Run-Down Forums

[Justin]

I think I need to stop in more often - a few days away and there's too much to comment on!

On starters, I can only comment on those I've seen and since I'm 32 that means 80s onwards. In the 20 yrs since I've been watching, no one comes any where near Ben Johnson for truly destructive starting. By destructive I mean demoralising for the opposition, as in Seoul. Johnson's reaction times were good but it was his first 10-20m that won him races. In Rome in 87 Johnson covered the first 10m in 1.84 and Lewis in 1.94. That 0.1 same gap he had at the end.

Of the current crop, Drummond is the quickest off the blocks but Mo definitely has a more Johnson-like 0-20m acceleration and thus the better all-round start. Surin was surprisingly fast for a tall guy, he was a 60m world champ, as was Jason Gardener, who regularly leads Chambers and the other Brits to 50m.

Famous older starters include Armin Hary ("The Thief of Starts"), who from pictures I've seen was half a yard quicker over the first 5. Of course, he had a special technique...

The turn vs straight comparison is interesting. We should bear in mind that 200m runners are not going absolutely flat-out for the first 100m. Had Johnson (10.12), Fredericks (10.14) and Boldon (10.1, the fastest ever recorded (in Atlanta) been racing only to the 100m mark they would, I assume have gone quicker.

That said, the evidence from 4x100m races is that the turn slows athletes by around 0.3 to 0.4 from their straight times. No matter what HSI claim, Jon Drummond hasn't been clocked faster than 10.30 on a first leg yet I've never seen him beaten to the first change. Consider also 3rd leg runners vs 4th leg runners. The very best anchor men (Lewis, Bailey) run around 8.90, the very best bend runners (Smith, Mitchell), flying start and all, around 9.20 to 9.30. This also suggests a 0.3 to 0.4 disadvantage.

Justin

[Dan]

[Conway]

Regarding starters I would agree that it is not just the quickness off the mark but that acceleration ... And I would have to rank McTear and Johnson as the most "destructive" I've seen ... Hands down ... I've never really thought about Greene in this regard, probably because his race is so complete ... But I would agree that he too should be placed in that category ... He is the WR holder indoors at 60m ... And except for those occassions when he is caught in the blocks he does put his races away within the first 30 meters ...

I've heard that ARmin Hary had a "special technique", but have never heard what it was !!! Perhaps you can enlighten me Justin ...

As for turn running ... I agree with a differential of about .3/.4 ... Turn running is a very difficult art ... Very dificult ... Especially at anything approaching full speed ... The best are to be commended ... I do think that near 10.00 will be achieved though ... And I think it will be done by Boldon ... Or at least I would think it should be ... It is my contention that he should focus on teh 200 as teh likely hood of him overtaking Green at 100 is minimal .. But a more pronounce focus on the 200 may put him on the victory stand (yes I know I have targeted others as tops at 200, but that is given all things remain the way they have) .. Boldon is fast and strong ... And in his best 200s has run very well on the turn ... And I thnk he has incentive to show that he is still one of the best after a couple of really down season for him ... A big Euro 200 with he and Drummond next to / near each other could produce that kind of effort ...

[Justin]

Hary's trick was this: he waited until all the others were in the set position before rising into that position himself, knowing that the the starter was waiting until all the athletes were set before firing the gun.

Once set, Hary waited a moment before setting off, gambling that his first movement would pretty much correspond to the gun. With no pressure sensors, he usually got the benefit of the doubt, especially when he and the German press started stories about his "superhuman reactions" as measured by "scientists". And if it didn't work, he got a second crack.

As a result of this Hary earned a nickname, "the thief of starts", and the rules were changed so that all athletes must rise to set at the same moment.

This was the root of the vigorous debate on the list a year or so ago in which Darrel from HSI was essentially called a cheat for admitting that HSI athletes train to "anticipate" the start, which was taken to mean trying to get a Hary-style advantage. My perception is that some athletes (notably Marion Jones) are allowed to rise to set later than everyone else, but that pressure-sensitive blocks mean no-one gets away with a false start, at least in major meetings.

Justin

[Dan]

[Conway]

What is it with you and that quarter second ??? Non scientifically I would be more inclined to go with the .4 ... Why ??? Because no matter how good you are, you are still sprinting with a cross step pattern !!! Non linear movement has got to result in a slower time ... You know, cross tangent vector lines and all that ...

As for Armin Hary's start, I didn't know that that stuff was a secret .. That is what all sprinters used to be told to do ... The idea being that the longer your opponents sat in the blocks the less sharp they would be to react to the gun AND the more pressure they would have on their hands and arms giving them a less sturdy base to push off from !!! And I would think that that advantage would still hold true in spite of the pressure sensitive blocks ... Should be the starters job to bring everyone up together to negate that advantage !!!

[Dan]

[Dan]

I was thinking back to something Justin said that sort of clicked:

[Conway]

I think the visual with Drummond is that he isn't particulary explosive or powerful ... He's very quick and smooth in a mechanical manner ... Doesn't give you that visual picture of exposion that Mo does or Ben & McTear did ... Matter of fact you usually don't notice Drummond at all unless he is near the front at the end of the race ...

[Conway]

Been trying to get caught up on my track reading and was going through mail from a track and field list .. ONe of the recent conversation was on the topic of qualifying at nationals for distance runners (1500 and up) ... While looking at the various reasons/excuses as to why individuals feel there needs to be changes this question came to mind: Who were the last gold medallists for the US in each of the races from 1500 through marathon in Olympic or WC competition ???

I think the answer to this question gets us closer to the "heart" of the issue ...

[Dan]

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking Shorter in the Marathon, Mills in the 5k, and ... ? I agree that all the qualification rules in the world won't change the simple fact that current crop of American distance runners (800 and up) just aren't good enough to compete in a world championship or Olympic final.

Dan

[Conway]

Shorter and Mills would be correct .. I will have to check my resources for the others .. Haven't had time to do so as yet .. But the answer to the question is as you state - the qualifying standards are not the issue .. The issue is the quality of athletes we consistently get at our trials .. The development of the quality distance and mid distance runers in this country has been virtually at a stand still .. EVeryone gripes and complains about the hype given to Webb, but my goodness he is the first ray of hope seen in this country for well over a decade !!!! Webb steps into a distance void in much the same way that Mo Greene stepped into a sprint void in this country ... And here's hoping Webb is up to the task ...

[Dan]

The challenge Webb faces is that he's being pegged for greatness long before arriving at that level. Greene was largely unknown before bursting on the scene in '97, which probably contributed greatly to his development. If Webb manages to live up to the hype, then I dare say he's a truly amazing individual.

Dan

[Conway]

I'll partially agree .. Greene "burst" on the scene with an upset win over Carl Lewis in 1995 in a windy 9.88 .. He then made the WC team in the 100 (95) and was eliminated in the quarterfinals running only 10.35 for 6th (behind Boldon, Surin and Oba Thompson among others).. He of course was a "favorite" to make the 96 Olympic team which he didn't do .. Then came the magical year of 1997 and he has been nearly untouchable since .. so he a also had a couple of years of pressure sitting on his shoulders before he finally "made it" !!

I would hope that Webb's tenure as an apprentice is as short or shorter .. As I think the US truly needs a middle distance pressence at this point in time .. Having someone near or at the top in any event seems to aid tremendously in the development of that event ....

[Dan]

I figured you would object on the grounds of the early win against Carl. The reason I ignored that is because it didn't seem to garner much attention at the time, but once Maurice had emerged, it was "dug up" and pointed to as evidence that he had the potential all along. In contrast, if Webb becomes a world beater, there will be no question in anyone's mind where he came from (Pre).

I didn't realize Maurice made the team in '95 (or I forgot) and was favored to do so again in '96. I thought he was basically a contendor for the squad in Atlanta and his not making it wasn't much of an upset, albeit quite a disappointment to him based on his description?

Dan