Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

I would rate Maurice a better starter than Drummond among the current crop, possibly Ato also. Surin may not be considered active now, but when he was on, I think he was also quicker out of the blocks than Drummond. I've honestly never understood why Drummond is considered such a great starter. I think it stems from the fact that he has run excellent first legs on the 4x100, which emphasizes starting ability, but how many countries can afford to place a sub-10 guy on the first leg that also happens to be a good turn runner? In other words, what is his first leg "greatness" really being measured against? I don't recall many, if any, 100m races where he got out much better than average relative to the rest of the field.

Other than Ben, I've only seen snippets of races here and there for the others you listed, so I have no basis for commenting on their merit... Ben is clearly the best starter I've ever seen. Tough to argue against him considering he is the fastest ever and the start was undeniably his major strength.

[Conway]

Guess I am gonna have to ship you some tapes ... Drummond is almost always the first man through the first 30 - 40 meters ... In the 100 and the 200 ... Is definitely his biggest strength ... His weakness (in my opinion) is that he has no point in the race where he relaxes ... For example, at the Olympic trials in Sacramento, in the final - despite the uncalled false start of Brian Lewis - Drummond still lead at 40/50 meters ...

As for all time, I was trying to see what Justin's thoughts are ... However, while Ben was most definitely explosive, I would have ot say that I think Houston McTear may have been the fastest of all .. Went to a clinic when I was young and got to actually come out the blocks with Mel Pender ... Not quite in his prime but still young enough ... And ran in a couple of races with McTear ... Saw Ben in person a couple of times - he came to the states in 85 & 86 ... Also saw Crockett in person ... And have seen races of the others ... And I would have to saw that no one cleared a field in the first 30 - 40 meters the way McTear did ... And it was mostly in the feet ... Quickest early feet I've ever seen in anyone ... Pender had quick feet (is how thye used to teach the start "back in the day") ... As opposed to the "driving motion" moreso taught today ... Then it was quick arms and feet ... Which utlimately became McTear's weakness because he had no stregnth anywhere in his race ... Was all speed ... Pure speed ... And he had it in gobs !!! Only the strong like Steve Williams, Don Quarrie, Reggie Jones and James Gilkes really had a chance at him ... If he had had a portion of the stregnth of Ben or Mo or Ato HE may have been the first to sub 9.80 ... Because he was "faster" thatn either of them ...

As far as no delay, I would definte that in the way that the system currently works - at the gun ... Except without the .1 built in delay ... Zero equalling zero ...

[Dan]

I'm not sure I have any tapes of Drummond's races handy, so until I see otherwise, I'll take your word for it.

Dan

[Conway]

Why thank you ... ... Part of my frustration with Drummond is that he is such a good starter AND a strong 200 man (20.03) yet he seems to find ways to fall apart at the end of his races ... But I think that it is his strength at the end of the zone that makes him such a great first leg - he's able to push the #2 man through the zone and maximize the handoff ... Is why I've often wondered why more 200 men aren't used on relays ... Other countries use them because they are short on speed overall ... But the US has developed a 100 man only mentality when it comes to the relay ..

So since this topic of this forum is trivia I will submit this: Who was the last pure 200 sprinter to represent the US on an Olympic 4x1 ... As a runner in the final (thought I would add that since we have developed this thing about running substitutes in early rounds) ...

[Dan]

The only good reason I can think of to not put 200m specialists on the 4x100 (at a high level) is the MJ syndrome -- someone not at least co-specializing in the 100m might not respond well to being pushed at maximum velocity, tighten up, and perform poorly and/or get injured.

I haven't a clue as to the trivia.

Dan

[Conway]

Does that mean that anyone running 200 around 20.00 is NOT moving at maximum veocity and is not used to sprinting pressure ??? Just a question ...

[Dan]

It's close to maximum velocity, but not quite. Otherwise, we'd be bound to see a few sub-10 turns and a lot of people stopping at 100m.

It's difficult to put into words, but I always try and describe the difference between 99% and 100% effort, with the result being more a matter of relaxation than of speed.

