpson added at least 0.2s to Shelly-Ann Fraser's split when she forced Fraser to slam on the brakes in the London Olympic final. On the other hand, Allyson Felix's London split is probably a good guage of her flying 100 speed since Bianca Knight forced her to run through the zone to make the pass.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Smoke » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:13 pm

Are you guys serious?????? The record has not been broken because 1) the teams do not race enough. 2) It has been very rare that this type of quartet has been together since then. That is simply the facts. Practice has been proven to be a joke reason for success and excuse for failure. I would bet a quarter that teams that have national teams drop the stick more than Americans over the years.
Simply a fact of these women being fast (in form) and not dropping the stick.
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby mump boy » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:00 am

Smoke wrote:Are you guys serious?????? The record has not been broken because 1) the teams do not race enough. 2) It has been very rare that this type of quartet has been together since then. That is simply the facts. Practice has been proven to be a joke reason for success and excuse for failure. I would bet a quarter that teams that have national teams drop the stick more than Americans over the years.
Simply a fact of these women being fast (in form) and not dropping the stick.


Nobody was suggesting that US drop the baton more than anyone else !! just that NOBODY is as proficient as the GDR and a number of teams significantly faster on paper have failed the break the record over the years because of poor baton passing
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby Pierre-Jean » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:33 am

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.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w4x100ok.htm..l...


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.
Pierre-Jean
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: NGR

Re: ¶2012 OG: w4x100–United States 40.82 WR !!!!

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:56 am

mump boy wrote:
Smoke wrote:Are you guys serious?????? The record has not been broken because 1) the teams do not race enough. 2) It has been very rare that this type of quartet has been together since then. That is simply the facts. Practice has been proven to be a joke reason for success and excuse for failure. I would bet a quarter that teams that have national teams drop the stick more than Americans over the years.
Simply a fact of these women being fast (in form) and not dropping the stick.


Nobody was suggesting that US drop the baton more than anyone else !! just that NOBODY is as proficient as the GDR and a number of teams significantly faster on paper have failed the break the record over the years because of poor baton passing

Well said mump. All you have to do is look at how much ground the Americans lost to the Germans in the 1988 race on the second and third exchanges to see what you're talking about. The Americans kept the baton moving on the first exchnage but the Germans kept it moving on all three exchanges.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the Seoul women's 4x1

Postby Smoke » Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:49 am

mump you said they have not practiced enough. My point is, the practice angle is over used and wrong. As you previously stated and are well aware of, the UKA team practice as a unit ALL year long for years. It is a science in the UK and yet, baton mishaps happen. It is not due to lack of practice, it is due to it being a part of the race. You will note that no other event that involves faults, i.e. the jumps, is inundated with endless experts screaming about practice when an athlete blows it on a foul. ONLY in the relays do we pretend drops are 100% avoidable.

On another note, the US women were WAY faster in London than all other teams. Look at the 100 and the 200 at the Games, not pr's. Most notably, Allyson was light years faster than Sherrone. I am just noting that, speed killed that wr, not more practice. Getting the baton around is the goal of the race, drops are an unfortunate aspect. yes they can be avoided but they cannot be eliminated. Its like hitting hurdles, should not happen but it happens
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: the Seoul women's 4x1

Postby mump boy » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:04 am

Smoke wrote:mump you said they have not practiced enough. My point is, the practice angle is over used and wrong. As you previously stated and are well aware of, the UKA team practice as a unit ALL year long for years. It is a science in the UK and yet, baton mishaps happen. It is not due to lack of practice, it is due to it being a part of the race. You will note that no other event that involves faults, i.e. the jumps, is inundated with endless experts screaming about practice when an athlete blows it on a foul. ONLY in the relays do we pretend drops are 100% avoidable.

On another note, the US women were WAY faster in London than all other teams. Look at the 100 and the 200 at the Games, not pr's. Most notably, Allyson was light years faster than Sherrone. I am just noting that, speed killed that wr, not more practice. Getting the baton around is the goal of the race, drops are an unfortunate aspect. yes they can be avoided but they cannot be eliminated. Its like hitting hurdles, should not happen but it happens


On the first point i assume you're joking :lol:

We've not once mentioned dropped batons, we're talking about baton speed and practice can and will dramatically maximise speed of changeover

Nobody is disputing this :?
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the Seoul women's 4x1

Postby Flumpy » Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:17 am

Smoke wrote:My point is, the practice angle is over used and wrong. As you previously stated and are well aware of, the UKA team practice as a unit ALL year long for years. It is a science in the UK and yet, baton mishaps happen. It is not due to lack of practice, it is due to it being a part of the race.


As the kids say 'I can't, even.............' :shock: :lol: :?
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests