Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Rounds At Trials

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: More Rounds At Trials

    Kuha is right on both counts. OM did go to SIU. Also there is way too much pork at the trials. Since one cannot get an A standard after the trials and the probability of getting one at the trials is small, why not make all qualifiers get an A standard to get to the trials? The Kenyans don't emulate the Oly time schedule so why should we?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: More Rounds At Trials

      ..

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: More Rounds At Trials

        If the 'all-conquering' US sprinters think they are good
        >enough to double-up in the Olympics, and with all the recent hype and bravado
        >on this forum regarding the possibility of someone even achieving the Olympic
        >sprint double, then why is it such a problem for any of them to follow this
        >schedule at the US Trials? This is what they will be called-on to undertake at
        >the Olympics, so why not at the trials?

        The extra rounds of the 200 (for a
        >given standard of entrants) means that the qualification to get through each
        >round is eased (in comparison to having only 3 rounds), and in any case they
        >only have to finish in the first 3 to qualify for their chance to achieve an
        >Olympic sprint double. (ie. 3rd in the 100 and 200 at the trials still entitles
        >that athlete to try for an Olympic sprint double, without any dispersions being
        >cast on his ability).

        If sprinters scratch from the 200 trials
        >mid-competition, then how on earth are they going to have the necessary
        >physical and psychological reserves to successfully undertake an Olympic sprint
        >double campaign??

        Strong psychological qualities are important attributes in
        >sprinting, but this is one area where US sprinters suffer - hence their
        >relatively poor performances in Olympic 100 finals over the last 30 years.

        quite simply,no other country has an olympic schedule of sprints,just to qualify for the olympics itself!

        mo & bernard scratched last year - but no one is going to persuade me they don't have the necessary physical & psychological qualities to double up! remember mo is the only man to acieve the 100/200 double in WC!!!

        other contries just pre-select their top guy:kim,KK,darrel,etc. giving those an easy ride into OG,allowing them to prepare as they feel appropriate without much stress.US guys will likely run faster in the trials in 100/200 than the OG finals will be won in - that's what i call great stress

        i don't think i'll bother answering about poor US performances in 100m in OG - plenty of guys here will answer that better than me

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: More Rounds At Trials

          ..

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: More Rounds At Trials

            Bearing in mind that
            >the US male sprinters go into every Olympics thinking that they 'own' the 100,
            >do the names Borzov, Crawford, Wells, Christie and Bailey mean anything to
            >you?

            tell me how many of those would likely still have won gold if they had had to run 8 rounds in the US trials,just to get to OG

            on a side note,no US sprinter in '72 would have beaten borzov (the eddie harts weren't in his class),but if the likes of hayes/hines had continued onto '72,they would have given him a helluva race (both would have been still less than 30y old by that date) - but in those days all an OG meant was a ticket to receiver with the Cowboys

            in '76,the best US sprinters like steve williams,steve riddick & clancy edwards didn't make OG thru injury/failure in US trials & these guys were ranked the best 100m runners of mid-late 70's - i would have taken any one of these guys (if pre-selected) to have given crawford the race of his life for the gold

            in '80 due to boycott,guys like james sanford (10.02),edwards,mel lattany & yes even the young King didn't get a chance to compete

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: More Rounds At Trials

              this isn't relevant to the 100m discussion,but one fascinating fact about clancy edwards is that he was the only guy by '80 who had run 2 FAT,low-altitude sub 20.10's ( yes the borzov's/quarrie's only ever managed one such clocking throughout the '70's)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: More Rounds At Trials

                interesting link to 100m rankings of '70's:

                http://digilander.libero.it/rzocca/men/100m.htm

                i missed out names such as harvey glance & stan floyd

                here is the list for 200m

                http://digilander.libero.it/rzocca/men/200m.htm

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: More Rounds At Trials

                  ..

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: More Rounds At Trials

                    >Yes, I too can list a whole collection of American sprinters who were very good
                    >during the 70s and early 80s. But that's the problem - the likes of Williams,
                    >Riddick, Sanford, Edwards, McTear, Floyd, Glance, etc didn't win any major
                    >Championships - whatever the reason.

                    here is one very good reason - boycott (seems to have slipped your mind)

                    To think that Hines (or Hayes) could
                    >have beaten Borzov in 1972, "if they had kept running" is extremely amusing.
                    >Borzov was world ranked 1 going into the Olympics and beat all the best
                    >Americans before and after Munich. Lennox Miller, whose form in 1968 and 1972
                    >was essentially the same (described by himself) was much closer to Hines in
                    >Mexico City than he was to Borzov in Munich.

                    i did state the 100m US guys weren't anything special,so a better contest would have been from a reigning(or former champ). as for lennox,well his form wasn't good enough to win in '68 & he expected that same sub-champion abilty to win in '72?
                    as for hines - go check the record books - he ran 10.03 FAT,low altitude in '68 (the fastest ever).borzov won OG in 10.14 (10.07 PB semi).there's a damn good chance hines could have kicked on to be a ~ 9.95 FAT/low altitude guy if his career had continued.borzov was good,but no one in their wildest dreams would claim that of him


                    Borzov then went on to beat the
                    >3 American sprinters in Montreal 4 years later (thereby ensuring they were run
                    >out of the medals in the 100), even though he was no longer at his best.

                    yeah in 10.14 - i'm terrified. as i said because of bad luck/injury in trials the top US guys didn't go to OG. did you read that link i posted: '75 :riddick 10.05,williams 10.08

