Best V.Borzov Video!

This is a short documentary(video) about the life of Valery Borzov. It follows him from being a kid up into his older age as a husband and father. Very interesting to watch. I saw some race footage that I had never seen before. I love how the Soviets tested between a sprinter and a runner. I will let you guys watch it and find out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of4XfzF5Rdk&feature=relatedEdited by: white lightning

Fascinating!!

Great find Lightning!

One of the best video documentaries I've ever seen!

once again white lightning finds gold!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHIqcqnS_F0

Have you guys seen this one? Apparently it was right after the Olympics when he was still in shape. He was the number 1 guy in the world in 71 and 72. He faded after that. I believe he would've defeated Hart and Robinson at that Olympics. Even on the slow Munich track, I think he could've broken 10.0. I wish those guys would've showed up for the race.

@limitless
This video usually comes up on the first page of a Borzov Google search.
What was interesting was the you-tube page your video was on had lots of Russian language track & field video's. We'll never know if he'd have beaten the 2 Americans, but we can imagine a faster final that would have had the effort he put in the quarter-final. The last leg of the relay looked even with Borzov not gaining ground on Hart, but not losing any either. In a race out of the blocks, he'd of had a lead most likely, as he was the fastest starter and accelerator in the World along with his countryman Kornelyuk at that time. That means Hart and Robinson would have had the same problem that Taylor had trying to catch him (unlike the relay where the running start nullified Borzovs main advantage). Borzov was as fast -- top-end -- as the 3 Americans. I'd guess in the final he'd have run another 10.07 (as he did in the QF heat) or even 10.04 to Hart 10.12--(that 10.12 guess based solely on their duel in the relay race and Hart's slower start as observed in the USA Olympic trials/Robinson?) The difference again being Borzov's reaction time and acceleration accounting for a very unscientific 5/100ths? Hart and Robinson's race-records in 1972 were not very consistent as Taylor actually had a better head to head against Hart (Robinson?). Track & Field News had Taylor ranked as #2 in the 100 meters that year.
Some folks fantasize that Borzov had sub-10.00 ability that Olympics, but I saw in his quarter-final (time-10.07 wind-0.0 altitude- 520m/1706ft)-- peak effort -- that only faster competition than Taylor (Hart? & Robinson?) might have pushed a couple more hundredths out of him.
That Munich track wasn't as fast as today's, but was cutting edge German tech for its time.

.....and one last detail about Borzov in Munich. He almost slept through his quarter-final heat. While Taylor was rushing to make it on time (knowing his teammates had missed their QF), Borzov woke up just in time to run to his blocks. I believe those circumstances pumped adrenaline into both of them, propelling their butts to the fastest times of their lives. When you see their QF finish-line photo, there's no doubt it was a max effort.
What a cool confident cat Borzov was in Munich to actually be catnapping before his race.
(This photo is the QF finish with no celebratory raising of the arms, just powering through the finish line). Looks like you have to be logged in to see it full-size ?
Note: Borzov 10.07, Robert Taylor 10.16, and unseen Hasley Crawford 10.18 means these were 3 of the 4 fastest legal times (Borzov's 10.14 final) of the games (wind-0.00).

Any athlete who can run 20 flat ...has at least 10 flat ability ....wind etc .....had borzov run against the 2 Americans he would have been pushed sub 10 ...of that I am convinced .....borzov only ever did what it took to win a race .....times did not interest him ...titles did ...borzov was always super controlled ....at that period Americans never really performed well outside of the us .....which makes me think some of the so called sub 10s in the states come into question .....and wind readings have been queried many times ....one thing is a fact borzov was like bolt today ...head and shoulders above the rest over a 6 yr period from 69 through to ,75 .....remember this guy came back from double Achilles surgery to win bronze in 76 ....10.14 .....same time as winning time of 72 ....which obviously means borzov had so much more in the tank in 72 .......regardless of sub 10 sub 20 ability .....athletes are only really remembered for what they have achieved not what coulda,,,woulda ....shoulda ....

Thank you for posting that picture fernchris. Yes, I had wondered about the arm raise thing. I wonder how many one hundredths of a second that adds to a time.