Dan

[ This Message was edited by: Dan on 2001-11-20 18:30 ]

[Conway]

(Playing Devil's Advocate) ... With the exception of Mo Greene, no one is running under 10 on the straight (excepting rare occasions) ... Would that mean the others are NOT running at 100% ??? ...

I would posit that it is much more difficult to run 10.25 on a turn than it is to run 10.00 on a straight ... Is why I raise the question of using a 200 meter runner to lead off a 4x1 - more experience with speed on a turn !!!

For example I would pit Drummond on first leg against Ben Johnson (Canada's lead off in his prime) any day ... Ben might win the battle out of the blocks, But Drummond wins the turn AND the push through the zone ...

And last pure 200 sprinter in an Olympic 4x1 final would be Larry Black - lead off in '72 ... Millard Hampton ran 3rd leg in '76 but Millard was also a fair 100 sprinter ... Black was more 200/400 running 20.0h/20.19/43.5r ... Yet lead off a WR 38.21 squad !!!

[Dan]

[Conway]

Are we comparing "maximum" to that of the greatest sprinters ... OR ... Maximum to the individual ??? IF we are comparing to the best ever, then yes I would agree ... However I would think that "maximum effort" would be subjective to the individual ... Which backs us off of 10.00 on the turn ... And maybe puts us somewhere more in the neighborhood of 10.15 ...

And I find it interesting that the numbers for the season actually put Montgomery more in the class of Williams and Chambers ... .. Course I have been saying that all along ...

[Dan]

I was largely comparing the best 100m runners to the first half run by some of the best 200m runners, especially those who are also among the best ever in the 100m, namely Boldon and Fredericks. Both of them were capable of mid 9.8's, yet in only one iffy 200 did they run in the mid 10.1's for the first half. That indicates to me that even Olympic medalists in performances at the level of previous world records (arguably as elite a group as we can talk about) are running the first half about 0.2 to 0.3 slower than maximum velocity on the straight. So, that brings us back to a predicted first half of 9.99 to 10.1 if truly run all out at the highest level (19.32 is generally regarded as the toughest record on the books, much more so than 9.79), and we've seen nothing close to sub 10.1.

[Conway]

Well ... I would tend to elliminate the Atlanta track from the equation for anything exept all time and WR status ... Simply because virtually no one has been able to duplicate performances made there ... Doing so (and eliminating altitude while we are at it), would place the aWR (adjusted WR) to Marsh's 19.73 from Barcelona ... And that would put first 100's in the neighborhood of 10.3x ...

While the benchmark for "great" 100s is as you say sub 9.90, only Greene has shown he can run that with any regularity ... I would say that more often than not great runs are in the 9.95 area (+/- .02) ... That would create an adjusted 100 of 10.20 ... So I would think that our 200 runners are closer to maximum effort on the turn than we have given them credit for during this thread ...

Regarding Montgomery, even at 5 sub 10s he is still at the level of Williams who himself had 4 - 9.94/9.95/9.96/9.99 ... Which just goes back to my position that Mr Williams is a young man to watch ... Matter of fact I make this prediction for next year's top 100 men with predicted seasonal bests:

1. Greene - 9.75
2. Williams - 9.85
3. Thompson (Oba)- 9.88
4. Lewis Francis - 9.95
5. Boldon - 9.95
6. Montgomery - 9.95
7. Chambers - 9.97

Greene gets his WR in Athens again .. Williams get's PR in same race .. Thompson runs second to Greene for his SB in Zurich .. Montgomery runs a legal best of 9.95, but gets a couple of times around 9.88/9.90 in windy conditions ... One in a win, the other behind Greene .. Lewis Francis runs a couple of sub 10s and is consistent between 10.05/10.10 ... Chambers is stuck on 9.97 as a best ... Boldon still good enough to run 9.95, but has seen his best days ...

How's that for prognostication ????

[Dan]

Hmm, I think you may be arguing my point for me. If we discount the Atlanta track, then the top 100/200 cross-over guys have a best first half of their 200 around 10.2 to 10.3 (presumably), meaning they are actually running 0.4 to 0.5 slower than their max velocity on the straight, which is certainly more than can be attributed to the curve.

