1932 Oly 4 x 400 m

[catson52]

Just noticed that the 1932 US team that set a world record in this event that stood for 20 years, had an unusual composition. Bill Carr anchored the team, but Ben Eastman who lost his WR and the gold to Carr in the open 400 m, was not on the team. Nor was James Gordon who placed fifth in the open event. Why these omissions, and would the WR have been a second or more faster if Eastman and Gordon had run?

[gh]

common in that era for the U.S. to spread the wealth around in the medals department

[paulthefan]

Re: 1932 Oly 4 x 400 m

Just noticed that the 1932 US team that set a world record in this event that stood for 20 years, had an unusual composition.... Nor was James Gordon who placed fifth in the open event. Why these omissions, and would the WR have been a second or more faster if Eastman and Gordon had run?

Sure seems unfair to Gordon, he goes home with no medal...

[catson52]

common in that era for the U.S. to spread the wealth around in the medals department

A very silly attitude for those in power, arbitrary and dictatorial. Unless Eastman turned them down, how could they leave out the former world record holder - one of the few to have ever simultaneously held 400/800 m world records - going home without a gold? And as mentioned by paulthefan what about Gordon, no medal at all! Not too much of a surprise perhaps, noting what the USOC did to Owens in 1936, for not going along with all their "orders" after Berlin.

[paulthefan]

common in that era for the U.S. to spread the wealth around in the medals department

A very silly attitude for those in power, arbitrary and dictatorial. Unless Eastman turned them down, how could they leave out the former world record holder - one of the few to have ever simultaneously held 400/800 m world records - going home without a gold? And as mentioned by paulthefan what about Gordon, no medal at all! Not too much of a surprise perhaps, noting what the USOC did to Owens in 1936, for not going along with all their "orders" after Berlin.

with Eastman they would have gotten under 308.

[dj]

common in that era for the U.S. to spread the wealth around in the medals department

A very silly attitude for those in power, arbitrary and dictatorial. Unless Eastman turned them down, how could they leave out the former world record holder - one of the few to have ever simultaneously held 400/800 m world records - going home without a gold? And as mentioned by paulthefan what about Gordon, no medal at all! Not too much of a surprise perhaps, noting what the USOC did to Owens in 1936, for not going along with all their "orders" after Berlin.

Neither arbitrary nor dictatorial.

The four scheduled runners were the 4th through 7th finishers in the USFOT: Ed Ablowich, Ivan Fuqua, Arnold Adams and Karl Warner. When Adams came down ill (or injured), Carr ran as the substitute.

The selection method for both relays in '32 was the general standard for the U.S. through 1936. I'm not certain why it was changed for 1948, but it may have had had as much to do with post-War economic issues as with putting the best team out there.

[rhymans]

1948 team selection may have something to do with the Jamaican team - they knew about McKenley and (to a lesser extent) Wint. Having been ambushed in 1936 by the British team, when they would probably would have won if they'd used LuValle and Williams, they were probably aware of the possibility of being burned.

[dj]

1948 team selection may have something to do with the Jamaican team - they knew about McKenley and (to a lesser extent) Wint. Having been ambushed in 1936 by the British team, when they would probably would have won if they'd used LuValle and Williams, they were probably aware of the possibility of being burned.

All true, but the 4x100 composition was also changed to reflect the top four finishers in the USFOT 100 (although Lorenzo Wright was used as a sub when 4th-placer Eddie Conwell fell ill.)

There is a third possibility for the change in composition, other than the desire to field a stronger team or the costs of sending a relay runners who weren't competing in individual events. That possibility is one that would likely have been been kept secret.

It's certainly possible that the USOC/AAU, remembering the problems with the '36 U.S. 4x100, decided to change the protocol as a means of covering their tracks on '36. This way they could claim that the '36 switch which dropped Stoller and Glickman in favor of the first two USFOT finishers, Owens and Metcalfe, was merely a change in strategy which the new protocol was continuing.