Borzov v Hart and Robinson


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

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Michael Frank » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:27 pm

>Michael,

I need to address two of your points:

Firstly, it is true that
>Borzov only ran against the clock, as he has stated many times. However, I
>think you have misunderstood what he meant: He ran against the clock IN
>TRAINING, and having achieved various pre-set targets (both flying and from
>blocks) over 30m, 60m, 150m and 250m (he never ran 100m and 200m timetrials),
>he knew he had the necessary speed to beat anyone in the world, as no-one else
>could run the same times. This gave him the confidence to know he could beat
>anyone without running flat out, and he most certainly only ran to win...that
>much he has also stated many times.

Secondly, you claim that "he clearly
>ran against inferior competition" and he "had neither record times nor wins
>over any true greats".

I think it is a little unfair to call the best US
>and Caribbean sprinters of the time "inferior" since these were the guys
>Borzov ran against. In his prime he basically beat anyone and everyone who came
>up against him, so who was it (specifically) who was a "true great", who he
>didn't beat? Back once again to Hart, I suppose? Well, I wouldn't classify
>Hart as a "true great" by any stretch of the imagination. Name any great
>sprinter from the early 70s who Borzov didn't beat - just one.

Incidentally,
>I know every one of Borzov's races from 1969 - 1978, and the competition he
>beat during his prime years of the early 70's (including all the Americans,
>plus Quarrie, Crawford, Miller, etc), so please be careful with your answer...

Good reply, Rob. You do know what your talking about. In trms of the 2nd point, I'd say that "inferior" was too strong a word but I meant to refer to an intangible: a strong era vs. a weaker one. Hines, Hayes, T. Smith, Steve Williams, were premier guys for a while (like Borzov). Hart was, too, but without many titles. But it's not like when Lewis was constantly beating C. Smith, Brown, Graddy, Lattany, Gault, Ben Johnson, etc. I think Carl competed in a tougher era (as did Jimmy Hines) than Borzov. I don't think Quarrie, Miller, and Crawford were of this #1 elite caliber over time despite certain medals they have. I hope this doesn't sound ignorant; they just never seemed to have the fire (to me) of all of these others I named (incl. Borzov). Would like your opinion of these eras, a comparison...

Also, another topic - one thing no one here mentioned re: the makeup of the 1972 US relay team (4x100)...Tinker and Black are cousins. Possibly a reason Robinson was odd man out?? Maybe he was just injured, and he was NOT running well in Europe prior to the '72 games (the latter an unfair reason to remove him from the relay team, though). I do not discredit Borzov, but with all his victories, he reminds me, again using the boxing comparison, of Roy Jones, Jr. today: the absolute most talented by far, beating guys in several weight classes with ease, but none are anywhere close to as good as the big names that a Sugar Ray Leonard beat (Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, etc.). Doesn't mean he wouldn't have beat Leonard, but Leonard looked great against actual greats...that counts to me.

Another point for others on the board: wasn't Valerie Brisco-Hooks out a season or more having a baby, then returned to win double gold in '84 (200-400m)?? Gotta be rougher than Borzov's vacation.

Thanks for listening.
Michael Frank
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:13 pm

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Pierre-Jean » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:00 pm

Rob: i have the T&FN issue dealing with Zürich, actually at that time the wind readings were expressed in miles per hour, not meters, that's why it was written 3.33mph.
Riddick is much over rated anyway in this topic. Williams clearly deserves a higher rank. After that Zürich comp, Riddick lost form and was beaten by Williams by several tenth in other European meetings.
BWT you are talking about Borzov's 250m time trial, i have many distances results for him from 30m to 400m, but the 250, could you please post it?

Michael - there's no comparison here with Borzov, it was a different case. Also, Brisco gave birth in 1982, did some competitions in 1983 at her ebst level form memory PB at 100m, near PB at 200 and decent (for her at that time) 400m. And of course, we all know about her 1984 season 11.08/21.81/48.83. So 2 years were needed to comeback actually.
Pierre-Jean
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: NGR

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Michael Frank » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:15 pm

Rob and Pierre-Jean,

Good, clearly fact-based responses from both of you. And to Rob, re: a point you'd mentioned in an earlier post and reiterated here, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about a guy whose upcoming victory is sort of a sure bet. That aura counts for a lot with me, and is born out by history (yes, with Borzov, for example). Guys like him, Carl, and Hayes didn't screw up, get injured, or otherwise beat themselves-- the other guy had to BEAT them, which rarely happened. Like Nicklaus in golf (here I go again using another sport for comparison, but Jack is an apt comparable). Another trackman like this, as I recall, was Nehemiah-- had great, big-name comp from Foster and others, but he beat 'em pretty much all the time.

By the way, anyone else here ever find ridiculous, as I did, an opinion from a supposed expert coach in '84 who, speaking of Lewis and Sam Graddy, said "Sam is quick but Carl is FAST." What kind of analysis is that? One guy is a tenth, that's all, so one gets gold and the other silver...
Michael Frank
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby paulthefan » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:19 pm

>Pardon me,

no pardon me.. because I being a Boxing
fan as well as a track fan have got to hush you up.......

>It's like
>saying Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson was a better champion than Muhammad Ali;

you are equating Steve Riddick with Muhammad Ali
.. and V. Borzov with Mike Tyson...

well you then know nothing about track and not
much about boxing either.


>theoretically possible, but Ali beat the best heavyweight crop ever

he got his ass kicked by Smokin Joe, he got
his tail whoppd by Ken Norton... and then
there was a Spinks guy that nearly killed
him but we can forgive him that loss...
.. he is considered a great because he
beat the invincible George Foreman...

what fairy tale have you been reading
regarding track AND boxing...



>1970s), one champion or very dangerous guy after another (along with some easy
>ones as well)-- Holmes had few top names on his resume, Tyson fewer.

you are either psychotic..
or you simply dont follow
either boxing or track beyond glancing
at the front page of SI from time to time...
LH was the champ for nearly a decade...and is
recognized as a great by everyone that
knows boxing,
Tyson during is 1 year reign of terror as a 21 yearold is believed nearly unanimously to have
been unbeatable, he didnt have the longevity
of a great like Lewis or Holmes but the peak power he exhibited for those few months was otherworldly....