True that few other than Greene have run sub-9.90 with regularity, but regularity isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about top 100's compared to top 200's to determine if they are truly running all out for the first half, which I say is impossible.

That comes back to what I was getting at with the reference to 99% vs. 100% intensity. The difference is not so much a significant gain in speed as it is a conservation of energy. Pulling some fictitious numbers out of the air, if someone were to run the 100m at 99% effort, they might sacrifice 0.02 seconds and get edged out for first by a hundreth of a second. Not acceptable. On the other hand, if a runner again sacrificed that 0.02 at 99% effort for the first half of a 200, that edge they have given up is insignificant at that stage of the race and might just leave them with enough energy to maintain speed throughout, instead of bombing and losing 0.1 to 0.2 (or worse) in the last 100.

[Conway]

Hmmm ... I think the difference here is that we are talking about two different sets of 100 meter runners ... You are talking about the best ever .. I on the other hand am talking about the 100 PRs of the best 200 sprinters ... Those are two different groups ... If we are going to gauge maximum ability from straight to turn then we need to be talking about apples and apples ... Not apples and oranges ... Few of the sub 9.90 sprinters were equally adept at the 200 ... Most specifically Lewis and Fredericks ... That rather skews the comparison ...

As for Montgomery, his times are too scattered ... Doesn't have the consistency, which Williams does have ... And it is consistency which wins big races ... Not wildly vacillating times ... It is rare that the up and down sprinter wins the big one .. It happens, but on that rare basis ..

That's why I knew MOntgomery really didn't have a shot at MO in Edmonton ... All Montgomery had (aside from the trash talk) was the one 9.84 ... An aberration ... His next best time (9.85) he was towed to by Mo ... A couple of fast times yes ... But not the consistency ...

Is why Fredericks has been a perrenial runner up ... He has been consistent in pretty much the same range as Montgomery (mid 9.9xs) ... And while he has performed well in big meets he has generally been right in that range to collect his medals ... Yes he ran 9.89 at Atlanta ... But as I continue to say I discount that track when gauging athletes ... Heck Bailely never again broke 9.90 ... And actually it is somewhat Ironic now that I think about it ... Why ??? Because if you look at the progression of the WR under 9.90 it goes like this:

9.90 - Burrell
9.86 - Lewis
9.85 - Burrell
9.84 - Bailey
9.79 - Greene

You know what is curious about that list (would make a great trivia question but I won't make you wait) ?? Each athlete, after setting the record, NEVER ran under 9.90 again !!! ONLY Mo ... Lewis never even ran under 10.00 again !!! Is that spooky or what ???

Only Mo has run again under 9.90 ... Doing so with regularity AND getting tantalizingly close to his own record (9.80, 9.82, 9.85, etc) ...

Part of the reason why I don't look for more great things from MOntgomery ... To date sub 9.90 is something almost surreal for sprinters ... Like a zone once visited ... Only Boldon has visited it with regularity, but genererally in LOSING efforts ...

Sort of like 2:06 / 2:07 marathoners ... A special not oft visisted zone that seems to take something away from its visitors ...

As for the predictions, just going off what I have seen over the past few years ... Athletes are really pretty predictable - barring injuries ... I often sit at track meets and predict order of finish and times and am pretty close with both ... Certain athletes react in certain ways to certain other athletes ... Each athlete has individuals that he/she beats easily and those that they have difficulty with ... Even when both sets of competitors have identical or similar PRs ... Its a mental thing ...

And often no matter how much training or improving an athlete does, it is the psychological that is the biggest inhibitor ... For example for the greatness of his career to date, I do not expect Boldon to ever win a major 100 ... And enough damage has been done in the last two seasons that I do not believe he will win a major 200 either ...

Mongomery has been second fiddle to Mo since Nationals in 1997 ... And apparently it will take more than an injury in mid race to Mo for that to change ...

Oh ... As for weather reports ... Expect cool conditions in Oslo ... Mild and slight breeze in Athens .. Warm wind and hot track in Zurich ... And blazing sprint times throughout the European season .. No major championships so the sprinters will be free to run for times and money ... Could be the last lowering of the 100 record for a while ...

[Dan]