revisionist history: men's 100 WR


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

revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:58 am

ever stop to think that in a rational universe that Sacramento's "night of speed" never would/should have happened?

If the IAAF had had any brains at the time, when Hayes "tied" the WR of 10.0 in Tokyo, based on an auto timing of 10.06, they would have realized the apples/oranges nature of the two kinds of timing and gone w/ the hand-watch readings of 9.8/9.9/9.9 and given him the first 9.9.

So all the 10-flats in Sacto (and various other places in '65 through mid-'68) never would have been thought of as WRs, because they really weren't.

Worse, some bad hand timing in Sacto also led to some WRs that are pretty feeble.

So here's what happened as the rounds unfolded in Sacto (where auto timing was available, but hand was used for "official" purposes):

Greene ties WR of 10.0 (10.20); behind him Bambuck gets a 10.0 also (for a 10.28!).

Then Hines runs a 9.9 (10.03); behind him Smith gets a 9.9 (10.14!).

Then Greene runs 9.9 (10.10).

If you go by the auto times coming in, Hayes holds the WR at 10.06. Hines edges that with a 10.03 and that's the sum total of the real WR-breaking.

As it is, Hines (10.03) and Greene (10.10) are considered WR holders at 9.9, while Hayes (10.06) no longer is. Hayes ,meanwhile, has a 10-flat (10.06) that is "shared" by Smith (10.14), Greene (10.20) and Bambuck (10.28).

Why should the official WR progression ignore the hand timing for one race then accept it for a bunch of subsequent ones? Terrible.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby James Fields » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:51 am

Fine presentation by editor-writer GH who has done much more re Sacramento times than I did via Historical board on 23 October 2013:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=48228&start=25#p867733
James Fields
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Knoxville and Seattle

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby norunner » Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:06 am

Why did they still bother with handtiming in Tokyo 64 when they had electronic timing?
There are people in Germany who believe Hary was the first 9.9 runner in history. His first run in Zurich 1960 was timed 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 and was supposedly not a false start. What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?
norunner
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:31 am

Trouble is, nobody outside of Germany thinks Hary ran 9.9 :-) :mrgreen:

Indeed, there are those who think he didn't run 10-flat either.

Cordner Nelson's column at the time:

<<I don't know what has happened to [the IAAF] but they seem to have lost all respect for World Records. I thought something had gone wrong when they approved the high jump record after banning the shoe which helped set it. I knew something was wrong when they approved Lauer's 13.2, made with the help of the notorious starter in Zürich. Now when they approve Hary's 10-flat at Zürich it will be the last straw.>> (Lest you think Cordner was a Hary-hater, I would note that in the same issue there's an international panel of Olympic predictions, and he was the only one who correctly predicted Hary to win)

You asked "What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?"

The 3 official watches read 9.9, 9.95 and 10.0. The 9.95 becomes a 10.0, so the official time was correct at 10.0. The "9.8" watch was an alternate that was not used in the calculation.

The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:

auf die plätze
fertig-bang!
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby norunner » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:30 pm

gh wrote:Trouble is, nobody outside of Germany thinks Hary ran 9.9 :-) :mrgreen:

Indeed, there are those who think he didn't run 10-flat either.

Cordner Nelson's column at the time:

<<I don't know what has happened to [the IAAF] but they seem to have lost all respect for World Records. I thought something had gone wrong when they approved the high jump record after banning the shoe which helped set it. I knew something was wrong when they approved Lauer's 13.2, made with the help of the notorious starter in Zürich. Now when they approve Hary's 10-flat at Zürich it will be the last straw.>> (Lest you think Cordner was a Hary-hater, I would note that in the same issue there's an international panel of Olympic predictions, and he was the only one who correctly predicted Hary to win)

You asked "What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?"

The 3 official watches read 9.9, 9.95 and 10.0. The 9.95 becomes a 10.0, so the official time was correct at 10.0. The "9.8" watch was an alternate that was not used in the calculation.

