1972 200m semi finals

[johnclark]

OK, weird fact:

In the 1972 semi finals for the 200 meters, NONE of the runners ran faster than they ran in the quarter finals. One runner (Jiri Kynos) ran the same time (20.88) and the other 14 runners all ran slower times.

This nearly repeated in 2004, when one one runner (Bernard Williams) ran their semi-final race faster than their quarter final race.

I suspect that it might have something to do with the wind being 'worse' in the semi finals than in the quarter finals, but I don't have the wind readings. Does anyone have them?

The only time this came close to happening in the final was in 1992, when six of the eight runners ran slower than they had run in the semi-final. The two that ran faster (Fredericks and Michael Bates) did so by only 0.01 seconds. In this case, they ran into a 1.0 m/s headwind, so that makes some sense. I was interesting in if the other cases were similar.

Thanks in advance.

[rhymans]

200 wind readings were

QFs +2.2, +0.8, +0.3, +0.4, +1.2
SFs +0.4, -3.1 [which explains a good chunk of the slower times]

[johnclark]

200 wind readings were

QFs +2.2, +0.8, +0.3, +0.4, +1.2
SFs +0.4, -3.1 [which explains a good chunk of the slower times]

Oh, that's awesome. Thanks heaps for the stats.

Are the wind readings published online anywhere? They should be.

[johnclark]

200 wind readings were

QFs +2.2, +0.8, +0.3, +0.4, +1.2
SFs +0.4, -3.1 [which explains a good chunk of the slower times]

Ah, I've found the wind readings here:

http://la84foundation.org/6oic/Official ... 1972s3.pdf

Its actually a bit more complex though ...

In the first semi-final, Borzov won with a very slow time of 20.74 with Larry Burton second in 20.78. They both improved their times dramatically in the final, with Borzov running 20.00 and Burton 20.37. The four qualifiers from the first semi-final improved their times by an average of 0.47.

In the second semi-final, Larry Black won with a reasonable time of 20.36, improving to 20.19 in the final, with second going to Mennea in 20.52, improving to 20.30 in the final. The four qualifiers from the second semi-final improved their times by an average of 0.16 (not including Zenk).

The problem is that, according to the info in the report, the FIRST semi-final was the one run with a slight tailwind and the SECOND semi-final was the one run into a stiff headwind!

It would seem to make a LOT more sense if the wind readings were the other way around. Surely an error in reporting here is possible?

[dj]

I think the bigger factor in the slowness of the first semi is the failure to finish on the part of Don Quarrie, one of the leading contenders.

I don't know at what point he pulled up, but if it was seen by any of the first three finishers (Borzov, Burton, Smith) it would have meant they could have slowed appreciably. The same might have been true for fourth-placer Schenke as well.

Apart from the winds, you'd have to check the general weather conditions as well.

I doubt the winds were misreported.

[telf]

Re: 1972 200m semi finals
by dj » Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:42 pm
I doubt the winds were misreported.

Why do you doubt misreporting of the wind readings?

Finishers in SF1 (+ 0.4 ms) were c. 0.40 down on their expected result (based on R1 and R2 qualifying plus their PBs and final result)

All finishers in SF2 ran great times if we adjust for the reported -3.1ms and some finishers in SF2 ran astounding times if the -3.1ms is correct.

In particular, I remember Hans-Joachim Zenk and Martin Jellinghaus very well and their lifetime bests of 20.42 (from '74) and 20.65 (from '72 final) accurately reflect their potential.

Running 20.63 & 20.75 respectively into a -3.1ms wind in finishing 3 and 4 in SF2 is highly unlikely.

I have always thought the officially reported SF wind readings from '72 were the wrong way round but back in '72 accurate wind readings were not as important as they are today.

I don't recall the endless +2ms readings from Mexico '68 being questioned much in the first couple of decades post the games because not that many understood or cared back then.

[tandfman]

I don't recall the endless +2ms readings from Mexico '68 being questioned much in the first couple of decades post the games because not that many understood or cared back then.

Well, they weren't questioned on Internet message boards for obvious reasons. But IIRC they were questioned contemporaneously by athletics statisticians.

Edited to fix typo

[gh]

two things to consider

1. as I noted on another thread, when it comes final time, many runners who realize they aren't making the podium ease up. You can't assume they're maximal efforts, whereas anybody who moves from one round to another is usually fairly close to that.

2. lane draws were random in those days (studs weren't automaticlaly seeded into the preferred lanes), and in the 200 that can make a monster difference.

[rhymans]

the exact direction of the wind is a key element. Various times in the UK have had positive wind readings in the sraight, but were definitely aided by illegal winds on the curve (Donna Hartley, a 23.1-23.2 runner running 22.75/+1.8 in 1978 is a key example). While the wind generally wasn't a big factor in Munich '72 it certainly was swirling around for the 200 semis

[telf]

Re: 1972 200m semi finals
by tandfman » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:23 am
Well, they weren't questioned on Internet message boards for obvious reasons. But IIRC they were questioned contemporaneously by athletics statisticians

Yes I know re statisticians.

The point I was trying to make is that the concept of wind readings hadn't fully entered T&F fan consciousness back in '68 and '72.

Most fans were still struggling with the difference (if any) between FAT and hand timings

The Hartley example from rhymans is a good example of the impact of wind direction and there are hundreds of other examples.

The wind was swirling inside the stadium in Munich '72 and has continued to do so for four decades as fans of Bayern Munich and Munich 1860 will attest.

When the architects designed this innovative stadium they did everything they could to eliminate the impact of the alpine wind but they ended up with swirling winds blowing in all directions inside the stadium whilst 10 ms winds blowed outside the stadium. Makes me smile when I remember the allegations that the hosts opened and closed the stadium doors to aid Wolferman's win over Lusis in the javelin.

[gh]

... Makes me smile when I remember the allegations that the hosts opened and closed the stadium doors to aid Wolferman's win over Lusis in the javelin.

sorry, but you're conflating different Games.... the silly statement at the time of Wolfermann's upset over Lusis (I believe stated only in T&FN as a jest, maybe even by yours truly) was taht the the largely German audience gave a big burst of wind in mid-flight that kept Wolfie's spear in flight. As one who was there, I can tell you in all seriousness, it truly did feel like that.

The "open the doors for wind" story belongs to Dainus Kula of the Soviet Union at Moscow in '80.

(and there are those seasoned observers who were there—me not among them; I was denied a visa by the Commies—who say that there may well have been at least slight bit of truth behind the conspiracy analysis)

[telf]

gh » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:25 am
sorry, but you're conflating different Games....

Thanks for the correction.

It's amazing what increasing age and two bottles of wine can do to the memory.

Perhaps in my subconscious (drunken) mind's eye I am still trying to find the 2 cms for Lusis.

[gh]

The problem is, you stopped a bottle too soon. It wasn't until after 3 bottles that the clarity of recognition came back into my mind!