Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mexico times revisited

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Richard, so what you are claiming is that Borzov running flat out in Munich could have run 19.90 - 19.95, but Smith would have run 19.85 - 19.90?

    How much do you allow for Smith's easing up in Mexico? Maybe it would have been ~ 19.75 without the arm extension / celebration (i.e. a similar 0.05 - 0.10 improvement as you gave Borzov for a corresponding flat out run in the Munich final).

    So that means the altitude difference between Mexico City and Munich only gives an Olympic athlete a 0.10 - 0.15 advantage over 200m (using Smith's times of "19.75" and "19.85 - 19.90" for the 2 "races" as comparators)?

    I don't buy that.

    In my view, and comparing the performances of several other 200m competitors to get some standardisation, Mexico City's altitude was worth ~ 0.25 over 200m. The altitude advantage of 0.10 - 0.15 was probably more valid for the 100m results (again, comparing other competitors' performances over the shorter distance).

    Or is it that Smith would have been better in Munich than he was in Mexico, for some reason?

    I see an all out final in Munich being:

    1. Borzov 19.95
    2. Smith 20.08
    3. Black 20.19

    If Carlos were to be included and had kept himself together, he could have maybe managed a 20.12.

    Speculative? Yes, of course.

    But I really haven't seen much in the way of a convincing counter-argument that would put TS metres ahead of anyone else from his era.

    Comment


    • #17
      And just for fun, using the same logic regarding altitude / easing down, etc I would have seen an idealised flat out Munich 100m final (including Mexico 'attendees') as follows:

      1. Borzov 10.03
      2. Hines 10.08
      3. Hart 10.14

      Comment


      • #18
        i see you don't grasp logic

        mennea 19.72A flat-out / 19.96

        smith 19.83A easing down / ??20.08

        & i don't see how on earth you get hines running 10.08 ?!

        did you not see he ran 10.03 at low altitude in semi in sacramento in '68 ???

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Rob
          1. Borzov 10.03
          2. Hines 10.08
          3. Hart 10.14

          1. Borzov 19.95
          2. Smith 20.08
          3. Black 20.19
          1. Hines 9.98
          2. Borzov 10.03
          3. Hart 10.08

          1. Smith 19.80
          2. Carlos (head in the game) 19.85
          3. Borzov 19.90

          Comment


          • #20
            Eldrick, it's basically the same differential (~ 0.25) between their high altitude and (in Smith's case predicted) low altitude times, which is consistent.

            Admittedly Smith ran 19.83 easier than Mennea ran 19.72 on the same track, but Mennea had a longer career with more consistency to get some decent low altitude times - Smith didn't. Otherwise he would have posted something faster than 20.30 FAT on a 'normal' track at some stage during his career.

            Hines ran 10.03 in 1968, but I don't think he would have been faster in Munich. Olympic 100m champions don't make a habit of running faster at the next Olympics. Lewis - as a rare (unique) exception - managed to, whereas Borzov and Greene repeated their times (respectively). Do you think Hines would have run faster (intrinsically) in Munich than he did in Mexico? I don't.

            Comment


            • #21
              Rob - what you also have to bear in mind is that in Mexico City Smith didn't blast the whole race. After his injury in the semi-final he had to be careful on the curve. In an idealised race in Munich he (of course gets reasonable lane - 5, 6 or 7) pushes a lot harder over the first 100 than in '68, passes 100 in just under 10.4, just over a metre behind Borzov, and catches him 30m from the end.

              Comment


              • #22
                rob, in your own post above you say 19.75 without the celebrating then advocate a 0.25s differential to low-altitude

                that's 20.00 by adding your own numbers !

                long careers don't interest me - mennea only had 2 seasons worth bothering with in his "long career" - '79 & '80

                smith needing to have run lots of 20-flats auto is unnecessary - he is to be judged on his gold race - like mj's 19.32 & bolt's 19.30 - what they did/didn't do before is immaterial - they are defined by their best race

                as for hines, he was only 22y in mexico & 9 times out of 10y, you'd expect him to be better at 26y ( mo was 26y in sydney & peaked at 27y & had injuriy afflicted career ever after )

                i believe his 9.95 was the outstanding peak race of his career ( but may have been better in '72 ) better by far than his 10.03 in trials - his semi in mexico was "only" won in 10.08 (+1.6) & he improved hugely in the final

                winning americans in those days usually ran much quicker in games than trials & i see hines being no different - i'd rate his 9.95A much quicker than his 10.03 & i'd expect even better at 26y with good 4y training in-between

                Comment


                • #23
                  Richard, with Smith being more of a 200/400 man I don't know how much faster he could have gone around the bend. If he had been really injured, then I don't see him finishing the race. If he was only very slightly injured, then maybe holding back around the curve actually helped him to blast past Carlos down the straight (which we hadn't seen happen before).

