Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Horacio Esteves any reason behind his Olympic failure?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • rhymans
    replied
    To be honest, I don't think Esteves was even the best sprinter in Venezuela at the time. Arquimedes Herrera was a semi-finalist in both sprints in Tokyo, and ranked #4 in the world in the 100 in 1963. Esteves ran reasonably well in Rome in '60 but wasn't ever going to make the final. The only unlucky sprinter in the Rome semis was Jerome, who had a very good shot at beating Hary in the final - he was about a meter clear of Radford in the semis when he pulled

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Justin Clouder
    ...Ford's 10.0 was at altitude and he never broke 10.2...so yeah, a one off!...
    Actually, no! The never-broke-10.2 part is correct, but just as we can say that a guy like Nash was good because--unlike our buddy Esteves--in addition to his fast time he beat people, so did Ford (although I must confess to initially forgetting that). Not a real world-beater,but the WR came in '68, and he didn't World Rank, but he did get a No. 8 in '69.

    Won the Texas Relays (beating Mel Gray, who ended up 4th in both NCAA and AAU and ranked No.7 in world), 2nd at California Relays, 2nd at Kennedy Games (beating Lennox Miller [No. 3], Eddie Hart, Billy Gaines, Charlie Greene [No. 6] (pulled).

    So "one-off" is a bit harsh, at least in terms of his overall racing career.

    ps--he also had a 9.3y in his career, so he does get a "10.15"

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    The monster difference between Nash and Esteves is that E has no credentials against other world-class sprinters. As Justin noted, Nash won Z├╝rich in '68 and also won the English title that year. And the year before he had acquitted himself well in a U.S. tour, including a 4th in the AAU Championships (beating, among others, '65 world No. 1 George Anderson).

    In his 3-year run in the World Rankings he was twice No. 4 and once No. 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Clouder
    replied
    Nash also had an auto 10.28 ( winning in Zurich in 68 ) and ran 5 10.0s (3 windy, 1 legal, 1 nwi) and a couple of 9.2 100ys. He also suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and had to retire at the end of '69 at age 22.

    Justin

    Leave a comment:


  • Track fan
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Think you're missing the point that Justin & I were trying to make: Esteves probably never had a great race. He had one that was surely significantly altitude aided, and we have no idea about the timing.
    Is he any different than Paul Nash? Nash has been touted as a "white hope " type on this board, who could have medaled in Mexico City.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Everyone we talk about on this board was some sprinter of note. Nobody is talking about a 10.2 100 yarder here. Trust me none of the guys I mentioned were threats to win the Oly 100m. Sure all were good sprinters, that's not what we are talking about. Remember this is about Olympic level talent.

    Justin

    Cook was out of Oregon and a better indoor guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Clouder
    replied
    Here's a page on Esteves, it's in Spanish but there are some pics too (which I won't try to post separately).



    He was also 2nd at 100m and 1st at 200m at the 1961 South American Champs (10.6/21.3). Also ran 10.4 to win the Bolivarian Games in 1961. World ranked 7 in 64, presumably on the back of the 10.0.

    It is amusing seeing his 10.0 next to Bob Hayes' 10.0 from Tokyo, which was actually hand timed in 9.9 (THIS was the first ever 9.9, not Hines' 9.9/10.03) and was of course 10.06 auto. Those two '10.0s' were probably 4-5m apart!

    Justin

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Justin Clouder
    ...Smith's 9.9 was 10.14, which would still be a top class time for a junior today and was part of an outstanding season....
    Smtih also 3rd in NCAA and 7th in AAU in '69, ranked No. 6 in the country: he had two top-of-the-line years, not just a single race.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Cook was also (way) more than a one-race wonder.

    Tied 100y WR of 9.3 to win Modesto in '59 (missed NCAA with "skin rash & lymph gland swelling"), finished 3rd in NCAA in '61.

    Four times tied the indoor WR for 60y (6.0).

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Clouder
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas
    Ronnie Ray Smith WR 9.9
    Willie McGee WR 9.1
    Oliver Ford WR 10.0
    Roscoe Cook WR 9.3
    Smith's 9.9 was 10.14, which would still be a top class time for a junior today and was part of an outstanding season.

    McGee also had other fast times - 10.1, 10.0w, 9.0w, 9.1w...

    Ford's 10.0 was at altitude and he never broke 10.2...so yeah, a one off!

    Roscoe Cook I know nothing about...teach me!

    Justin

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Think you're missing the point that Justin & I were trying to make: Esteves probably never had a great race. He had one that was surely significantly altitude aided, and we have no idea about the timing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    He never placed higher than third at the Pan Am Games either.

    He was like...

    Ronnie Ray Smith WR 9.9
    Willie McGee WR 9.1
    Oliver Ford WR 10.0
    Roscoe Cook WR 9.3

    ....just had "a" great race.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Clouder
    replied
    For the record Esteves was 5th in sf2 in Rome in 60 in 10.57, which I believe was his fastest auto-time. He was a little unlucky, as 10.57 (Radford) won the first semi. He won his heat and qf. In 68 he was 6th in his heat in 10.65.

    Caracus is 922m up, btw.

    Justin

    Leave a comment:


  • Track fan
    replied
    I figured as much. Maybe his flat 10 was the equivalent of the South African debacle earlier this year......... :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    He pulled shortly after his 10-flat, but his "lack of success at the international level" may well be explained the same way you explain lack of such success for many WR setters from the hand-timed era. Having WR-holder status could have been as much a factor of the skill (or lack thereof) of the timers who produced the time.

    How experienced do you think timers were in Caracas, Venezuela in 1964?

    Esteves doesn't make the world top 50 for '63 or '65 (meaning he was 10.4 at best), and the only two marks listedin the World Rankings for '64, both in Caracas, are 10.2 and 10.0.

    He may well have been the second coming, and gotten screwed by his fragility, of course, but this cold-hearted observer says that any sprinter from the hand-timing era who didn't come close to those times anywhere else probably had the benefit of poor timing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X