Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zola Budd pushed Mary on purpose !

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.
    Well it's not Puica's fault that Mary was incompetent when running with people around her :roll:

    Actually, Puica became immortalized as an instant trivia question answer.

    Here's another: Who was the American woman to FIRST fall in the 1984 Olympic 3,000 meters?



    >the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.

    Only to tunnel-visioned, fact-ignoring bun-hugger sniffers. Everyone else respects Puica for being the world class runner savvy enough to anticipate probvlems in close quarters while racing and stay on her feet in international competition (unlike two others in that race) and win the race.

    Go over to Romania sometime. Maybe she'll let you see her gold medal, if you promise not steal it so you can return it to it's "rightful owner."
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.
    Really? Where was Slaney in the 1.500m when Puica ran to bronze? Where was Slaney in 1987 when Puica ran to silver in the 3.000m in Rome? Moreover, where was Slaney at the 1984 World Cross Country Champs 5.000m... the one Puica won? Or the 1982 World Cross Country Champs 4,7km... the one Puica won?

    I remember Puica as one of the most consistent and fastest runners of her era - one of two Romanians (Paula Ivan) who eventually paved the way for Gabriella Szabo to receive the torch and carry on with her own distinguished career. However, because Puica is only known for winning a race Slaney couldn't finish, I must not know anything, whatsoever, or am delusional.

    Puica averaged 8.33,1 and 3.58,6 over both the 1.500m and 3.000m distances in her top-10 times ever recorded; her winning mark in Los Angeles was only her eighth-best time; she'd eventually run 8,13 seconds faster the following season.

    Slaney hadn't come within almost five seconds of a two-year-old PB in 1984 and hadn't a single sub-4.00 to her credit that season; she entered Los Angeles with an 8.34,91 under her belt from the same track to which she'd ultimately find her life's work tied a couple of months later. Puica had run 0,24 off of her PB that season ahead of Los Angeles -- 8.33,33 to 8.33,57. Furthermore, Puica dropped her 1.500m down to 3.57,22.

    Slaney got lucky with the Russians in 1983. I don't think Puica would have had the same misfortune.

    Leave a comment:


  • nevetsllim
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.
    Well it's not Puica's fault that Mary was incompetent when running with people around her :roll:

    Leave a comment:


  • williamwindhamjr
    replied
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by Dutra
    Slaney wasn't the same runner in '84 as she was in '83.

    Or in 1985 for that matter (sub 4:20 Mile, wins over Budd and Puica). Which gives greater credence to the (understandably underplayed at the time) injury-induced training setback in 1984.

    And Brigette Kraus and Wendy Smith-Sly showed some fine closing speed, too. An injured Slaney might have come up without any medal at all.


    As someone in Boulder (from the business end of the running business) told me later in 1984, if she (Slaney) wasn't going to win, being unable to finish through no fault or questionably debatable fault of her own was the best thing that could have happened to her, financially, in terms of public opinion and continued marketability.

    This person may have had a good point: LA was the American hometown stage for an athlete, in the eyes of the general public, to either succeed or "fail" and (unfairly) the oft-times ignorant American sporting public has shown to have little stomache for "losers." As John Walker once said about his Montreal 1500m. win with all the pressure, "No one cares about second or third in the Olympic Games. You can win a silver or bronze medal, no one really cares. It's the champion...winning is everything. If you don't win, you're nothing."
    [--The Supermilers videocassette, early '80's.]


    Because of what happened and how it happened, Slaney neither won nor lost.

    Leave a comment:


  • nevetsllim
    replied
    Oh for crying out loud :roll: Get a life - I've watched this race on numerous occasions and Zola did not push her. Why would she if there was a chance that she could have fallen too, not to mention she was her idol?

    Quite frankly I'm glad whiny Mary didn't win gold. Puica was a hugely deserving winner and one of my favourite athletes from the 1980s.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dutra
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    Brian,
    I guess it's cool to have an opinion about a hypothetical situation, for which there will never be a real answer. Yes, Puica ran well on the day, and deserved the win, because.....she won. I would suggest the win became a lot easier after Zola and Mary got tangled up. She may have won regardless, or maybe not.
    I don't know if you were in Helsinki in 1983 or not. I was, and I saw Mary out-kick some pretty damned good runners over the last 100 metres in 2 events. So your theory about her having to run everyone off their feet from the front, holds no water with me... But maybe I'm just not a "knowledgeable observer".
    Slaney wasn't the same runner in '84 as she was in '83.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    Helsinki in 1983 or not. I was, and I saw Mary out-kick some pretty damned good runners over the last 100 metres in 2 events. So your theory about her having to run everyone off their feet from the front, holds no water with me... But maybe I'm just not a "knowledgeable observer".

    You misread my post. I never said she HAD to do that in order to win, merely that she CHOSE to first try that tactic (as she did in Helsinki, as you must remember since you were there).

    [And it wasn't a bad strategy, as assumedly everyone in LA would be keying off her.]

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    Brian,
    I guess it's cool to have an opinion about a hypothetical situation, for which there will never be a real answer. Yes, Puica ran well on the day, and deserved the win, because.....she won. I would suggest the win became a lot easier after Zola and Mary got tangled up. She may have won regardless, or maybe not.
    I don't know if you were in Helsinki in 1983 or not. I was, and I saw Mary out-kick some pretty damned good runners over the last 100 metres in 2 events. So your theory about her having to run everyone off their feet from the front, holds no water with me... But maybe I'm just not a "knowledgeable observer".
    Brian was pretty careful to say that her 1500 OT loss made it clear that she "was not the same runner as the previous year." She was fabulous in '83, no question...

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Brian,
    I guess it's cool to have an opinion about a hypothetical situation, for which there will never be a real answer. Yes, Puica ran well on the day, and deserved the win, because.....she won. I would suggest the win became a lot easier after Zola and Mary got tangled up. She may have won regardless, or maybe not.
    I don't know if you were in Helsinki in 1983 or not. I was, and I saw Mary out-kick some pretty damned good runners over the last 100 metres in 2 events. So your theory about her having to run everyone off their feet from the front, holds no water with me... But maybe I'm just not a "knowledgeable observer".

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian
    replied
    Originally posted by lovetorun
    One thing I am most sure of is that, barring the incident that took MS out, she would have won handily. I have to smile when people say Puica would have won anyway.

    Uh, looking back at the race, Slaney was doing her predictable front-running/try to get away stuff, either to get a break or simply spread out the field and get away from all but the real contenders.

    Trouble was, everyone was a "real contender." And everyone knew her tactic and stuck to her like glue.

    Slaney had a taped up calf and--truthfully or otherwise--admitted later to having a minor flareup that affected her training. So Slaney perhaps wasn't 100% (give her the benefit of the doubt). Any problem in training would hurt either sharpness (careful to not re-injure by doing too much pure speed) or stamina (having to cut back losing the edge strength-wise).

    [Also, there was a belief by some in the know that Slaney's rock-solid confidence had been shaken by her Olympic Trials loss in the 1500m. to...Ruth Wysocki! --Not so much because she lost to another American, but because the loss showed she wasn't the same runner as the previous year; again, giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps to something being lost to injury-related training cut-back.]


    Keep watching. Not being able to break away, Slaney slows, claiming later it was no big deal, she just wanted the pack to catch up so she could rest up for a big push in the later stages (or something like that; again, not a bad strategy, if true and not simply post-race rationalizing).

    So by the time the race in halfway finished there are still a bunch of legitimate contenders in position to win the race. Puica had the best finishing kick and was just as strong as anyone in the field: advantage, Puica.

    Puica finishes with a HUGE kick, Slaney or no Slaney.

    So keep smiling. The way the race was run, regardless of the fall, Puica would almost certainly have had it. And if Slaney would have managed to win, it would NOT have been "handily." To any knowlegable observer, she was in trouble as soon as it became apparent she couldn't shake the field with the fast early pace!

    Leave a comment:


  • skiboo
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    I think you lonepoof and breyers need to get glasses.Mary had the inside of the track when zola thud starts stumbling.If you really knew your history, it wasnt the first time zola had problems like that in a race

    Breyers?

    Someone brought ice cream...?
    Now I really don't want to know what a lone poof is......

    Leave a comment:


  • dal4018
    replied
    Re: Zola Budd pushed Mary on purpose !

    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    I have looked at the tape over and over, and have come to the conclusion that it was not an accident. The whole race Zola was running next to Mary like she was her mama, not giving her any room.As a matter of fact she was all over the place.As far as Im concerned Mary is the gold medal winner.Yeah I Know my opinion doesnt count but that [email protected]$%&^ruined Marys Legacy
    That '84 3k final was an accident by Budd not done on purpose

    Leave a comment:


  • Dutra
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    Mary has left a bar,
    Is she heading to "Intervention"?

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Decker experienced the same trouble in the 1983 world champs when Zamira Zaitseva got a step on Slaney on the last turn and cut in on her - not illegally, but it was a close step which caused Slaney to have to adjust. Said Slaney, "It was the kind of rough tactics you get in big races. That's one reason I'm here, to get used to dealing with things like that."

    On a race run one year later, williamwyndhamjr believes Budd used illegal tactics against Decker.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X