"Any athlete who can run 20 flat...has at least 10 flat ability...wind etc..."
--Not necessarily. Just a few examples: Pietro Mennea 19.96 & (10.15). Kostas Kenteris 19.85 & (10.15). Michael Johnson 19.32 & (10.09).
_____
"Borzov only ever did what it took to win a race" & "times did not interest him"
--Sprints happen so quickly, with little room for error, that I find such comments attributed to Borzov to be self serving.
_____
"Borzov was always super controlled"
--That he was because his technique was almost perfect. That also gave the illusion that he wasn't trying hard. He, better than most sprinters, counter intuitively understood that wasteful motions and pressing too hard would actually slow one down (typically over-striding). He learned the art of running relaxed (proper breathing being the key). Another words "less is MORE."
_____
"At that period Americans never really performed well outside of the US.....which makes me think some of the so called sub 10s in the states come into question...and wind readings have been queried many times"
--The little competition that took place internationally (pre professional era) was mostly national competitions, regional championships, and the Olympics. The few international meets outside of those events usually took place in the US and a few Western European (Zurich Weltklasse) meets. 1969 to 1971 Borzov never faced the very best Americans (e.g. John Carlos). Admittedly it wasn't the strongest period, those years, in American sprint history, but then the focus was on the NCAA and the Olympics every 4 years. 1973 onwards, American sprinters dominated the ever growing international meets.
There were only 3 "so called sub 10s" up till Munich; Hines Olympics 9.95 electronic & 2-9.9s hand timed US Olympic trials). The hand times were of course inherently inaccurate, but that would include all hand times, not just those "2-9.9s," at a time when almost all races were hand timed. Wind readings to this day are still problematic (In Race) as conditions vary lane to lane and from start line to finish.
_____
"One thing is a fact Borzov was like Bolt today...head and shoulders above the rest over a 6 yr period from 69 through to ,75"
--71 & 72 (ranked #1 in 100 both years, #2 in 200 in 71 & 1st in 72 Track & Field News) were his two most dominant years where he went undefeated. 69 & 70 (ranked 5th & 2nd in 100, un-ranked in 200) he was up & coming. 73 he barely ran (un-ranked 100 or 200) and was smoked by the Americans when he did, and gradually got back in competitive form in 74 (5th-100, un-ranked 200) and in 75 (3rd-100, 8th-200).
In conclusion, Borzov was dominant in 71 & 72 and was in the conversation of Worlds fastest human in 70 and top 3 in 75.
1976 he was ranked #3 in the 100, non-ranked in the 200 and would never again be ranked in the top 10.
_____
"Remember this guy came back from double Achilles surgery to win bronze in 76....10.14.....same time as winning time in 72....which obviously means borzov had so much more in the tank in 72"
--No he didn't have double surgery Achilles prior to 76 nor ever. You may be confusing his ankle problems in 79 when he retired rather than continue training for Moscow in 80. He said the cumulative effects of training on hard tracks made it too painful to continue training. Regardless he was no longer World Class (77 onwards)at that point. Comparing anyone 4 years apart is like comparing 2 different athletes, so doesn't really give a good analysis, and at best a speculative analogy.
_____
"Regardless of sub 10 sub 20 ability.....athletes are really only remembered for what they achieved not what coulda,,,woulda....shoulda...."
--I agree, which is my point that imagining what we think someone can achieve means nothing. If Borzov was capable of running sub 10 he had 12 yrs from 68 to 79 to accomplish that which is plenty of time.

I agree that Borzov was at his peak in 71 and 72. Yes, coulda, woulda, shoulda, ends up being the bottom line, but I can't help but speculate that if Eddie Hart and/or Rey Robinson would've met him at his absolute peak in 72 on a faster track, he would've done better than 10.07. Not that 10.07 was not an awesome time for that era. Hines managed his 9.95 at altitude in Mexico City. And we know about the other performances that happened in that same event. And speaking of Mexico City, that's where Pietro Mennea ran a 10.01 in 1979.

limitless said:

I agree that Borzov was at his peak in 71 and 72. Yes, coulda, woulda, shoulda, ends up being the bottom line, but I can't help but speculate that if Eddie Hart and/or Rey Robinson would've met him at his absolute peak in 72 on a faster track, he would've done better than 10.07. Not that 10.07 was not an awesome time for that era. Hines managed his 9.95 at altitude in Mexico City. And we know about the other performances that happened in that same event. And speaking of Mexico City, that's where Pietro Mennea ran a 10.01 in 1979.

