Bolt should have been on the curve period. I think bolt runs a better curve than gay. If bolt was on the curve JA wins hands down.
Concur completely. If they are using Seiko’s track timer & photo beam common line setup that might be different than fixed camera(s)-to-Dartfish (for example) configuration. I would think that the Biomechanical Project group forms the latter.
I order of differential between season bests for the 100m, minus the relay time.
Japan - 2.91 
GB+NI - 2.79 
USA - 2.41 :o
Jamaica - 2.3 :eek:
Not surprisingly, Japan used upsweep handoffs, ala the best French teams of the late 80’s + early 90’s. They made the change from the downsweep method after their studies showed the this method to be generally superior.
Another interesting observation is that the Russians have now adopted the downsweep method and become less efficient. At Osaka their differential 2.55, which is far inferior to the 3sec. marks which they were previously able to attain with the upsweep method.
Personally I like the Push Pass used by Canada, New Zeland and the GB+NI. I don’t see how upsweep would be better having done both myself as an athlete, too much room for error. But still interesting to hear what people have to say.
I grew up on upsweep passes. Everybody received the baton with the same hand, then switched it to the other hand to be ready to make the next pass. I have never been able to figure out how modern teams with upsweep passes (e.g. Russia) manage to pass three times without anybody switching hands. It seems to me that there would likely be little or no stick left for the last person to grab. Also, I do not see how an upsweep pass can generate as much free space as an overhand pass. One advantage of upsweep, though, is all passes are the same, making it easier to change the runners or running order.
The push-pass is simply a variation on the downsweep method. It is in fact inferior to the high-hand method that is used by many US collegiate programs as there is a disturbing tendancy to strike the wrist. It is in fact much more error prone than other methods.
As for margins of error, the upsweep minimizes them on 4 fronts.
- Eliminates reaching (free distance is a false economy)
- Natural arm action
- Allows for a second attempt at the target
- Presents a soft target
Interesting points. What about the hand switching, or lack thereof?
I think that the last high level team to actually switch hands in a 4x100r was the US at the 1972 Games. Carl Lewis used to regularly switch the baton from left to right, but he always ran last.
My view on this is that figures don’t lie and upsweep teams have, on average, had greater differentials than downsweep teams.
Nice discussion AthleticsCoach. Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I know that modern upsweep teams don’t switch hands. But how do they keep from running out of stick? I have never gotten hold of any good footage to figure this out from.
I have always been impressed with Russia’s passing and I know it is upsweep, or at least was until recently. Do you really have extensive stats on differentials? I don’t think US stats mean much because they don’t practice and would likely have lousy differentials no matter what style of pass they used.
If the upsweep is better, do you have a theory as to why 1) more teams don’t use it, and 2) why the Russians (the program I normally think of as the most science-based) switched to overhand?
Finally, when you coach upsweep, how far back do you tell your receivers to reach?
Keeping the baton balanced is really very easy. It’s a matter of a couple of twists as soon as you receive the stick. After a very short while it is 2nd nature and has no effect on running technique.
Maisetti, the former French relay coach made the best case for the upsweep based upon differentials. The Japanese study was based upon video analysis of the 1991 WC’s and was authored by Sugiura, Numazawa and Michiyoshi.
Relay technique to me seems to be imposed on teams. I had a very frank discussion with 2 prominent US Sprint coaches in this regard and they admitted it that they would be ridiculed if they attempted upsweeps. Both admitted that they believed it to be superior. Additionally humans lean to conformity and if they see someone succeeding with a certain method they will mimic it.
Don’t kid yourself, the US team does have relay practice. It’s just that the coaches in charge are clowns, (ie: Brooks Johnson and his posse). Plus these guys have run hundreds of relays in their careers, so it shouldn’t be that hard. Believe it or not the last US team (72 Olympics) to use the upsweep had a pretty good differential and they switched hands with each exchange.
Another factor which should be obvious after watching the latest WC’s. At the highest level there is an alarming tendancy for incoming runners to run up on the outgoing runner. Why? I think that it’s simple. In training acceleration is very easy to mimic, while max. velocity is far less so. Hence no matter how much a team works on passing they are likely to get close on their exchanges, particularly #'s 2 +3. Upsweeps can save you here, while downsweeps are very dangerous. Just look at some of the pics posted on this forum.
As to the reach I usually tell them 1-1.5 feet behind the butt. This is somewhat dependent on the athlete though (height, shoulder mobility, etc.).
Good points. I am in my 60s, so I ran in the '60s. The first I ever heard of an overhand (Dyson) pass was when Stanford broke the world record. Since Stanford was not thought to have many good sprinters, people were shocked to say the least. It seemed to me that coaches were very quick to switch to overhand passing after that, but I agree that, in general, coaches (in all sports) are very conservative and don’t want to go against conventional wisdom.
As for the U.S., I didn’t mean that they never practice, but, since they don’t have training camps, they can only practice at the championship sites. Since the top sprinters are not about to change their prep for the 100 for the sake of the relay, I doubt that practice amounts to much. Half the time, it seems they don’t even decide on the running order until after the 100 final.
As for running up, you are quite right. Since this seems quite consistent, you would think that a good relay coach would notice and move the marks a bit, but maybe that is asking too much. And you are quite right that if you are running up, an upswing pass is far easier and safer than a downswing one.
I may try the upswing with my team next season, if I can tolerate the derision from the other coaches.
An VERY old coach that I know told me the history of the downsweep pass. I need to ask him again about it and get the details. His teams used the upsweep until very recently when he simply gave up teaching it. Now they’re really bad. Stubborn, slow athletes are a bad combo.
Actually it’s my understanding the US does relays camps in Europe during the summer and got together more than a week before WC’s to work some more on the exchanges. If not Brooks is even more of a scammer than I thought because he’s getting paid to arrange this.
You can’t move the marks back in practice, that was my point. In practice the exchanges probably look great, but in meets they’re close. Move the marks back and they won’t ever connect in training.
The California State High School 4x1r (girls) was won by a team using upsweeps. Each exchange looked close, even a little botched, but you watch closely the baton kept moving, in most cases faster than the opposition. So don’t worry about the derision, just go and out and beat them.
If the U.S. team practices that much, then I stand corrected. And, given the way they execute, their coach should stand fired 
I have often changed the marks from practice to competition, for any number of reasons. I explain why and my runners accept it. Is there some reason that Brooks Johnson (who, in my opinion, is a national team coach for no good reason) could not simply say to the guys, “since you will be going faster at the end of your legs than we can replicate in practice, we are going to move the marks by X amount.” Wouldn’t this be part of being a top coach? I think that coaches are so terrified that they will have an uncompleted pass that they will accept a slow pass. In the case of the US, this may be rational. In the case of France or GB or whoever, it may make more sense to take it to limit, roll the dice. This past season, my team had to finish top 4 to make State and we were the 5th fastest team by a good half second. We stretched every mark to the limit and would have qualified if the anchor runner had not frozen and lhe third runner ran right by her. Oh, well.
“Stubborn, slow athletes are a bad combo.”
Hey, this is about coaching. Leave my runners out of this.
Well what they actually do with their practice time is a mystery to me. After the heats they could and should make adjustments. Brooks has risen to his highest level of imcompetance and is flourishing there.
The running up on the outgoing runner happens with every team on exchanges 2 and 3. I’m not sure that much can be done to prevent it. Once gain, the upsweep is much safer when this happens.
Having tried all three, I must agree that I prefer the push pass. If you miss, you just rotate your wrist, and it doesn’t seem to matter how high the receiver has his or her hand. If you miss on the upsweep or downsweep you lose valuable time IMO.
The human elbow only operates in two ways, opening (downsweep) and closing (upsweep). The “push-pass” is nothing more than an attempt to mask the inherant deficiencies of the overhand movement. Hence misses with it are only marginally different, with the incoming runner rotating forward and decelerating as the outgoing runner accelerates (away). There is also an alarming tendancy to hit the wrist with the so-called “push-pass” and the hand is also a hard target, rather than a soft (relaxed) one. Once this occurs, outgoing runners have a tendency to start searching for the baton (monkey-handing).
Contrast this with an upsweep miss where the incoming runner can maitanin his/her posture. Misses tend to very easy to overcome as long the passer does not wind-up for the exchange and since the athletes are closer together targetting is generally less of an issue.
The upsweep reduces the amount of stick available with each exchange, making the last pass problematic. That’s why only the most drilled teams can use it effectively.
After Poland lost the W 4 x 100m Gold Medal in Mexico City for that reason, despite all their drilling, and they abandoned it for the push pass.
The down pass is more dangerous than the push pass because a miss lowers the baton below the outgoing runners hand, delaying recovery and making a second attempt more difficult, especially on the already dangerous third leg, where the second man must travel on the outside of the lane. That’s why the push pass is more generally used.
The “soft hand” is dependant on the outgoing runner and must be practiced, regardless of the method used (no rings either!).
The original reason that the upsweep was favoured was that there was NO International zone till after 1964. so the incoming runner could overrun any free distance achieved by other methods. That changed with the I-zone.
Had the Polish men moved to downsweep in '72? The first that I remember them using the downsweep/push was in the late '70’s with the so-called “4 Muskateers.”
Yes, the diminishing baton CAN be an issue, but doesn’t need to be. As stated the a couple of quick twists and the problem is solved.
With the upsweep the the V that it is formed is naturally soft and reactive. When the baton hits, grasp is immediate. No need to practice softness and no wrist getting in the way.
I too have used the whole gambut of hand-offs and keep coming back to the upsweep. To me the numbers, in this case differential tells the story.