Lyn Davies was clearly a terrific athlete, it is not easy to say he was the "worst" at anything. But he was not even close to being in the same class with Boston or Ter-O at the '64 games. The rains came, though, and Davies came away a winner.
"There are lots of early OG champs who never accomplished much of anything else."
This is, of course, entirely true; a result of the fact that the first several OG were (athletically speaking) utterly inconsequential. In this particular hall of shame, we're focusing on the more recent "undeserving" because this--supposedly--is the era in which the OG is the ULTIMATE of ALL SPORT.
True. I actually would vote for LE Myers & WG George in the 1880s as the first truly "modern" track athletes. The sport took a big step backward with the establishment of the AAU, imposition of hardcore amateurism rules, etc. But, as they say, that's another story...
Kederis. I still dont think he sould have run. Mike was supposedly injured at the trials. Mo was a jack ass and did that fake pull up thing after Mike in the trials and John Capel messed up on his start.
It's not so much that Nouriah Mérah was one of the "worst athletes", but her win in the Sydney OG 1500m was quite a shock (beating Szekely, Szabo, Holmes, Chojecka and Runyan). 2000 was undoubtedly Mérah's best season, but her winning time (4:05) was hardly spectacular and well inside the capabilities of most of the other athletes in that race.
>but I don't think this topic is very fair for the
>athletes. You make it sound like their
>accomplishment was nothing.
I agree. "Biggest shock Olympic win" would be more appropriate. Surely, anyone who wins an Olympic gold medal, doesn't really deserve to be associated with the word "worst" (when used in this context).