>Anyway, I like Hayes, Lewis, Owens, as the best >in the 100, maybe Tommie Smith as the best >overall sprinter ever. He held world records in
>everything. Just my opinion.

which leads me to think that you have only
stumbled by chance onto the above truth
of the greatness of Owens Hayes and Lewis.

But this thread is really about who sits
below those 3, and why...
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Pego » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:50 pm

<I'm not old enough to remember Morrow or Hary, but they may have been similar(?).>

IMHO Armin Hary was nowhere near the class of those four guys mentioned.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:47 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:34 am

>Pierre-Jean,

I have it on good authority that Borzov ran a flying 250m
>timetrial in Kiev in June 1972:

He was hand-timed in 24.1.


well your authority must have been stoned

punch in predicted 250 time for a 19.60 \ 43.18 guy & you get

~ 25.30

24.1HT (usual correction 0.24 & with a flying start (why do you need a flying start in a 250 ??) is bullshit
Last edited by eldrick on Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby The King » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:57 am

punch in predicted 250 time for a 19.60
> 43.18 guy & you get

~ 25.3

MJ's 250m en-route split in his 43.18WR was 26.42...prehaps you can draw up something from that Eldy...I mean with MJ running 43.18 in that race, and as you say MJ being in 19.8x shape for the duece when he went into that race...

And as for that 26.42+ in a 1/4 mile, that must mean that he was holding back some to save his energies for the final part of the race. I'll try and dig up the 50m split-times for his 30.85WR in the 300m...
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:24 am

>punch in predicted 250 time for a 19.60
> 43.18 guy & you get

~
>25.3

MJ's 250m en-route split in his 43.18WR was 26.42...prehaps you can
>draw up something from that Eldy...I mean with MJ running 43.18 in that race,
>and as you say MJ being in 19.8x shape for the duece when he went into that
>race...

And as for that 26.42+ in a 1/4 mile, that must mean that he was
>holding back some to save his energies for the final part of the race. I'll try
>and dig up the 50m split-times for his 30.85WR in the 300m...

with a flying start (?), you have to have use some guesswork:

say he had a 20m flying start ( anything significantly more & he would have died pretty quickly at the end ) before the timed 250

the best start i know is in mo's 9.82:

Maurice Greene in Edmonton’2001
RT 0.132
010m - 01.83 1.70
020m - 02.83 1.00
030m - 03.75 0.92
040m - 04.64 0.89
050m - 05.50 0.86
060m - 06.35 0.85
070m - 07.19 0.84
080m - 08.05 0.86
090m - 08.91 0.86
100m - 09.82 0.91

take his 1st 20m : that is 2.83 all in

the worst borzov could have for this (it helps his cause for this to be slower) is ~ 3.00

then what do you want to give him for the flying first 20m ?

a 10.00+ guyz top-end limit is basically 0.85, so it better be a lot slower than that

it's a long race - can you see the first flying 20m being quicker than 2 x 1.00 = 2.00 ? ( you have to pace yourself - it's not a 100m race, it's more than 250 )

so you're substitute for standing start as against flying start is

3.00 - 2.00 = 1.0 ( which is basically the same difference between the top guyz standing 100m & anchor leg of relay )

you have to add this 1.0 (+ another 0.24 for HT conversion ) to 24.1 HT & this gives

1.0 + 0.24 + 24.1 =

25.34


this would imply that borzov's 24.1HT implies a standard 200 of

~ 19.65 !!!

i'm afraid we'll see pigs fly first
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:30 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Your boxing knowledge??

Postby Michael Frank » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:07 pm

>>Pardon me,

no pardon me.. because I being a Boxing
fan as well as a track
>fan have got to hush you up.......

>It's like
>saying Larry Holmes or Mike
>Tyson was a better champion than Muhammad Ali;

you are equating Steve
>Riddick with Muhammad Ali
.. and V. Borzov with Mike Tyson...

well you then
>know nothing about track and not
much about boxing either.


>theoretically
>possible, but Ali beat the best heavyweight crop ever

he got his ass kicked
>by Smokin Joe, he got
his tail whoppd by Ken Norton... and then
there was a
>Spinks guy that nearly killed
him but we can forgive him that loss...
.. he
>is considered a great because he
beat the invincible George
>Foreman...

what fairy tale have you been reading
regarding track AND
>boxing...



>1970s), one champion or very dangerous guy after another
>(along with some easy
>ones as well)-- Holmes had few top names on his resume,
>Tyson fewer.

you are either psychotic..
or you simply dont follow
either
>boxing or track beyond glancing
at the front page of SI from time to
>time...
LH was the champ for nearly a decade...and is
recognized as a great
>by everyone that
knows boxing,
Tyson during is 1 year reign of terror as a
>21 yearold is believed nearly unanimously to have
been unbeatable, he didnt
>have the longevity
of a great like Lewis or Holmes but the peak power he
>exhibited for those few months was otherworldly....



>Anyway, I like
>Hayes, Lewis, Owens, as the best >in the 100, maybe Tommie Smith as the best
>>overall sprinter ever. He held world records in
>everything. Just my
>opinion.

which leads me to think that you have only
stumbled by chance onto
>the above truth
of the greatness of Owens Hayes and Lewis.

But this thread
>is really about who sits
below those 3, and why...


Gotta respond on the boxing issue. I compared Borzov to Holmes and Tyson, didn't bring up or compare Riddick to anyone. Leon Spinks, whom I always liked, didn't "nearly kill" Ali, he decisioned him with a gutsy final 5-6 rounds of 15 after Ali played with him and gave him the first 6 rounds. Ali, at 36, owned Spinks in every round of the rematch.