The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:

auf die plätze
fertig-bang!
Well being a child of the electronic timing age, i think Hary ran a 10.25, which was the electronic timing for his 10.0. Which also shows how ridiculous Hayes 10.0 was, electronically he was 0.2 seconds faster than Hary, but both got a 10.0.
norunner
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby BusterZanga » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:40 pm

gh wrote:The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:
auf die plätze
fertig-bang!

And the Z guy's name was Albert Kern.
BusterZanga
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:38 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby user4 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:55 am

norunner wrote:
gh wrote:Trouble is, nobody outside of Germany thinks Hary ran 9.9 :-) :mrgreen:

Indeed, there are those who think he didn't run 10-flat either.

Cordner Nelson's column at the time:

<<I don't know what has happened to [the IAAF] but they seem to have lost all respect for World Records. I thought something had gone wrong when they approved the high jump record after banning the shoe which helped set it. I knew something was wrong when they approved Lauer's 13.2, made with the help of the notorious starter in Zürich. Now when they approve Hary's 10-flat at Zürich it will be the last straw.>> (Lest you think Cordner was a Hary-hater, I would note that in the same issue there's an international panel of Olympic predictions, and he was the only one who correctly predicted Hary to win)

You asked "What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?"

The 3 official watches read 9.9, 9.95 and 10.0. The 9.95 becomes a 10.0, so the official time was correct at 10.0. The "9.8" watch was an alternate that was not used in the calculation.

The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:

auf die plätze
fertig-bang!
Well being a child of the electronic timing age, i think Hary ran a 10.25, which was the electronic timing for his 10.0. Which also shows how ridiculous Hayes 10.0 was, electronically he was 0.2 seconds faster than Hary, but both got a 10.0.


some of us consider that this shows how great a 100m man Hary was, that he was only .2 sec behind the greatest dash man ever, ... and he did it 4 years prior !! By the way, I wonder what Hary was doing in 1964, could he have picked up a silver or a bronze in Tokyo had he stuck with it?. My own guess, probably not, he would have been 27 in 1964.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby tandfman » Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:51 am

Usain Bolt is 27 now. Are you suggesting that he must be over the hill?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby user4 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:12 pm

tandfman wrote:Usain Bolt is 27 now. Are you suggesting that he must be over the hill?
2013 is not 1964

Back to the night of speed : Question what was the wind reading on Hines' 10.03 ?
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bambam » Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:05 pm

user4 wrote:Back to the night of speed : Question what was the wind reading on Hines' 10.03 ?


+0.8 mps
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby Per Andersen » Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:27 pm

user4 wrote:


some of us consider that this shows how great a 100m man Hary was, that he was only .2 sec behind the greatest dash man ever, ... and he did it 4 years prior !! By the way, I wonder what Hary was doing in 1964, could he have picked up a silver or a bronze in Tokyo had he stuck with it?. My own guess, probably not, he would have been 27 in 1964.

Yes, Hary was on of the great 100 guys. And don't forget he ran another 10.0 in 1958 but it turned out the track sloped 1cm (1/4') too much and it was not ratified. He packed it in soon after the Olympics. There was some trouble with the West-German federation as I remember it.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby Dixon » Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:44 pm

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.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rhymans » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:54 am

Having seen film of the two 10.0's Hary ran in Zürich, it's quite clear he went before the gun (as he did at the 58 Euros). RLQ was quite right in describing it as 1. auf die plätze, 2. Fertig-Bang.
I recently had an e-mail from Martin Lauer, who ran a Hand-timed 13.2 (13.56 auto!) in Zurich the year before Hary's 10.0/10.25. The actual race took place at the second time of asking. Lauer noted that he knew what the starter was like, and he tried to guess the gun, but being less tricky than Hary didn't quite time it right - "I would have run 13.0" he noted, wryly.
rhymans
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rhymans » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:04 am

