View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jeffh Water Boy
Joined: 14 Apr 2002 Posts: 47 Location: NC
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2002 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Justin wrote: | No hand times at all should be compared to auto times because tha margin for error is so huge. So all those 9.9s from the 1970s are nothing more than footnotes. Fun, but footnotes.
In the first half of the century most watches timed to fifths of a second, there was no standard for conditions (track slope, officials, wind, starting) and no proper training for officials.
The times attributed to pro sprinters in the late 19th century and early 20th are further complicated by the hype and dishonesty which went with promoting entertainment (which is what sprint matches were before the 1912 establishment of the IAAF).
Conclusion - R.P Williams was no doubt very quick but the times he is credited with are nonsense. The IAAF's definitive WR progression book doesn't even bother mentioning him in the supplement of "suspect times" which they list alongside the confirmed records.
My vote for saddest loss in the modern era is Sanford - that 9.88 at sea level with 2.3m/s wind stands out as one of the great runs, alongside the 9.91 Calvin Smith ran in 1982 with a 2.1 wind. Both were far superior to either Hines' 9.95A or Smith's 9.93A WRs.
Justin |
I don't understand why anyone would lie about Williams times on 8 or 9 different runs.I guess anything is possible but I can't understand the benefit.I think other times were accepted in that era but its just Williams
was a pro.
What about that Tim Montgomery ..He grew up in my neck of the woods.In some ways I hate to see Greene's record broken.I think the worlds fastest sprinter(Greene)should have the record.It will interesting to see if Greene can better 9.78.Considering Greene is in his late twenties,I don't think he can. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dan Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2002 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I don't understand why anyone would lie about Williams times on 8 or 9 different runs. |
It might be something less ominous that lying. Perhaps just the stuff of legend. 90 years after the fact, who's to say the bulk of what's been written about him isn't compounded factual errors from the previous accounts of others? We see it nearly every day in journalism... To borrow from a basketball example, how many of you have seen journalists report that Shawn Kemp went to the NBA straight from high school? It got reported that way early on, and most haven't bothered to check their facts in re-reporting it since. He actually went to Junior College, it's just that he didn't play ball there. Most certainly not an intentional lie, but it's an equal certainty that there is no truth to it.
As for Tim's new record, I'm actually happy to see Mo's 9.79 broken. I think it was very unfortunate for the sport that Greene tied the "real" and heavily tainted record of Ben Johnson, as no one could say without well suported arguments against that the clean record was better than the dirty one. At least now, the record is solely possessed by someone who has not tested positive. (I would feel the same way if it were Mo who had run 9.79, so it's not about Tim per se.)
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Distance_Guru World Class
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Posts: 1280 Location: Nebraska
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2002 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please forgive me if this has been discussed on this thread earlier. How do you think TM's getting the world record will affect his inability to get over the mental road block that has been beating Mo :question:
He now is the fastest human being in history, but he didn't beat Mo to get there. In a head to head match up can TM beat Greene now, if they are both on their game. Is that wall still up or did his 9.78 knock it down? _________________ Time is the fire in which we burn |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dan Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the barrier is broken ... at least until Greene shows he's a consistent 9.90 guy again. Tim has been better than Maurice most of this season, which is probably a big part of why he had the confidence necessary for the record run.
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Conway Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2002 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the barrier is broken ... For most of the season Tim and Mo have been running fairly comparable times ... Up to yesterday Mo was the world leader at 9.89 !!! Up to yeasterday no one had run faster than Mo this year ... So does the one race change everything ... I would think not ...
So far in auto timed history, Mo is the only individuals to set the 100 record and then continue to run as fast (I would say 9.80, 9.82 in separate years would qualify as running as fast as 9.79 !!) .. Calvin Smith did run 9.97, but for oall intents and purposes was not again near 9.93 ... Jim of course never broke 10.00 as he left the sport ... ... Carl never again broke 10.00 after running 9.86 ... Neither did Leroy after his 9.85 ... Donovan never got close to 9.84 and only broke 10.00 twice more, running 9.91 behind Mo in both the semi and final in Athens in '97 .. For that matter Linford never got close to 9.87 as neither has Obadele ..
So in many respects Tim while setting the record has now set himself up to have much to prove ...
Conway |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dan Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2002 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I meant is that Tim has been at least the equal to Maurice for half the season or more (as have been 4-5 others), and unless Maurice gets back to his old level of performance, Tim isn't going to be fearing him. That to me indicates there isn't much of a mental barrier currently. If Maurice comes back with regular 9.8's and 9.9's next year, then who knows...
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Justin Varsity
Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Legends and myths are created without anyone actually lying. A few promoters stretch the truth, a few inexperienced timekeepers record some extra-quick times, an inexperienced starter lets an athlete get a false start. Or the track may have been short, or downhill. All these things were common in turn-of-the-century sprinting.
Bear in mind there was no standardisation of clocks (which usually timed to fifths or halves of a second and were of very variable quality - no digital accuracy here), nor any official starting method - the waving of a white handkerchief was common. Even today hand times are wildly variable - the first 9.8 win (Steve Williams in late 70s) was auto-timed (unofficially)...in 10.19. The first 9.9 win (Jim Hines in 1968) was actually 10.03. And that's with trained officials using modern watches with standardised conditions.
No doubt Williams was a great sprinter and he deserves to be remembered. But don't take his reported times too seriously. Heck, I Once ran 10.4 for 100m - downhill on a short track with the geography teacher timing it on his wristwatch.
Justin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jeffh Water Boy
Joined: 14 Apr 2002 Posts: 47 Location: NC
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't misunderstand, I have always been very skeptical over those times but he supposely ran 100Y in 9 2/5s 4 times and 100Y in 9.0 flat
3 times.Thats alot of different times for the timers to screw up.Also everyone considers the events to be in Williams favor.Maybe he got a slow start,maybe the track was slightly uphill,who knows.He ran 100 Yards in 9.0 "with five absolutely perfect watches on
a truly measured track."Thats one of the quotes for whats it worth(probably not much).His 50Y and 60Y times coincide with the 100Y and 100M times.To me thats alot to make up or if its bad timing by inexperienced timers all those different times wouldn't line up.
I am skeptical but I don't totally disregard Williams times.Almost all of Bob Hayes's times were manual with 1/10 watches instead of 1/100 or
automatic times.Should his times be disregarded?
BTW, what happened to the white sprinter named Matt(something) that ran low 10's a few years ago.Did he ever get below 10 in 100M?
Jeff |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dan Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2002 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shirvington, and no, he has failed to live up to the great white hype...
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Justin Varsity
Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2002 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I treat ALL hand times as no more than historical curiosities. Even Hayes' hand times. But Hayes also ran 10.06 and 9.91w, which to some extent validates some of his hand times.
And of course all times are useful for judging how good an athlete was by the standards of his day. Williams was running much faster than his contemporaries, ergo he was very good, whatever the actual times he is credited with.
The mistake is to assume that hand-timed performances can be compared across eras - they cannot. A 9.0 100y time from 1906 cannot be compared to a 9.0 from 1976. The circumstances are completely different.
Justin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jeffh Water Boy
Joined: 14 Apr 2002 Posts: 47 Location: NC
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to hear that since I have always been proud of the fact I ran(hand-timed) 9.9 in the 100 Yard dash in high school. Trying not to sound racist
that wasn't bad for a "white boy."So I guess I can throw that out the window.
edited by Dan: Jeff, please preview and/or edit your posts after the fact to make sure they're readable. There's no need to quote the entire message of the person you're replying to, especially if it isn't properly placed in [ quote ] tags and looks like your own text... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Conway Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Justin isn't say that your 9.9 100yd is not valid .. He is saying that comparin it to a 9.90yd time is not comparable ... Two different systems of timing ...
Now I will say that I do not dismiss all hand timing ... Those times that were turned in in major competitions with true timing crews do have some relevence to me ... The difference being that trained timers can be very accurate ... personally, as long as I am sitting on par with the finish line, am usually within .02 of the official time in most meets that I attend ...
The key in hand timing is that you HAVE to start when you SEE the smoke from the gun ... AND you HAVE to stop the watch when you SEE the torso hit the line ... Hearing the gun and seeing the finish puts you on two DIFFERENT timing systems .... When I am not on par with the finihs line, my timing is off anywhere from .05 to .15, depending on where in the stadium I am sitting ... My 5 & 6 year olds are about .25 to .4 accurate and occasionally hit it dead on ... The key is consistency - using site at the beginning AND the end ... And practice ...
Point being is that properlly trained timers, such as those in AAU and TAC championships and meets such as the Modesto Relays (Tom Moore was very proud of the timing crew that he had trained and assembled) got things pretty on ... And so some hand times are fairly valid ... Not necessarily to be replacing auto timing which is the ultimate ... But good enough to use for comparisons ...
As for your hand time .. Not shabby .... What was the competition doing around you and how did you rate ... And approximately what time period was this from ???
Conway |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Conway Olympic Medalist
Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Posts: 3570 Location: Northen California
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Justin (or anyone else) what do you think of auto yard times ... The best (Hines 9.21) equates to 10.07 for meters ... What place do you feel they hold in the grand scheme of the history of the event ??? And what do you think of yards marks altogether ???
We still run the mile, would there be any relevence to adding the 100yd dash to the mix of things ???
Conway |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jeffh Water Boy
Joined: 14 Apr 2002 Posts: 47 Location: NC
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was competitive with most of the people around me.A few of the top guys ran mid to high 9's and I ran high 9's to low 10's.If they had a bad day and I had a good day it was a good race.The time frame was from the late 70's.
I broke my leg severely in a motorcycle accident and never was the same after that.Still quick but not the same.
Earlier this year,I had a part-time job with Fed-Ex working under 10 hours a week just for the benefits(I'm self-employed with no benefits).I was telling some of the twenty year olds I ran track in high school and told them my times.They all laughed and said that was world class.They were confusing 100Y with 100M.Anyway,one thing led to another and they challenged me to a race after work.These guys were all in their early to mid twenties and I'm in my early forties.Much to my suprise and theirs I won the race and they bought me dinner for days and i got the red carpet treatment.The fastest guy at that fed-ex was a forty year old white guy.[/b] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dan Chief Pontificator
Joined: 22 Mar 1999 Posts: 9334 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2002 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a good story.
I often have to stop and think when I see a 100y time. The part that usually throws me off is most of the yard races were nearly the same as their metric equivalents, i.e. 220y and 200m, 440y and 400m, and 880y and 800m. Only a few tenths here and there to adjust. I don't know why the same wasn't done for the 100y... I guess they liked the century number, but that didn't stop them from going to 110m for the men's hurdles... Anyone know the history of all that?
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|