Virtually no expert rates Ali all-time below #1 or at worst #2 (to Joe Louis), period. Ali's defeats you mention were ALL avenged, and EVERYONE rates him above those 3 guys who beat him that you named (and of course also above Trevor Berbick, who decisioned him when he was a month shy of 40). Some dangerous fighters or champions Ali beat-- to name a few-- Sonny Liston (twice), Frazier (twice), Norton (twice), Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, Quarry (twice), Patterson (albeit past his prime, twice), Bonavena, Ellis, Young, L. Spinks (in rematch)... and I'm forgetting several.

Can't go by 4 losses to 2 top fighters--champions-- and to 2 tough guys at the end of his career. Marciano was undefeated, and no one puts him ahead of Ali. Marciano fought weaker opponents, those past their primes, and blown-up light-heavies. Actually, Tyson's "reign of terror" was longer by far than you state, from when he turned pro (1985) up to his loss to Douglas (1990); his considered absolute peak was vs. M. Spinks (1988). Tyson's biggest problem: he lost to EVERYONE who actually consistently fought back. He was never really IN a good fight; NO Tyson fight is ranked among the top bouts. And no expert has ever called Tyson "unbeatable" at his peak, just an amazing KO artist at that time; he was BEATEN at the end of his "peak" by Douglas.

Holmes, great as he was, had weak comparatively foes: only beat a Norton past his own prime, Shavers past his prime, and Cooney, who never beat anyone considered competitive. But Holmes had a long, successful reign, and fought hurt as well as anyone. Ali had the greatest chin in history and was almost never hurt, even at the 4 times in his career that he was floored (only Cooper had him on queer street, in 1963). No one mastered Ali mentally, and I can't picture the Tyson you recall, finishing Ali even if he dropped him with one of those bombs he packed. Ali was way too ringwise, and Mike wouldn't have taken Ali's shots (remember, Tyson not only lost to but was STOPPED by Douglas, Holyfield twice, and Lewis... Tyson never even lost by decision, just was KO'd/TKO'd. And the ONLY "great" fighters Tyson ever beat were Michael Spinks (in his last fight), who was great at 175 pounds but NOT at heavy, and Holmes, who came out of retirement to get KO'd.

I agree with you that Holmes was absolutely a great fighter, but NO expert ranks him ahead of Ali or even within 3 places of him, and I am one of Larry's biggest fans. Holmes never fought Michael Dokes or Greg Page, two top fighters who became partial champions and fought in his era, and never gave a rematch to Witherspoon, who many felt beat him in '83 and who later bacame a champion. Ali, conversely, avoided NO ONE. Also, Ali would surely have reigned uninterrupted from the '60's into the '70s, when those 3 1/2 "prime condition" years (1967-70) were taken away from him by the gov't. No comeback in any sport was as successful as his, in what is probably the most difficult sport to do so. Only Ray Leonard, also in boxing, accomplished something similar when he came back to beat Hagler, and more.

I am surprised you criticized me for my boxing knowledge when I am so more clearly in command of the facts-- and opinions. But I'm not looking to argue with you, just to enjoy a friendly discussion board. I hope your response is not insulting, but hopefully thought-provoking.


--Michael
Michael Frank
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

To Paulthefan, again

Postby Michael Frank » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:27 pm

Further to my message, above, I just reviewed Tyson's opponents when he was 21, incl. 1-2 just before and after. They were: Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, M. Spinks. A joke of a crop to say he was "unbeatable" then, as you wrote, considering:

Berbick, Smith, and Biggs were poor excuses for top-ranked pros despite brief partial title reigns by the first two and a good amateur carrer for Biggs; Thomas was past his prime and was on coke; Holmes came out of a 2-year retirement after 2 consecutive losses; Tubbs was so fat he didn't take the weight off, even after being offered extra money by the promoter to get into better shape for the fight, indicating no will to win; and Spinks, as mentioned in the earlier post, was at the end of his career and was a blown-up light-heavy, anyway. Don't know what would make anyone think Tyson unbeatable based on these victories. Sorry.
Michael Frank
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: To Paulthefan, again

Postby Rob » Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:38 pm

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Michael Frank » Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:52 pm

Eldrick and Rob,

How can anyone seriously break down sprints into 10-yard increments? You guys are clearly smart, but I doubt any runner or his coach looks at a 100 or a 200 this way... Sprinters, unlike horses, don't always win the same way (i.e., front-runner vs. come-from-behind). I think the analysis is incredibly flawed, as no one, not even Borzov, is a "robot". Just look at how any one guy has times that vary from race to race...

Respectfully, Michael
Michael Frank
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: where does Borzov stand...

Postby paulthefan » Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:22 pm

In your reply Mike, you have simply added names to your claim that Holmes and Tyson had few top names
on their resume, you give the names and then you reiterate that they were nobodys.. of course we only know they are nobodys because they were not in the era of the man you want to crown king. This is illustrative of how many people treat comparing athletes across decades.... the mythologizing crystalizes everything....

The question really is where does Borzov stand in the 20th century sprint pantheon, be consistent and judicious with the evidence. Dont bounce around with subjective analysis prefilterd to fit your desired result.... I would actually prefer to talk boxing and it does illustrate something that is informative with judging sprinters.., that people retain mystical views of athletes that are considered otherworldly, Ali is one, Sugar Ray is another.. the media creates these darlings and all facts must conform to these images.... that is the real lesson I get from your boxing reference and it illustrates why you probably view Borzov so disparagingly....

But let me go along with you into the details and say... that I would rate everyone of the boxers you name in a disparaging tone as very good contenders and of the caliber of fighters that Ali faced. In fact I would suggest that the overall size increase in fighters since the early 80s has made for a more impressive heavyweight. Regarding Ali, we are still in the shadow of the mythologizing.. it wil continue for a long while probably our life time, but 50 years from now it will not be remembered and we will see him the way we see HW men of the 30s 40s and 50s. For now, he was part of a counter culture that made for an inflated stature. He was actually beat 2 times by Frazier, he was given the win on the second fight because the winner was to meet George Foreman and since George had just punched Frazier out of the ring, their was no market for a rematch, the Ali Foreman bout was to gain millions and so Ali was wisely given the fight. That is the nature of Boxing, it can be more like choosing a US OLY gymnastics team. Your comments about Sugar Ray are similar, you fall for the myth making. Watch the Hagler fight and you will, like all that take boxing seriousley, call the fight for Hagler. But the media hype made it his to loose, he only had to insure he didnt get knocked out..His greatest win was his win against Hearns for that, like Ali's against Foreman, he deserves tremendous respect.

I dont want to turn this into a boxing post, the real intent was to shed light on the relative stature of Borzov as a 20th century sprinter. The boxing analogy is illuminating because it displays the circular reasoning that often takes place
when judging men of different ages. For that reason I would argue that Holmes like Ali is in the upper bracket of heavyweights of the 20th century. I would not put Tyson in that category simply because he did not display the longevity of the upper teer though I have no doubt that at his best he beats any in that upper tear. Your disparaging of his opponents is baseless... you simply state it. Pinklon Thomas was a formidable fighter a great contender, Bonecrusher was a real talent as well, I would rate the vast majority of Tysons contenders as very talented, and he fought often and everyone. You rate the fighters Ali fought as great because you have already mythologized Ali.. no arguement based on size and speed and strength can overcome that...


>Virtually no expert rates Ali all-time below #1 >or at worst >#2 (to Joe Louis), period.

I dont know that, I would rate Jack Johnson above
Ali for sure, I would rate probably Jim Jeffries as well but that is a close call...Both of Johnson and Jeffries were giants of their era. Ali just was not as dominant, Tyson was but for not long enough to meet a critical term on which a boxer should be judged ... longevity... I dont think an Ali that had so much trouble with the Frazier arsenal and style would have lasted 4 rounds with a Tyson, who was basically a turbo-charged Frazier, but that is a guess... it does not mean that Tyson is a better HW, since we judge based on more than projections of head to head competition.. we base our assesment on overall resume in boxing and longevity is important.

> Ali's defeats you mention were ALL avenged,

So what?.. who cares.. that is only important because YOU have predetermined that Ali is the "greatest of all time!!!!" ;)

>EVERYONE rates him above those 3 guys who beat >him that you named

that is true and I would agree with that.. but we are trying to make cross decade comparisons to do that we have to compare men that never fought one and other....


>course also above Trevor Berbick, who decisioned him when he was a month shy of
>40).

Proves one thing....you will forever hold Ali as "THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME"!!! ;)



>Some dangerous fighters or champions Ali beat-- >to name a few-- Sonny Liston (twice), Frazier >(twice), Norton (twice), Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, >Quarry (twice), Patterson (albeit past his prime, >twice), Bonavena, Ellis, Young, L.
>Spinks (in rematch)... and I'm forgetting several.

and these men are great contenders because they were beat by "THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME" ;) !!!!

>Marciano was undefeated, and no one puts him ahead of Ali. Marciano fought
>weaker opponents, those past their primes, and blown-up light-heavies.

When Marciano beat Lewis and Jersy Joe analysts couldnt believe that he could beat such big well conditioned champs... once he beat them suddenly it dawns on them that they were old and way past their prime, today men fight at much older ages and we accept it... Again once you have made up your mind that a guy isnt a mystical god in your pantheon the facts get shuffled to accomodate..in the case of Marciano I would not rate him in the upper echelon of HWs.. but I dont simply because I consider him a cruiser weight... pound for pound a great for sure, but not a HW great...


>Actually, Tyson's "reign of terror" was longer by far than you state, from
>m when he turned pro (1985) up to his loss to Douglas (1990); his considered
>absolute peak was vs. M. Spinks (1988). Tyson's biggest problem: he lost to
>EVERYONE who actually consistently fought back.

What in the world are you saying?... Im not a big fan of Tyson, but what the heck do you think fighting is about.. it is about crushing your opponent so he cant fight back... Tyson dispatched very talented very strong opponents many inside of 5 rounds.. HELLO..that is a plus not a minus. It is just my opinion but I will reiterate, that Tyson during that short few years of dominance would have dispatchd everyone Lewis, Ali and even Jack Johnson.


> He was never really IN a good
>fight; NO Tyson fight is ranked among the top bouts. And no expert has ever
>called Tyson "unbeatable" at his peak, just an amazing KO artist at that
>time; he was BEATEN at the end of his "peak" by Douglas.

Tyson fights are not rated as good fights because
he so dominated his opponents... a KO artist is by definition unbeatable.. Tysons personal problems began before the Douglas fight, not to take away from Douglas' performance. Obviously I dont consider 1990 to be Tysons peak years.


>Holmes, great as he was, had weak comparatively foes: only beat a Norton past his own prime,
>Shavers past his prime, and Cooney, who never >beat anyone considered competitive.

And those are the only heavys on Holmes resume that matter to you because they overlap in era with "THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME!!!" ;)

Holmes also avoided Coetze as well to butress your case,..Cooney punched Norton out of the ring in the first round, or was it the second.



> Ali had the greatest chin
Finally something I can agree with.



>No one mastered Ali mentally,
another example where the mythologizing grows and grows.. ... the goal is to beat the opponent on the scorecard... I cut the rest as it since it doesnt add anything to rating Borzov against other sprinters of the 20th century.


BACK TO BORZOV:

I try to be fair judging these things.. I would
rate Borzov high, He is not in the upper echelon with Owens (for his 4 golds in one games and total dominance), Hayes (for his otherworldly dominance) , Lewis (for dominance and longevity and multiple golds), I place him close behind T. Smith and M.J.
but closer to Greene, He is above Morrow since Morrow lacked his longevity. If we remove T. Smith and M.J. since they are rated for their 200 performance Greene and Borzov move up. I try to think of who to place above these two that I am missing and I come up blank.. I would like to find that sprinter that deserves to be moved up...

I would rate the sprinters (100,200,400) of the 20th century as follows

1) Lewis
2) Owens
3) Hayes
4) Johnson M.
5) Smith T.
6) Borzov
7) Greene
8) Morrow

It is weighted to the later 1/2 of the 20th
century because I am biased.

But it is the great sprinters below these 8
that make track a great sport.. they are the
ones that make the sport., The Mike Marshes,
the Calvin Smiths, the Charlie Greenes, the
Menneas, The Lattanys, The Hilliards, The Simes, The Drummonds (yes there could be a whole thread dedicated to Drummond :)),... they make the sport great, they are great competitors and throughout the ages they are the ones that in the end make the top guys what they are.. every era has them, the contenders, every era of them is like a long train of witnesses and a thread of talent that runs through the event. The pantheon is incomplete without them.
Last edited by paulthefan on Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: To Paulthefan, again

Postby eldrick » Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:42 pm

no

rob

you are talkin crap

simple add-ons for 200 to 250 don't work

as the ground rules are established : a factor of 1.00 + 0.24 = 1.24 to add to HT

borzov was a 100/200 guy, 250 is venturing into 400 territory - he ain't 400 guy - otherwise he wouda run it

FAT/low altitude in '72 was honz 44.70

let's be generous & even give it 44.00 ( faster than caballo's "44.26 WR" run in the meet )


borzov 24.1 HT to which we must add 1.24 (from above) =

25.34



well:

44.00 with


20.2 -> 25.98

20.1 -> 25.89

20.0 -> 25.80

19.9 -> 25.61...


this is getting to the

"pigs can fly"

level


digging that far deep into the trough, the time implied is


19.45 !!!
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

To Paul - Re: where does Borzov stand...

Postby Michael Frank » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:15 pm

I'd say I have to agree with you on several points, and good catch about Coetzee. But I think your replies that I consider Ali's opponents better opponents than Tyson's or Holmes's because I somehow worship him is off base. I look back less and less fondly on his racist comments, made many times over the years.

But on boxing ability and results, I think your answers denigrating my comments on contenders were not supported...you only said things like "You rate the fighters Ali fought as great because you have already mythologized Ali.. no arguement based on size and speed and strength
can overcome that...". Honestly, I look at Ali's opponents and who THEY beat, not that they happened to fight Ali. For example, Jerry Quarry KO'd Shavers in 1, also handed Lyle his first career loss... and Lyle dropped Foreman and gave him a very tough fight, plus KO'd Shavers. To make cross-era comparisons, if that's even possible, one needs to look at how people performed in their own eras. Holmes was GREAT and I agree with most of what you say about him; I just don't think the likes of Snipes, Tex Cobb, Lorenzo Zanon, Ossie Ocasio, Evangelista (alright, Ali fought him too), Berbick, Cooney, Bey, etc. (ALL Title defenses!) were very good in THEIR era shared with Holmes. Frazier, Norton, Quarry, Foreman, Liston, a younger Shavers, Bonavena, Patterson, Lyle-- these were guys who were all title threats, and who each beat a lot of good fighters, and 5 were champs. Ali easily beat the great Bob Foster, but when another light-heavy champ, Mike Spinks, moved up to fight Holmes, he beat Larry twice.

I have a lot of tapes, obtained from network connections that I have so the fights look brand-new and sharp, and I viewed Ali-Frazier II the other day. I can't see Frazier being close to winning, he missed so often whereas Ali landed, plus Ali nearly dropped him when the ref jumped in because he thought he heard a bell. I WOULD agree with you if you said Norton won their third fight, I see that one for him. In the end, I'd say this to you: Holmes was a top-10 all-time heavy, probably about #5-6 in my view, and if he had fought Ali-- though I'd rank Ali ahead on the list-- I could see Holmes winning. Just not beating all the other greats that Ali could beat. Of course, he won so easily when Ali was old, but both guys could rumble when forced to, and he would have forced Ali to go to war.

Steve Lott, whom I respect a good deal, once told me it's best to throw out a fighter's best 1-2 performances as well as their "old age" performances when evaluating them. Based on that, Ali lost to Frazier and Norton, once each, and that's it. Holmes looks great using this methodology, but Tyson, not at all.

Tyson? I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you. His first trainer, Cus D'Amato, always talked about a fighter having "character" under pressure. I don't think he'd agree that blowing away the guys Tyson beat showed his character, since he was untested and they weren't highly thought of when the matches were made. Douglas beat him the way Ali would have, in my opinion-- easily, behind a superior jab. Took a great punch but came back from it to finish Tyson. Thomas was a good fighter, but Bonecrusher lost to Marvis Frazier, and Frank Bruno was killing him before the final round knockout by Smith. Berbick was a joke, just took a pretty good punch but not Tyson's. Biggs couldn't even hurt top guys. Tubbs was way past his prime and fat. These are facts, not me "being circular." The size remark about the 1980's guys and beyond, I can't agree...Every expert on boxing picks Marciano over Lennox Lewis by KO, each in their primes. As they say, any man over 200 pounds can KO...

I disagree that Tyson was a turbo-charged Frazier. Frazier was a warrior who threw a lot of blows all night. Tyson was tied up easily by all who tried to tie him up, was not nearly the buzzsaw Frazier was. Not a good inside fighter though some mistakenly think he was, but he stopped punching when in close too often. He simply had a much better punch than Frazier, so one hook to the body or head was enough from Tyson. Frazier took beatings and wouldn't quit; Tyson quit or was too hurt every time he took a beating. Tyson DID have a much better defense than Joe when he was younger, when he bobbed and weaved.

I'm really no Ali lover, but when I say that he mastered everyone mentally, I mean, among other things, that he NEVER froze up in big fights or was blown away; Tyson had excuses after Douglas, and, while I credit all of his victorious opponents for fine performances, he looked nearly uncompetitive in his losses, except vs. Holyfield #1, before his last (recent) one to Danny Boy (I'd agree he's old now).