In the IAAF WR evolution book, the next edition of which should appear in 2015, the Hayes mark, previously shown in "bold" [meaning ratified] as 10.0, will be shown as 10.0/9.9 [the 9.9 not being in bold, but at least signifying that it was effectively a 9.9 under the timing system used at the time]. Note that this is an editorial amendment rather than an IAAF official change. Who knows, maybe it will change officially at some time.
rhymans
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bambam » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:03 am

rhymans wrote:In the IAAF WR evolution book, the next edition of which should appear in 2015, the Hayes mark, previously shown in "bold" [meaning ratified] as 10.0, will be shown as 10.0/9.9 [the 9.9 not being in bold, but at least signifying that it was effectively a 9.9 under the timing system used at the time]. Note that this is an editorial amendment rather than an IAAF official change. Who knows, maybe it will change officially at some time.


The other thing about Hayes' Tokyo mark is that its auto timing mark has changed over the years. Richard - perhaps you can address this. As I recall there were originally two readings - one of 10.03 and one of 10.05, but there was some delay built in, or something, so the 10.05 was eventually accepted. And then Bob Sparks re-read the photo and thought it should be 10.06 - is that correct. I know there was something unusual about the mark - Richard, please elucidate.
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby user4 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:10 am

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..


likewise it is a shame that Sime was stuck in lane 1 in Rome ... had he been in lane 4 we might not have to talk about Hary at all.

bambam wrote:
user4 wrote:Back to the night of speed : Question what was the wind reading on Hines' 10.03 ?

+0.8 mps


+0.8 mps adjusts to 10.07 ... wow... If that is right then Hines was flying that night !!
Last edited by user4 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rhymans » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:11 pm

There were photos taken from both sides. One version, which Don Potts saw, read 10.00, while the photo from the other side read 10.01. A 0.05 delay had been built into the equipment - an inaccurate attempt to get at the equivalent of a hand time, so the times adjusted were 10.05 and 10.06. For many years FAST carried the mark at 10.05, but eventually changed it to the ATFS version of 10.06. The 9.98 appeared in a L'Equipe publication in 1975, and a variation of this appears in Robert Parienté's book "La fabuleuse histoire de l'athletisme" - the variation being 9.99. French confusion on the subject is completed by the publication "Jeux Olympiques Athletisme 68" which has the photo-finish on page 28. To my eyes the photo (taken from the outside of the track) looks very close to 10.00 [i.e 10.05 with the 0.05 adjustment], but it could be a tiny fraction over that, meaning the adjusted 10.06. Hopefully, this helps to clarify rather than confuse the issue.
rhymans
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rhymans » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:25 pm

In response to User 4's note on Sime, I don't think a lane change would have made much difference.

I've always been a big fan of both Morrow and Sime, but Sime was always a hopeless starter (other than the Drake Relays in '56 when he got a rolling start). In the Rome final you can see that Hary does not immediately react faster than the field [being furthest away from the sound of the gun], but his ability to accelerate is much better than the others, and from the first stride to 15 meters he gains more than a metre on everyone. At 30 metres the German was about 4 feet ahead of Sime and Norton (with Radford last about another foot back), but both Sime and Radford would have needed to be no more than 2 feet back at that point to have any chance of winning. Both men could reach slightly higher speeds than Hary, but he was better on the day.
rhymans
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby user4 » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:14 am

rhymans wrote:In response to User 4's note on Sime, I don't think a lane change would have made much difference.

I've always been a big fan of both Morrow and Sime, but Sime was always a hopeless starter (other than the Drake Relays in '56 when he got a rolling start). In the Rome final you can see that Hary does not immediately react faster than the field [being furthest away from the sound of the gun], but his ability to accelerate is much better than the others, and from the first stride to 15 meters he gains more than a metre on everyone. At 30 metres the German was about 4 feet ahead of Sime and Norton (with Radford last about another foot back), but both Sime and Radford would have needed to be no more than 2 feet back at that point to have any chance of winning. Both men could reach slightly higher speeds than Hary, but he was better on the day.


lane 1 on a dirt track is considered the worst draw. the other unused lanes are packed and dense. .. We have had many discussions on this related to Hayes' lane 1 draw. I think Sime goes faster in another lane.

