Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4 x 100m men Munich 1972 Olympics amateur footage

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • 4 x 100m men Munich 1972 Olympics amateur footage

    hopefully ok to post as it's amateur footage & not some tv network's'

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGzFfQwW ... re=related

    not great view of finish, but does show good view of last exchange

    borzov long way down on american & level/behind with 3 or 4 other guys at exchange

    final time for him shows him beating the 3rd/4th/5th placed teams by 0.29s/0.32s/0.40s

    presumably the last leg guys for these countries were ~ ? 10.25 - 10.35 calibre

    so, borzov took at least 0.30s off them - that does indicate he showed about 10-flat ability on last leg & no disgrace in that losing effort

  • #2
    I well remember the hype that Jim McKay threw into the mix, a la USSR vs USA, and the expectation that USA would mightily crush that lucky upstart Valery Borzov. As the race was ending he was yelling about how the US had crushed Borzov, as well as the USSR. As can be well seen, the US crushed USSR, but they sure did not crush Borzov. He was the real thing, and ran a very good anchor leg.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ah yes, yet another race w/ the U.S. drawn in lane 1.

      Comment


      • #4
        i found it by chance following on from a link from quarrie's '76 win

        he was in lane 2 & americans in middle/outer ones !

        Comment


        • #5
          Think Larry Black was in lane 1?

          Comment


          • #6
            I was referring solely to Munich, where the U.S. draws defied the laws of chance (as in, Larry Black in lane 1 in all three rounds of the 200).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gh
              I was referring solely to Munich, where the U.S. draws defied the laws of chance (as in, Larry Black in lane 1 in all three rounds of the 200).
              Didn't hurt Aki-Bua any.....

              Comment


              • #8
                that changes complexion a lot !

                he was handicapped in final mathematically by ~0.1s in lane 1 compared to a mid-lane - so ~ 20.10 accepted, but still long way off 20.00

                however, 2 previous runs lane 1, including a near low-altitude wr of ~ 20.3 in semis, where it's logical to assume that he ran that fast outta panic to ensure making the finals, does indicate thru commonsense that more starch had been taken out of his sails compared to a possible pre-games expectation of say, 20.7 + 20.5 in prelims outta mid-lanes, & off-course borzov

                he shouda been worth some hundredths better if given prelims in mid-lanes

                close to 20-flat doesn't seem unreasonable - not likely to win, but it may have been desperately close...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dukehjsteve
                  Originally posted by gh
                  I was referring solely to Munich, where the U.S. draws defied the laws of chance (as in, Larry Black in lane 1 in all three rounds of the 200).
                  Didn't hurt Aki-Bua any.....
                  how do we know that?
                  ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Akii-Bua was enough better than the rest of the field to win from lane -1, -2, -3 or -4 (aka, Franklin Field :-) )

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We have had this same discussion on the Munich72 4X100: To summarize, the US team was as oustanding a sprint relay team as any historic US 4x100 team. They were handicapped in lane 1 and yet still get the baton to Hart wtih a 3+m lead. The USSR team was underwhelming with the notable exception of Borzov whose leg was brilliant. 3 sleds followed by brillance equals second place.
                      ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Same discussion, and you're still as wrong as ever regards how good the '72 team was :-)

                        No superstar and a No. 4 of no particular distinction.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gh
                          Same discussion, and you're still as wrong as ever regards how good the '72 team was :-)

                          No superstar and a No. 4 of no particular distinction.
                          The 72 team ran a 1) WR time from 2) lane 1 on 3) Munich's tight oval, a track of no particular distinction as a fast surface. Which one of those 3 facts are in dispute? If none then I certainly am as wrong as ever.
                          ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The Munich track was assuredly very fast. It just didn't gain any particular notoriety for two reasons:

                            1. It had to compete with all the Mexico City altitude (and wind?) aided stuff that had preceded it and threw WRs all out of kilter for years.

                            2. It was auto-timed in a hand-timing era. Borzov would have been a 9.8 or a 9.9 with typical hand timing of the era. What would you have thought then?

                            Other "WRs" went unnoticed because auto-timing wasn't a category then. Stecher ran the fastest women's auto 100 ever, Ehrhardt the fastest 100H (lasted for 6 years). And Stecher set WR in the 200 even w/ the auto-timing handicap. And West Germany equalled WR in women's 4x1.

                            Rod Milburn tied WR in 110H (with an auto time not bettered for another 5 years).

                            Oh, methinks the track was plenty fast, once you put all the Mexico City "9.9" foolishness in proper perspective.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Warren Edmonson was a superior sprinter to Gerald Tinker and should have been on that 72 4x1. It should have been..

                              Warren Edmonson
                              Robert Taylor
                              Larry Black
                              Eddie Hart

                              Apparently Rey Robinson wasn't a relayer.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X