Can't agree on Leonard-Hagler, have watched it 10 times. I just look at Hagler's ridiculous jive-walking right before the decision to know how he really felt about the outcome (he NEVER did that in any of his 60+ fights). Forgetting that fight--and remember, Hagler was supposed to wipe the floor with Leonard but never even dropped him--Leonard beat Duran, Benitez, Hearns (twice), Kalule, Lalonde (not a great, of course, but a much bigger guy and a champ), Price, Gant, & Aldama at the Olympics... to say Leonard was a media creature is to buy into the hype of the Leonard-haters. Who didn't he fight? His division was the best, the deepest, in boxing at the time, and the only guy he missed fighting was Cuevas. He simply beat too many champions and top contenders to deny his greatness; no expert begrudges Leonard anything, but you seem not to think he was very good. Who in history do you think could beat him at welterweight, besides maybe Robinson??

As to Borzov, I agree completely with your all-time rankings, all 8 that you wrote. I say again that I do not think Borzov deficient, just not as good as each of the guys you yourself put ahead of him. I also think you're right on about the supporting cast...every name you wrote brought up the quality of the sprints in their times.
Michael Frank
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: To Paul - Re: where does Borzov stand...

Postby Rob » Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:34 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: To Paul - Re: where does Borzov stand...PLEASE DONT read

Postby paulthefan » Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:18 am

Mike thanks for responding and clarifying your perceptions of Ali, my first read of your first boxing post had me believing you were just another Ali Boombayee fan... at any rate .. If you agree with my top sprint standings then we have closed the loop on the main topic and we can address 2 things and I will not go any further than this since we are now well off topic from the rating of sprinters to the judging of ancient boxing films..

edit from this post:

cut from this post . ... long drawn out defense of Hagler, Renaldo( call him Mr.) Snipes and Tyson...
.. cut .. cut .. cut...

1) I start my comparisons across era by considering the variation in the top 20 or so across era to be not large. So I use that as a calibrating point. That men are judged by the competition they face. Yes some eras have better competition than others but not by leaps and bounds. so I am biased against discounting some decades and raising other decades so much.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: To Paul - Re: where does Borzov stand...PLEASE DONT read

Postby Rob » Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:28 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: To Paul - Re: where does Borzov stand...PLEASE DONT read

Postby paulthefan » Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:29 am

sorry about that..I will cut it from the board..
Last edited by paulthefan on Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Re: To Paul - Re: where does Borzov stand...

Postby eldrick » Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:02 am

>Eldrick,

You are wrong, and you are also finally beginning to demonstrate
>that you were never an athlete. 250m is 200m training territory, not 400m
>territory. All 100m / 200m sprinters run 250m timetrials - ask anyone who has
>ever competed at a reasonable level: I regularly ran 250 timetrials, but I
>never ran a competitive 400m in my life (outside relays). 400m runners may
>run 250s as well, but for speed endurance tests they usually run 500m or
>600m.

Assuming you now accept that 250m is sprinters' territory (basically
>anything below 30 seconds is sprinters' territory), then the only way to run a
>250 timetrial is as I highlighted in the two options above. That is what
>sprinters do! Your correlations with 200m / 400m races out of blocks and then
>trying to interpolate between is flawed - seriously flawed.

Ask an athlete,
>rather than theorising - any athlete, if you don't believe me.

One thing we
>do agree on is that a hand-timed flying 250m in 24.1 is worth around 25.34
>F.A.T. out of blocks. But now convince me that a perfectly conditioned
>sprinter of the calibre of Borzov, who could run 20.00 easing down for a 200m
>was not able to maintain 11.70 100m pace for another 50m (which is what a
>flying 5.34 50m equates to). Borzov ran repetition 800s in training to develop
>his strength over the closing stages of a 200m, and it is almost insulting to
>assume he couldn't maintain an 11.70 100m pace for another 50m - if you just
>switch-off the power at the finishing line of a 20-flat 200m, you will coast
>another 20 - 25m at sub-12 100m pace, never mind if you are going for a full
>250m from the outset, with an economic acceleration prior to passing through
>the start gate. Borzov did it 32 years ago, and there are now athletes around
>who can do it today.

Talk to some of them - because you are way-off base
>here.

rob

you are dreaming - 24.1HT is fantasy & for you to believe borzov can have done that is ridiculous

24.1HT is ~ 25.34

now just simple proportion will tell you this comes out as an 20.27

so his run can be described as :

- running 20m or so in order to build up the flying start (which is 20m of tiredness already)

- then running a 20.27 200 equivalent from the blocks

- then running ANOTHER 50m at this same 20.27 pace

if you believe the man has been born (apart from MJ) who could possibly do this, you are severely deluded
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sat Sep 25, 2004 10:17 am

BTW:

19.90 \ 25.34 -> for 300m & 400m

30.86 !

(42.11 !!)

forget the 400,but consider the 300m time

borzov's alleged 25.34 -> 30.86 ability for 300m, which is virtually identical to what MJ could only run at altitude & in great shape ( MJ was certainly in 19.9 shape at any time post '96 & won the 400 that year in 43.84 )
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:55 pm

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:05 am

> You can stand by
>yours, if you wish.

i certainly do

as simple as i can put it, borzov has (alleged) = 25.34

well what would various 300m times come out to simply proportioned down to 250M ?

31.70 -> 26.41

31.48 -> 26.23

30.85A -> 25.71A

oh, BTW, it is alleged borzov would have no problem holding on for the extra 50m from 200m to 250m,buy running conservativly

so why can't we just assume he could hold on for another 50m to 300m at same pace (seeing as he has no limits)

25.34 proportioned upto 300m is

30.41
Last edited by eldrick on Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:14 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:58 am

>If Borzov had had to run a further 50m at the
>end of the 250 timetrial, but was only told at the end to continue running (ie.
>not pacing himself in advance), his last 50m would have been no faster than ~
>6.5 secs due to the lactic acid build-up. This would have given him a total
>time over 300 of 30.6 flying, or ~ 31.84 F.A.T from blocks - what is wrong with
>that?

that is a ridiculous:

25.34 & spent & still hold on for 31.84 ???

considering the fact that no one ran faster than time until kirk's 31.70 (in a PERFECTLY PACED race) in '84 - this from a guy with 19.96 ability at the time & a solid 400 background - incidentally breaking the previous WR of 32.16 ( !!!) held by mel lattany

considering also butch reynolds, a man with the arguably greatest last 200 ever seen in the hx of 400m running couldn't run faster than 32.05, to suggest a guy who is "finished" at 250m could hang on for another 50m against the fastest-charger at the end of a long sprint we've ever seen & still beat him by over 0.2 s is stupid

on top of that consider mennea, who held the record before mel with a 32.23 in '79 - he was in ~20.00 shape then & very solid 400 background behind him & even he in a presumably well-judged race could only get within 0.4s

suggesting 31.84 holding on after being spent at 250 is insulting to any intelligent poster on this forum
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:12 am

here is the what i'd suggest a 19.90 - 20.00 guy would run for 300m, assuming 25.34 ability:

30.74 - 30.86

please explain to me how borzov could potentially run a faster 300m than MJ could ever hope to in his career? ( 30.85A is ~ 0.3s slower at sea-level = ~ 31.15 ) of course MJ's fastest low-altitude time was 31.56 & believe me, he was giving his all, to beat everett's 31.48 WR at the time
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:19 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:42 am

>So maybe his last 50m if he had been told to keep going through to 300m would
>have been slower than 6.5 - who cares: He wasn't running 300! How much does it
>take for you to realise that 250 and 300 are not run the same way. Therefore it
>doesn't matter what MJ, Baptiste, Lattany, etc could run for 300m...it wasn't
>250. (In any case, Borzov would have wiped the floor with Lattany over
>300m).

This is going nowhere.



speak for yourself

it may be going nowhere for you

for a start, borzov had similar 200 ability as the mennea of '79 & mennea had better 400 ability & mennea still could only run 32.26 !

anyway, you want to stick to 250

fine,

take MJ:

his 30.85A is worth ~ 31.08 at sea-level ( JRM's calculator gives 44.00 at pretoria being worth 44.31 sea-level (pretoria at 1332m) - an advantage by factor of 1.007 ( 20.00 becomes 20.13, a factor of 1.0065, so we use correction factor of 1.007, thus 30.85A becomes 31.07 at sea-level

well,lets say he was in 19.80 shape at the time (it was early season for him):

19.80 \ 31.07 ->

25.38 !!!

explain to me, how the f!ck you expect borzov to have been capable of running a time faster than MJ in great shape could have been expected to run ???
Last edited by eldrick on Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby HotDiggedyDog » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:45 am

>>Greene is a notch above Borzov... over 100m that's not disputed.

>Well, I dispute it.

>In my view the following hierarchy should be used when assessing greatness:
>1. Championship Record (ie. medals won in Major Championships).
>2. Win - Loss record against peer group challengers of the era.
>3. Annual World Ranking position (whether T&FN or alternative source).
>4. Longevity.
>5. Times recorded.




OK, so if you feel Borzov was a better 100m athlete than Mo, let's see how Mo fares with your 'system':

1. Three-time world champion. Olympic champ and Olympic bronze medallist four years later (in a time equal to his winning time from four years previous). Gold in 99 WCh 4x1, another gold in 2000 OG 4x1 and a silver in 2004 OG 4x1.



2. Over the years...
In 1997, Mo won 4 of his 12 finals (including the World Champs). Had 8 legal sub-10s, plus one wind-assisted

1998 - won 8 of his 12 finals. Another 8 legal sub-10s, plus two wind-assisted.

1999 - won 12 of his 13 finals. Nine legal sub-10s, plus two wind-assisted.

2000 - won 8 of his 11 finals. Six legal sub-10s, plus one wind-assisted.

2001 - won 7 of his 8 finals. Seven legal sub-10s, plus two wind-assisted.

2002 - won 5/12 finals. Five legal sub-10s, plus one wind-assisted.

2003 - won 1/5 finals. One legal sub-10.

2004 - won 5/12 finals. Eight legal sub-10s, plus two wind-assisted.

Between 1999 and 2001, he won 85% of his races. Of his 32 finals in those three years, he only lost 5 of them. Between 1997 and 2004, he has won almost 60% of his races - an astonishing statistic for a seven-year period.



3. In the T&FN rankings, was world ranked number 2 in 1997, then number 1 in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. Ranked number 3 in 2002, number 9 in 2003.

In the world lists, ranked in the top 4 of every year between 1997 and 2004. Topped the yearly world lists four times. Slowest SB between '97 and '04 was 9.94



4. Pretty good longevity for a sprinter. Won his first global medal just a few days after turning 23 yrs old. Won his most recent global medal at the age of 30, and still going strong. Ran 9.90 or quicker every year since 1997, apart from 2003 when his SB was 'only' 9.94.



5. Former WR holder, FIFTY-TWO sub-10 performances, plus another twelve wind-assisted. Ten times under 9.90!!

Average time (based on top ten performances) is 9.84. In 1999, his average time was 9.91 and in 1997 his average time was 9.93 (based on top ten races of that year).



Shall we start reviewing his 60m prowess too...?
HotDiggedyDog
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: New York

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby HotDiggedyDog » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:51 am

>When I ran a 250 timetrial, I couldn't have run any further at all by the end, let alone
>completing 300m in a respectable time.




Rob, if you post your times at 100m, 200m and the time you recorded in your 250m time-trial, we'll be able to see how well a 250m time trial fits in with a set of 100/200 times. You might just prove Eldy wrong!
HotDiggedyDog
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: New York

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:59 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:29 am

>You are still refusing to acknowledge the invalid approach of interpolating
>between 200 and 300 aren't you?

Come on eldrick, it isn't that difficult:
>Leave 300m times out of your 250 calcs, because 300 is not run the same way as
>200 or 250.

In other words (since you are clearly struggling), I do not
>suggest Borzov would have run faster than Johnson over 250, because if Johnson
>had run a 250 flying time trial he would have probably run faster than
>24.1.