Click to expand...

Like I said in earlier in this thread; I believe he might have run faster than 10.07 if Hart & Robinson had made it to the final and assuming they ran as advertised (Taylor had a better head to head that year against them as did Crawford). Question is would that and his own ability have been enough for a sub 10, and the most compelling knowable evidence is that QF where we saw peak Borzov seemingly going all out in a very adrenaline pumped circumstance (almost missed the race running to his blocks). I speculate a 10.02 to 10.04 max with no wind at Munich's altitude.
Also more speculation: look at that QF photo where the difference is (.09) between Borzov and Taylor. With a non-factor (0.00) wind and Munich's altitude being (520M), the altitude boost is measured at (0.04) which brings his 10.07 to a (10.11) adjusted time. If he ran .09 faster you'd see him beat his QF self by the distance he beat Taylor. That would bring him to a 10.02 w/o wind and at--sea level (or 9.98 at Munich's 520M).
Today's faster tracks would have pushed that QF (10.07-Mondo surface) to ???-(still looking for a reliable way of measuring the difference between New-Mondo and today's state of the art) and with a max allowable (2.0) wind reducing the time .10 to a 9.97 minus the unmeasured track surface effect and he'd clearly be under 10 with near perfect but legal conditions. Adjusted time of course is more meaningful.
By the way the fastest legal wind (+2.0) FAT non-altitude (no higher than 1000M) time up to that time (1972-Munich) was Jim Hines 10.03 (+0.8w, 10M=10.07 adj. time) at Sacramento in 1968. The 2nd fastest was Bob Hayes 10.06 (+1.3w, 44M=10.12-10.13 adj. time) at Tokyo (cinder track) 1964.
Borzov's 10.07 (10.11 adj. time) was the 2nd fastest performance up till that time in a still largely hand-timed era.
Ironically, but actually making sense is that the fastest adjusted time at that time was once again Jim Hines as his Mexico City Olympics altitude aided performance of 9.95 (+0.3w, 2250M)=10.03 adj. time.

Yeah, I remember 2 quotes from Borzov regarding the final, "is it so easy to win and Olympic gold medal," and "I gave 90 percent of what I had to give." It intrigues me because the 10.00 barrier seemed to have a psychological component. If he would've breached it at that time, what if any difference would it have made regarding white sprinters. I remember reading that after Matt Shirvington ran his 10.03 wind negative, he got a vanity plate for his car the read "Sub-10." He then proceeded to over train and injure himself repeatedly.

Sorry no rants allowed ......not sure why you don't think borzov was a great ...pity ...real lack of understanding ...stats really don't mean a lot ....athletic ability makes up so much ....then comes hard work ( socioeconomic factors etc ) .....desire etc .....really don't get it do do you fernchris ....no disrespect buddy ....but regardless of passionate believes ,, one has look past the numbers .....to interpret a real insight ...otherwise one is just a sLave to journalistic writings that have been present for many yrs .....borzov looked to win ...win ...win ....had he been pressed in 72 ...who knows ....but he was way ahead of his time ...and deserves the respect that 2 Olympic golds bring with it .....and no amount of rubbish plastered on a blog can take away from borzov and his 2 golds ....notably hasely Crawford said he was the best athlete he ever competed against .....and don quarrie reckoned Allan " whipper " wells was the toughest be ever competed against .....

Also I reckon fernchris ...u gotta get out a little more .......or u will explode ......with all that negativity .......or ....or ...? ..

Teeters for a sub ten ...or is he just toooooooooooo white .....? ..

Wait wait wait .... Hannah cunliffe ......for a sub 11 ...wait wait wait ....Hannah nH nah she is just toooooooo white .......

Oooopsss .....Chris lemaitre .....oh he has several sub 10s ......and doesn't do peds .....hhhhhmmmmmmm.......

Ramil guliyev .......oooopppsssss.... Sub 20 s ..,...wait wait .....this guy was born with silver spoon and never had never any adverse life aspects ....not !!',,,,,!!!! ....

Oh ...oh ..oh .....Gatlin gay etc .....still doping ....wait ...asafa ...et al ......seriously .....ok ok ...I am ranting .....but hey fernchris ...maybe now u get it it ......man many variables .....no high horseS.....3 sides to everything ....