                  In Munich, if we had seen Borzov and Black come off the bend as they did, and then someone had stopped the tape (without knowing the result) and asked the following:

                  "Athlete #1 is a 100m specialist, who is running his 8th race in less than a week, whereas Athlete #2 only entered the 200m and is therefore running his 4th race, having just run a world low altitude best in the semis, and he also has a superior record over 400m. Which athlete will prevail over the last 80m of this 200m race?"

                  I think most people would have selected Athlete #2, but we all know how Borzov breezed past Black down the home straight.

                  I really can't see how Smith, over 1m behind Borzov coming off the turn, would finish 0.5 - 1m in front. Nobody could run that fast over the last 100m of a 200m race (in those days).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    black wasn't going to beat him from a better lane, but he wouda run him closer with maybe a 20.10 in lane 4/5 - he musta known he was screwed when given lane 1 but still had to try, albeit knowing it was impossible to win from there

                    black was good, but a notch below smith

                    as for smith being a 200/400 guy, he had a 10.1pb which was pretty damn good for a tall guy who coudn't start ( unlike current day bolt ) but does mean he woud always be chasing the 100/200 guys of the curve & expect to be 0.5 - 1m down on borzov, but wr 400m ability allows you to grab that deficit back

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by eldrick
                      black wasn't going to beat him from a better lane, but he wouda run him closer with maybe a 20.10 in lane 4/5 - he musta known he was screwed when given lane 1 but still had to try, albeit knowing it was impossible to win from there

                      black was good, but a notch below smith
                      Remember too that munich was of the old tight curve design, lane 1 was truly the kiss of death for Black. It is not altogether certain that Borzov wins wtih Black in an outside lane. Black was a very big dude built not unlike Borzov, it would seem that he gains significantly frrome a lane 5+ assignment.

                      There is nothing strange about a Black getting a 20flat pr from an outside lane.
                      Having said that I can also imagine a Borzov running sub20 with a better paced tempo from 50 to 100. .. On the whole Black does not get the credit he deserves.
                      ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Rob
                        Richard, with Smith being more of a 200/400 man I don't know how much faster he could have gone around the bend. If he had been really injured, then I don't see him finishing the race. If he was only very slightly injured, then maybe holding back around the curve actually helped him to blast past Carlos down the straight (which we hadn't seen happen before).

                        In Munich, if we had seen Borzov and Black come off the bend as they did, and then someone had stopped the tape (without knowing the result) and asked the following:

                        "Athlete #1 is a 100m specialist, who is running his 8th race in less than a week, whereas Athlete #2 only entered the 200m and is therefore running his 4th race, having just run a world low altitude best in the semis, and he also has a superior record over 400m. Which athlete will prevail over the last 80m of this 200m race?"

                        I think most people would have selected Athlete #2, but we all know how Borzov breezed past Black down the home straight.

                        I really can't see how Smith, over 1m behind Borzov coming off the turn, would finish 0.5 - 1m in front. Nobody could run that fast over the last 100m of a 200m race (in those days).
                        For those who saw T. Smith run, few would agree with your general conclusions. (1) Looking at him limping after the SF in Mexico City, run a few hours before the final, there can be little doubt he had an injury. (2) He was a great 200/400 man, and as such had the ability to sustain top speed better than anyone else at that time. He held back in the first half of the 200 m final in Mexico City, as a precaution to escape further possible injury. (3) To add to (2), he beat all top 400 m runners he met at that time, most notably Mottley and Lee Evans. In the BCG in 1966, Mottley ran an official 440 y time of 45.2, after a SF on the same day - see comments about Wint's runs in the 400 m in 1948 on another thread; almost all clockers had Mottley timed in 44.9-45.0. A month or so later, Tommie Smith beat him quite handily over 400 m in London, after a month or more out following injury at the NCAA.

                        I do not see that ALL of Smith's fast hand timed runs over 200m/200y can be discounted and said to be worth 20.3 (AT, turn) at best. The many discussions (threads) centering on Michael Johnson vs. Tommie Smith, are not easily resolved. Suffice it to say that most would agree that Smith did not approach his true potential in the 200 and the 400, especially the latter, which he ran very occasionally.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Rob
                          Richard, with Smith being more of a 200/400 man I don't know how much faster he could have gone around the bend. If he had been really injured, then I don't see him finishing the race. If he was only very slightly injured, then maybe holding back around the curve actually helped him to blast past Carlos down the straight (which we hadn't seen happen before).

                          In Munich, if we had seen Borzov and Black come off the bend as they did, and then someone had stopped the tape (without knowing the result) and asked the following:

                          "Athlete #1 is a 100m specialist, who is running his 8th race in less than a week, whereas Athlete #2 only entered the 200m and is therefore running his 4th race, having just run a world low altitude best in the semis, and he also has a superior record over 400m. Which athlete will prevail over the last 80m of this 200m race?"

                          I think most people would have selected Athlete #2, but we all know how Borzov breezed past Black down the home straight.

                          I really can't see how Smith, over 1m behind Borzov coming off the turn, would finish 0.5 - 1m in front. Nobody could run that fast over the last 100m of a 200m race (in those days).
                          For those who saw T. Smith run, few would agree with your general conclusions. (1) Looking at him limping after the SF in Mexico City, run a few hours before the final, there can be little doubt he had an injury. (2) He was a great 200/400 man, and as such had the ability to sustain top speed better than anyone else at that time. He held back in the first half of the 200 m final in Mexico City, as a precaution to escape further possible injury. (3) To add to (2), he beat all top 400 m runners he met at that time, most notably Mottley and Lee Evans. In the BCG in 1966, Mottley ran an official 440 y time of 45.2, after a SF on the same day - see comments about Wint's runs in the 400 m in 1948 on another thread; almost all clockers had Mottley timed in 44.9-45.0. A month or so later, Tommie Smith beat him quite handily over 400 m in London, after a month or more out following injury at the NCAA.

                          I do not see that ALL of Smith's fast hand timed runs over 200m/200y can be discounted and said to be worth 20.3 (AT, turn) at best. The many discussions (threads) centering on Michael Johnson vs. Tommie Smith, are not easily resolved. Suffice it to say that most would agree that Smith did not approach his true potential in the 200 and the 400, especially the latter, which he ran very occasionally.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by eldrick

                            as for hines, he was only 22y in mexico & 9 times out of 10y, you'd expect him to be better at 26y ( mo was 26y in sydney & peaked at 27y & had injuriy afflicted career ever after )

                            i believe his 9.95 was the outstanding peak race of his career ( but may have been better in '72 ) better by far than his 10.03 in trials - his semi in mexico was "only" won in 10.08 (+1.6) & he improved hugely in the final

                            winning americans in those days usually ran much quicker in games than trials & i see hines being no different - i'd rate his 9.95A much quicker than his 10.03 & i'd expect even better at 26y with good 4y training in-between
                            I rate Hines and Borzov as very much equal at their best over 100m, that is a tough call... I dont see any reason to believe that in late 60s to early 70s athletes would be able to peak in the 100m at 27y of age.. nope not a chance, the days of 30y olds making 100m finals didnt come until the 90s... with one exception from the 1940s and he was ironically blessed by not having to race at the elite level the 5 previous years.
                            ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by paulthefan
                              I dont see any reason to believe that in late 60s to early 70s athletes would be able to peak in the 100m at 27y of age
                              there is absolutely no physiological basis for this claim

                              loss of testosterone/bone mass density/slowing reflexes/etc don't come significantly into effect until the athlete gets into the 30s & those factors shouda been more than overcome by the increased muscle mass a guy can expect to have put on from age 22y to 28y thru years of accumulated weight-training & generally, more muscle ( right places ) means more speed

                              no way on earth majority of athletes be it now or back in '60s/'70s woudn't be better at aged 25 - 28y compared to 22 - 23y - a whole 4y of training to gain more strength in essentially a power event ( sprints )

                              you are confusing the fact that no prize-money forced majority of american sprinters to quit & find a 9 -5 job after their 1st games, which usually came within 3 or 4y of graduating from college ( & sometimes within 1 or 2y, depending on what year they graduated relative to 4y games cycle )

                              there is very little doubt the americans of '60s were possible repeat champs if given opportunity :

                              - in '68, hayes & carr wouda given hines & smith the toughest races of their lives ( carr ran 20.36 into a 0.8 on dirt - if you use 1s/lap better for synthetic, then that's getting him into 19.8s in '64 & at very worst a 20-flat )

                              - in '72, hines & smith wouda similarly given borzov all he couda handled

                              & it's not inconceivable one of these guys couda gone onto their 3rd games at close to 30 & threatened for gold - does it need reminding that mennea was at his peak at 27/28 & won his gold finally at his 3rd games at aged 28 - wells also won gold at 28y & set his pb that games - if mennea/wells couda done it, so coud any of aforementioned

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by eldrick
                                Originally posted by paulthefan
                                I dont see any reason to believe that in late 60s to early 70s athletes would be able to peak in the 100m at 27y of age
                                there is absolutely no physiological basis for this claim

                                OK, you have lumped alot of stuff into one post,

                                (forget all of the comparisons of particular athletes: Hines/Smith v Borzov there is not doubt that either of those two could have beat Borzov in 72. If they ran in 69,70 and 71 as they did in 68 their chances would have been diminished. All kinds of scenarios can be considered. )

                                What should be obvious to anyone with any background in sports medicine is that:

                                1) Testosterone levels drop off after 19-20ish.. and by 28 are nothing near that of the late teens early 20s ..... look it up. Your assertion above is false.

                                2) Sprinters dont age well, training at a high level can not be accomplished without serious risk of injury. Notice that the two older dash medalists Wells (27-28) and Ewell(30) both did not compete in the dashes for a significant portion of their peak years. look at the ages of the gold medalists from 36-72 ... Morrow tried to carry through to 60 and couldnt while the late starting Sime does.

                                3) The age of the 30-something dasher begins in earnest in the 90s and we all know that performance enhancing disciplines that can overcome 1) and 2) above were in full blossom starting in that decade.
                                ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X