                    '76: crawford 10.06

                    riddick & williams lucked out in '76 trials & didn't go - if they had been european/caribbean & pre-selected,they would have been been given time to get over their injury & just told to get fit & ready for OG & not worry about any early/mid-season injuries.US guys don't get that luxury



                    > in the early 70s, he was undisputedly the best sprinter in the world. In the
                    >mid-late 70s, Crawford & Quarrie accounted for the best of the US, and in the
                    >late 70s the likes of Ray (RIP), Leonard, Wells & Mennea were perfectly able
                    >to rank 1 over the 100m, or to win the major races.

                    these are not frightening names:

                    crawford ran good,but riddick/williams could have beaten him.quarrie won in 20.23 (jeez! how slow can you go!)
                    ray (i assume eugene) - what did he win? he was never considered any threat by US sprinters.
                    leonard ran all his quick times at altitude,wells - well,he just wasn't fast! 10.11/20.21 is nothing to lose sleep over.as for "human growth hormone" mennea:winning OG in 20.19 isn't giving me nervous diarrhoea + his 10.01 had an A next to it


                    And I believe they would
                    >all have had no problem negotiating the US Trials as precursors to their
                    >subsequent Championship performances.

                    we'll never know,but i would reckon half of those guys wouldn't have got thru US trials: crawford had an injury rate higher than the austrian ski-ing team & quarrie spent plenty time injured - i wouldn't have thought these guys chances of getting thru US trials & winning OG were good at all.as for leonard/wells - i'm not sure they were plain quick enough to get into top 3 in US trials (10.11 for wells!! & i saw leonard run plenty - he just didn't look that fast)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: More Rounds At Trials

                      ..

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: More Rounds At Trials

                        >Your arguments are not only subjective ("he didn't look that fast") but also
                        >based purely on times, rather than Championship pedigree: This is a beginner's
                        >mistake, symptomatic of armchair athletes.

                        You are also fond of "what ifs"
                        >with regard to your favoured US sprinters - what if they hadn't been injured,
                        >what if they hadn't misread the Olympic timetable, what if they hadn't
                        >boycotted...

                        If you go by Championships, Borzov, Crawford, Quarrie, Wells
                        >and Mennea are all Olympic Gold medallists over 100m and/or 200m.

                        If you go
                        >by rankings, Borzov, Leonard, Quarrie and Ray were all world ranked 1 over 100m
                        >for at least one year during the 70s. Borzov, Leonard and Quarrie also ranked 1
                        >at 200m, as well as Mennea, who also broke the WR.

                        If Wells wasn't 'fast',
                        >then how did he beat the Americans throughout 1981?

                        (Incidentally, Borzov's
                        >10.07 was in the 2nd round, not the semi: And he didn't have to run anywhere
                        >near maximum effort to achieve it, so why not sub-10 FAT at low altitude, if
                        >some of your US boys had actually been good enough to push him?).

                        i'm quite entitled to make subjective judgements,because i saw all these guys race quite extensively. did you?

                        seeing these guys race,i make up my own mind on their merits,as i have little interest in rankings.as for fast times,this is not middle-distance racing where times don't count,this is sprinting,where proven ability to run fast times is the background from which you can win big races.

                        over reliance on using rankings to predict outcome of races is a novice's mistake,usually indicating that you haven't seen the athletes in question run & have to make judgements from someone else's passed down info.not using your observation & experience to make a prediction is criminal

                        what if's are the lifeblood of sport,or are you too scared to use your own imagination?

                        mennea ran 19.72 at altitude & ran large parts of the curve inside his own lane.any decent judge should have DQ'ed him for that,or haven't you seen that race?

                        wells beat the US guys in '81,but that wasn't an olympic year & i doubt the US boys were fully prepped up as they would have been had it been so

                        borzov was good & i have no problem in believing he could have gone close to 10.00 that year,if pushed - i simply stated that hayes & hines were just potentially quicker (hayes '64 run of 10.06 on a raked over cinder track,in itself would have been close to 9.90 on a synthetic track, & by '72 he would have been still only 30y old. as for hines,he only ran 2y of top-level athletics & then retired! retired at 22y,when he would have had potentially 10y to improve). no US guy who was present in '72 would have beaten borzov,but i believe the previous champs if active would have done so (there i go,using my imagination - or don't you like that?)

                        out of the guys i saw in '70's/'80,i would go on talent/ability basis over 100m

                        1)sanford
                        2)borzov
                        3)williams
                        4)riddick
                        5)crawford
                        6)floyd
                        7)edwards
                        8)wells
                        9)quarrie
                        10)leonard

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: More Rounds At Trials

                          >out of the guys i saw in '70's/'80,i would go on talent/ability basis over 100m

                          1)sanford
                          2)borzov
                          3)williams
                          4)riddick
                          5)crawford
                          6)floyd
                          7)edwards
                          8)wells
                          9)quarrie
                          10)leonard<

                          If we're counting 1970, I'd have to include Carlos. I thought he was more impressive in 1969 and 1970 than any of those guys were in the 10 years that followed.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: More Rounds At Trials

                            Fred or Jas.SANFORD?. Grady

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: More Rounds At Trials

                              >Fred or Jas.SANFORD?. Grady

                              james

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: More Rounds At Trials

                                Back to GH's summary at the top of this thread. The 100, 200, 400, and 110H should be done with 3 rounds; the 400H, 800, and 1500 with 2 rounds; and the steeple, 5, and 10 as straight finals. Anything more than this is a waste of time and effort, and will simply make it more likely that worthy athletes are lost to injury or other unforseen disasters.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X