I think it's a good analysis overall.
Borzov was the dominant sprinter of the early 70s, but the Americans and American media had a hard time giving him his due because of our cold war mentality at the time.
Regarding a possible sub-10... if he had legal wind and was pressed by the other Americans who missed the final, it certainly would have been possible.

greyghost said:

Oh ...oh ..oh .....Gatlin gay etc .....still doping ....wait ...asafa ...et al ......seriously .....ok ok ...I am ranting .....but hey fernchris ...maybe now u get it it ......man many variables .....no high horseS.....3 sides to everything ....

Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Nothing negative was said about Borzov. In fact, if you weren't in such a rush to judgement, after I had dissected your errors, you would have seen in my fair, accurate, history of Borzov and his contemporaries, a dispassionate appraisal that described his true accomplishments without resorting to infantile fan boy worship. Anyone who can be the dominant Worlds fastest man for 2 years, and disputed fastest another year, doesn't need greyghost to call him great, he just is, tender tits.
The only rant, is your dyslexic-stuttering-staccato style of writing that fails to mask your lack of argument.
Being Pro White is not an excuse to ignore the facts when they're not convenient (in your Rorschach eyes). Nothing I wrote about Borzov could have been construed as negative, unless of course you are trying to deify the man.
Trying to associate me with your made up list of anti-white examples is not only false, but pathetic.
You got your knickers all twisted up in a bunch and end up looking like a fool.
Grow up.

limitless said:

Yeah, I remember 2 quotes from Borzov regarding the final, "is it so easy to win and Olympic gold medal," and "I gave 90 percent of what I had to give." It intrigues me because the 10.00 barrier seemed to have a psychological component. If he would've breached it at that time, what if any difference would it have made regarding white sprinters. I remember reading that after Matt Shirvington ran his 10.03 wind negative, he got a vanity plate for his car the read "Sub-10." He then proceeded to over train and injure himself repeatedly.

Click to expand...

To bad about Shirvo as he was mismanaged badly. The overtraining may have been partly due to the national fanfare that expected him to do it, and do it quick. He was, I think, spending too much time in the weight room, and even then the wrong approach, the body builder approach. He should have been focusing on speed endurance, which reflected itself in his "relatively" slow 200 meters performances.
You know I've heard folks talk about the psychological component in breaking certain time and distance barriers, and in events where pacing is a component of the event, it's plausible. The thing with an event like the 100 meters is that there is very little conception of time and pace during the race. It's almost all out and over so quickly. The mind has no way of conceptualizing such a precise barrier in-race. And yet professional sprinters rarely run all out 100% as that would guarantee injury. They save it to peak when it counts. And when they do, they run a fine line between trying too hard and tightening up, and running loose and relaxed as fast as possible. Your 90 % example in that final was a figure of speech, as I'm sure he couldn't calibrate his effort so accurately, but still it spoke to his scientific approach to running which meant he felt confident, after a good start and acceleration phase, and visual lead, to not press, but avoid potential injury knowing he had the 200 & relay to come.
To your last point and question about the barrier being breached back then (Shirvo 1999). If it had, it might have had a bigger recruitment effect from the standpoint and belief of both the White athlete and schools. The barrier meant more back then (1999) even though there were already many runners breaching it. But still, it wasn't like today where it's only a barrier for non-black athletes since so many blacks regularly beat it. Today the "10 second barrier" is .42 seconds slower than the record, almost 1/2 a second slower. It's become an numerical artifact. I want to see tall, long limbed Lemaitre's and Guliyev's take up the sport and then you'll see more of our kind run through that "barrier."

I remember reading about Shirvington running a 10.03 into a negative wind when he was only 19 years old. The Track and Field News article related how the sports community in Australia was super excited about the new sprint find. I remember thinking he was a shoo in to do it. The next year he took on a Russian coach, Kemel, or something like that. After that, it was just one injury after another. Apparently Kemel believed in super calf strength, and it messed up Shirvo's tendons.

Not too long after that, Macrozonaris of Canada also went after it. He came close (10.03 at altitude), but also ran into injuries. Oh, and as a side note, if you watch the vid of his 10.03, he looked back!! He gave up valuable 100ths because he was so surprised to be ahead. It was the worst look back since Lot's wife.

When Lemaitre approached it, i.e., his 10.04 at the euro juniors, they interviewed him and he thought nothing of the barrier. He said it will happen in its time. He didn't even think about it.