Regarding Hary's first 50m, yes, I agree, he had remarkable acceleration, he beats both Figureola and Budd to 50m by almost a yard.

The most remarkable part of that race for me is Radford's final 40m. Radford's speed maintenance outdoes even Sime.
Last edited by user4 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby dj » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:01 am

user4 wrote:
rhymans wrote:In response to User 4's note on Sime, I don't think a lane change would have made much difference.

I've always been a big fan of both Morrow and Sime, but Sime was always a hopeless starter (other than the Drake Relays in '56 when he got a rolling start). In the Rome final you can see that Hary does not immediately react faster than the field [being furthest away from the sound of the gun], but his ability to accelerate is much better than the others, and from the first stride to 15 meters he gains more than a metre on everyone. At 30 metres the German was about 4 feet ahead of Sime and Norton (with Radford last about another foot back), but both Sime and Radford would have needed to be no more than 2 feet back at that point to have any chance of winning. Both men could reach slightly higher speeds than Hary, but he was better on the day.


lane 1 on a dirt track is considered the worst draw. the other unused lanes are packed and dense. .. We have had many discussions on this related to Hayes' lane 1 draw. I think Sime goes faster in another lane.


Yes and no regarding Sime. Tokyo '64 was the first time the Olympics advanced 8 runners to the sprint finals, thus the first time the oval pole lane was used. Through Rome 1960 (Sime) the most people advanced to a sprint final was six, with lanes 1 and 8 not used.
dj
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:53 am

looks to me like Rome was a 7-lane track,with lane 1 used for the 100 and hurdles, with 7 vacant, then for the 200 and 400 lane 1 left vacant.

T&FN copy clearly states Sime as being in lane 1.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby norunner » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:09 am

gh wrote:looks to me like Rome was a 7-lane track,with lane 1 used for the 100 and hurdles, with 7 vacant, then for the 200 and 400 lane 1 left vacant.

T&FN copy clearly states Sime as being in lane 1.
And the video of the final agrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpusAWku-mw
norunner
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bambam » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:31 am

rhymans wrote:There were photos taken from both sides. One version, which Don Potts saw, read 10.00, while the photo from the other side read 10.01. A 0.05 delay had been built into the equipment - an inaccurate attempt to get at the equivalent of a hand time, so the times adjusted were 10.05 and 10.06. For many years FAST carried the mark at 10.05, but eventually changed it to the ATFS version of 10.06. The 9.98 appeared in a L'Equipe publication in 1975, and a variation of this appears in Robert Parienté's book "La fabuleuse histoire de l'athletisme" - the variation being 9.99. French confusion on the subject is completed by the publication "Jeux Olympiques Athletisme 68" which has the photo-finish on page 28. To my eyes the photo (taken from the outside of the track) looks very close to 10.00 [i.e 10.05 with the 0.05 adjustment], but it could be a tiny fraction over that, meaning the adjusted 10.06. Hopefully, this helps to clarify rather than confuse the issue.


Perfect explanation. I vaguely knew the story but not the full details that Richard just gave.
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby Per Andersen » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:41 pm

rhymans wrote:
In the Rome final you can see that Hary does not immediately react faster than the field [being furthest away from the sound of the gun], but his ability to accelerate is much better than the others, and from the first stride to 15 meters he gains more than a metre on everyone. At 30 metres the German was about 4 feet ahead of Sime and Norton (with Radford last about another foot back), but both Sime and Radford would have needed to be no more than 2 feet back at that point to have any chance of winning. Both men could reach slightly higher speeds than Hary, but he was better on the day.