In other words, MJ would not have run 25.38 if he had been stopping at
>250 during his 300m WR: He would have run quicker (around 25.25).

Is it that
>hard for you to understand the difference between running 200/250 and running a
>300? Put your calculator away and go and run one of each - see what
>happens.

Easy example: With two equally-rated 200m and 400m runners (in
>their own events), the 200m specialist will win every time at 250m, but not at
>300m, because the human body has to adopt a different approach after approx. 30
>secs of sprinting, which then becomes the 400m specialist's territory.

Do
>not compare 250m times with 300m times - it is flawed. I have said this
>before, but you just seem to keep using the same erroneous calcs - why??

you are talking rubbish

so a 200m race is a "sprint" whereas a 300 one is a "middle distance" race ???

no man can run a 200 flat out & obviously they can't for 300 either

you run a "modified sprint" for both, therefore any distance in between - 250m will be run as a modified sprint - the relative importance of speed/endurance which varies between 200 & 300 races is incorporated in 2 figures - 19.80 & 31.07 - hence it's no problem at all to work out what you would expect to run for 250m

here, you can see what a 19.80 \ 31.07 guy could expect to run for races of various distances:

210 -> 20.91
220 -> 22.02
230 -> 23.13
240 -> 24.25
250 -> 25.38
260 -> 26.51
270 -> 27.64
280 -> 28.78
290 -> 29.92

the above implies, that this 19.80 guy paces himself for longer distances by going thru 200m (say even pace) at slightly slower speed in order to last the longer distances

his expected 200 time to go thru (even pace) for longer races:

210 -> 19.91
220 -> 20.02
230 -> 20.11
240 -> 20.21
250 -> 20.30
...
290 -> 20.63

do you see a problem with the fact that for any race progressively 10m longer, the runner compensates for having to run further by going thru the 200m mark by ~ 0.09 - 0.1s slower ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby The King » Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:38 am

2001 - won 7 of his 8 finals. Seven legal sub-10s, plus
>two wind-assisted.

Even though he crossed the line in 3rd place at the 2001 Prefontaine Classic, behind Patrick Jarrett (9.89w) and Tim Montgomery (9.92w, same time as MO)...you cant really count that race a true loss, because Patrick Jarrett and Bernard Williams got away with the most outrageous flyers ever! Reaction times of; -0.042 (Jarrett) and 0.012 (Williams)
Thus causing MO to come from waayyy back (1.5-2metres)...But nevetheless I love the stats...probably because Ima huge MO fan...
Last edited by The King on Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby Rob » Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:22 am

..
Last edited by Rob on Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby The King » Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:12 am

>Eldrick,

Your figures don't work (again). If you are using MJ for your
>example, are you trying to tell me that when he ran the 300WR that he went
>through 200m in slower than 20.70?

He actually went through in 20.11+
Official splits:
100: 10.68+
200: 20.11+ (9.43+)
300: 30.85A (10.74)

As you can see, Johnson really paid the price for his crazy bend(!) If he had gone out in 10.68+, and then prehaps run an 9.53+ on the bend (giving him 20.21+ for 200 split) he could have had something left in the straight...prehaps around 10.45-10.58, giving him an time of around 30.66-30.79 (30.7-30.8)

For his 250m split-time, I have a source (from British mag; 'Athletics Weekly') which says that Johnson's final 50m was run in 5.61, which would give him an 250m en-route split of 25.24+
However, pierrejean gives MJ's 250m split at 25.28 (last 50 of 5.57)
The King
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:29 am

>Eldrick,

Your figures don't work (again). If you are using MJ for your
>example, are you trying to tell me that when he ran the 300WR that he went
>through 200m in slower than 20.70? I would say quicker, with more of a
>drop-off in the last 100m. This would be even more apparent for a 200m
>specialist who doesn't run 400m. He would be much closer to his 200 PB than
>the 0.9 you assume.

Similarly, the 200m split time in a 250 timetrial would
>also be slightly quicker than the the 20.30 that you quote.

For Borzov, he
>was capable of sub-20, and in his 250 timetrial, although I don't have
>individual splits, I would expect his first (flying) 200m to have been around
>19.0 (hand-timed), with the last 50m run in around 5.1. This would imply an
>average of 0.95 secs for each 10m segment in the first 200 (ie. slightly slower
>than the 0.92 secs average per 10m for his 150m time), followed by ~ 1.02
>average for each 10m segment in the last 50m (slowing due to fatigue). Which
>is the part you dispute - his ability to run a flying 200 in 19.0 (HT) or to
>maintain the speed of an 11.2 100m runner for the extra 50m?


those figures i gave are for a guy who runs the race even-pace for any distance between 200 & 300

as for borzov being able to maintain 5.1 for 200 to 250 - that is bullshit

his 150m training best is given as 14.8

if his 200 best is 19.9, then he was capable of 19.9 - 14.8 = 5.1s for the last 50m of a 200m at his ultimate best

how the hell do you expect us to believe he can also run the same 5.1s for the last 50m of a 250m race ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: Borzov v Hart and Robinson

Postby eldrick » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:01 am

>>For his 250m split-time, I have a source (from British mag;
>'Athletics Weekly') which says that Johnson's final 50m was run in 5.61, which
>would give him an 250m en-route split of 25.24+
However, pierrejean gives MJ's
>250m split at 25.28 (last 50 of 5.57)

don't forget this is at altitude, so you need to factor in 1.007, giving 25.42 - 25.46 sea-level

i gave 25.38 as likely best for a 19.80 \ 31.07 guy ( if you suggest he was more likely a high-30 guy at sea-level, his best for 250 quickens into the 25.2's )

it looks like he went thru upto the 250 mark too fast - his last 2 50m splits were 5.1 \ 5.6 - it looks like he ran more a 250m race & held on for grim death in the last 50m

you'll have to make up you're own mind how much slower that 5.1 ( = 25.42 to 25.46) should have been so that he had something left for that last 50m
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dukehjsteve and 7 guests