Here's a fun one to kick around--what is THE or at least ONE of the most stunning single performances in track & field history? The "stunning" quality could be either because of an upset or because of pure performance. Here's a few of my favorite: Obviously Bob Beamon's WR in '68 OG (even if it was aided by the altitude),and since I am partial to distance running--Billy Mills taking unexpected gold in the 1964 OG 10K in Tokyo and Gerry Lindgren upsetting the Russian 10K veterans in the USA Vs Russia dual meet @ the LA Coliseum in 1964. I am partial to this last one as I was there to see it...Lindgren broke away early with about 10 laps to go and quickly built up a huge lead and kept adding to it as we stood and cheered --caught up perhaps in the cold war hysteria of the day.
These responses are fun...Rich, I like all yours and billthedog, we can trust you to take us back into the 40's and 50's...my brother saw Dumas do his 7-0.5 in the U.S. Olympic Trials,1956 in the LA Coliseum. So many great marks set there...too bad it is no more. One more tidbit--who remembers the class high jumper that day who had an off day and didn't make the team? Ernie Shelton. After failing to clear 6-9...
Vladimir Kuts burying the 5000m field at the '54 Euro Champs in Berne and setting a stunning new W-Rec at 13.56.6. Then later that year Chataway beating Kuts by 2 feet lowering the record to 13.51.
Pat Matzdorf beating Brumel's record.
Sandor Iharos in 1955.
Forest Towns running 13.7 in Oslo in '36 when the record was 14.1.
Lou Jones and Jim Lea in the Pan American Games in Mexico City, 45.4 and 45.6 when Rhoden held the record at 45.8.
Mike Powell's 29'4 1/2 deserves some consideration, Walter George's 4:12.8 back in 1884 had to stun some. MJ and Beamon have to be near the top. Ron Clarke's big 5k record and Hohn's 343'10 are also outstanding. Zatopek's 3 golds in '52 are incredible
>can't see how MJ's 19.32 can be
Yeah, I was speechless after watching
>that. Knocking more than .3 off of a sprint
>record is insane.>>
If 0.3 off a sprint record is the criterion, then it's obvious that Tommie Smith (my choice to beat MJ in a 200 anyday) is clearly the winner. He lowered the straightaway record from 20.0 to 19.5 (i do believe that's 0.5) in a single race.
And he didn't have the juice of the Olympics or the altitude of Atlanta to help him.
whether the race was on a curve/straight and hand/auto timed isn't relevant to my comment, as the previous records were under similar conditions. The previous poster suggested that an 0.3 cutting of a sprint record was insane. So I provided an example of somehting even more insane, under tougher conditions (relatively speaking). I wasn't addressing the "greatness" of the Smith mark vs. the Johnson one.
the fact that the 19.5h could have easily been an auto 19.80 makes a big difference and the size of the meet makes a difference as well. For instance, what would be more stunning. Allen Johnson running a 12.6h at the Mt. Sac Relays or Allen Johnson running a 12.71 to win the Olympic Gold in Athens??
This article states that 200m straight times are between .3 and .4 seconds faster than a 200m curve time. For argument's sake, let's take the 19.5h add .35 (the average) to it, 19.85h then add another .15 for hand-time adjustment and we have 20.00. A great time, especially in 1965, but nowhere close to MJ's 19.32 from 1996. Not as stunning and especially not as great. Does Tommie Smith's 19.5h deserve mention..absolutely...does it compare with 19.32..absolutely not.
Since gh's attempt at clarification didn't sink in, boyo, let me try, since you keep changing the subject.
Call Smith's mark a 20.00 or whatever you want. It doesn't matter, because it's all relative. Johnson took an insane 0.3 off a sprint record, Smith took 0.5 off, period. You can think Johnson's mark is more impressive. Fine. But he didn't lower the record by as much as Smith did. Is that so hard to understand?
My point is is that hand-timed marks are estimates and 19.5h could have been a 19.6 or 19.7 in truth whereas the 20.0 really could have been a 20.0. He probably only improved the mark, .3 or .4 rather than .5.
If even Smith did improve the mark by .5, the event was not nearly as highly contested as the 200m with a curve. If the straightaway 400 record was 44.0 and someone ran a 43.1, would that be as impressive as someone running a 42.9 and only improving the wr by .2 seconds. I think not.
Finally, as records improve the time differential gets harder and harder to improve on. In the 19th century and early 20th century, mile records improved 1 or 2 seconds at a time frequently while nowadays they are improved by .2 or .4 seconds. Smith set his mark 30 years before MJ did. The .5 to .36 difference probably is equal strictly on that basis.
Lost in the shuffle of Flo Jo's 10.49 was that the same day in the semi's she ran a no-question-about it 10.61. Guessing on the last digit but it was 10.6 and something. Wind was under 2.0 but I do not know that either w/o looking it up. This should be her legit record.
Point being, the 10.49 is definitely a "q", but she was ON that day.
Yes, us hj's must stick together! Not sure if this is breaking the sites rules or not...noticed nobody complained about the women's PV calander sales pitch by Mel ...but I have never believed those times were achieved by pure hard work. What I find is sad is that if you go through the women's WR list how many can be said to be clean? I have my doubts about nearly ALL of them. Personally I think the case made a couple of years ago to dump the lot and start again when random testing was introduced made sense. The only one I fully trust is Paula's 2.15, mind you, I guess from GH's other thread that's not a "WR"!