Excellent!
It's worth remembering though that Hary had a false start charged against him and was likely a bit careful in his start.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:29 pm

when I was a kid I saw a piece of film (none of the angles show in the IOC link above), shot from low, straight across the track at the Rome start line, and what was stunning was Hary's early pickup, as alluded to by Richard. It seemed like he took 3 steps before anybody else took 2 (hyperbole alert). Easy to see how he could create the illusion of catching flyers (even when he wasn't) because of the large early lead he could forge.

(it may have been a training loop I saw, not commercial TV; probably shot by the Netts)
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby cullman » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:37 pm

An interesting observation by Peter Radford: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/j ... mpics-100m

'...he had made a "bombshell" realisation on the starting line, working out how Hary engineered his quick getaways. "He'd wait until we were all on our fingertips in the set position. Then he'd take up his place, pause momentarily – and run. He might get caught with a false start, but he might also get away with it." '
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby norunner » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:56 pm

What amazes me about all these athletes (well, the european ones, i don't know about the americans), they had full time jobs. A few years ago i heard Heinz Fütterer describe how he used to go to work fulltime, train in the evening and compete at trackmeets 2-3 times a week in the evening. Since they couldn't afford training camps in warmer climates, they trained at home through the winter, which at least in Germany was pretty harsh 50 years ago. Nowadays our athletes fly down to South Africa or Florida for weeks/months, have jobs with the army/police/customs, which all them to train full time and yet they still don't run much faster than Hary did 50 years ago.
Looking at Rome 60 i have to say, i find Carl Kaufmanns 400m time more impressive than anything Hary did. Kaufmann ran a 45.08, which this year, 53 years later, would have still made him fourth fastest european (And fastest German for almost 10 years).
Back to Hary: I read on his webpage that his leg during the relay final was his best race ever, supposedly a flying 9.0 and i quote "he completely destroyed Ray Norton". I looked for video of that race, but the one i found doesn't show Hary. Has anyone seen that leg and can comment?
norunner
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:20 pm

norunner wrote:...
Back to Hary: I read on his webpage that his leg during the relay final was his best race ever, supposedly a flying 9.0 and i quote "he completely destroyed Ray Norton". I looked for video of that race, but the one i found doesn't show Hary. Has anyone seen that leg and can comment?


if anybody destroyed Ray Norton on that leg it was Ray Norton. He overran the zone and almost stopped to get the baton, making any attempts at comparisons between him and Hary absolutely pointless.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bambam » Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:21 am

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?
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby rhymans » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:23 am

Referring to User 4's note that Sime had lane 1 - yes, he's absolutely correct, but there was a different situation in 1964. In Tokyo the 20k walk had been held up on the afternoon of the 100 final, and had been chewed up. In 1960 the 20k walk was held the day after the 100, so the inside lane was not as bad as in '64
rhymans
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby dj » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:51 am

norunner wrote:
gh wrote:looks to me like Rome was a 7-lane track,with lane 1 used for the 100 and hurdles, with 7 vacant, then for the 200 and 400 lane 1 left vacant.

T&FN copy clearly states Sime as being in lane 1.
And the video of the final agrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpusAWku-mw


Yup, clearly I was wrong. But the curiosity is why they ran in lanes 1-6 rather than 2-7. Must have been camera or viewing angles.
dj
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby gh » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:09 am

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.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby user4 » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:16 am

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.
user4
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby cullman » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:54 am

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?

The Guardian article states that Ray Norton became "an athletics trainer and (is) now living in Nevada"...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/j ... mpics-100m
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR

Postby bambam » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:09 pm

cullman 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?

The Guardian article states that Ray Norton became "an athletics trainer and (is) now living in Nevada"...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/j ... mpics-100m


Thanx, cullman
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

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: 9063
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: 666
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: 46298
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

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests