Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby thedodge » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:39 pm

For the 1968 Olympics Hines had several advantages: 0.01 sec. timing, the altitude = to 1.5 m/s wind assistance plus a 1.6 m/s wind reading. First Calvin Smith broke the record in 1983 by 0.02 sec. How close is that if you turned on a light for 0.02 sec. (eg.Led) you wouldn't see it. the combination of altitude and wind assistance equals a stunning 3.1 m/s advantage!!What does this convert to 10.12 that's an .17 sec. advantage now you see why i think 0.01 sec. timing is stupid . Not to mention wind and altitude not being adjusted what do you think?
Last edited by thedodge on Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
thedodge
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:44 pm

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby gh » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:50 pm

It stood because the world's top-rated sprinters went that long between running at high altitude.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Marlow » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:26 pm

thedodge wrote: why i think 0.01 sec. timing is stupid

Luddites unite - you only have progress standing in your way to success!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby thedodge » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:46 pm

Marlow wrote:
thedodge wrote: why i think 0.01 sec. timing is stupid

Luddites unite - you only have progress standing in your way to success!

Yes like the ever faster and faster Mondo tracks, track spikes that receed on contact. Oh and their talking about genetic manipulation coming soon. Sorry i don't call that progress!
thedodge
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:44 pm

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Avante » Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:17 pm

The sad thing about that whole situation is that Bob Hayes would have been around 26 or so in 1968. If he'd been there.....9.85.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby CookyMonzta » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:56 pm

Avante wrote:The sad thing about that whole situation is that Bob Hayes would have been around 26 or so in 1968. If he'd been there.....9.85.

I said the same thing about Wilma Rudolph. If she had stayed for Mexico City, she would have broken 11.00 nine years before Marlies Göhr.

If I'm not mistaken, Didn't Hayes run 9.94w in the semis on that dirt track in Tokyo, before his 10.06 final?
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby bambam » Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:53 pm

CookyMonzta wrote:
Avante wrote:The sad thing about that whole situation is that Bob Hayes would have been around 26 or so in 1968. If he'd been there.....9.85.

I said the same thing about Wilma Rudolph. If she had stayed for Mexico City, she would have broken 11.00 nine years before Marlies Göhr.

If I'm not mistaken, Didn't Hayes run 9.94w in the semis on that dirt track in Tokyo, before his 10.06 final?


9.91w +5.3 m/s
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Avante » Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:53 am

CookyMonzta wrote:
Avante wrote:The sad thing about that whole situation is that Bob Hayes would have been around 26 or so in 1968. If he'd been there.....9.85.

I said the same thing about Wilma Rudolph. If she had stayed for Mexico City, she would have broken 11.00 nine years before Marlies Göhr.

If I'm not mistaken, Didn't Hayes run 9.94w in the semis on that dirt track in Tokyo, before his 10.06 final?


How old was Wilma in 1960? I'm thinking 1968 might be a bit of a strecth.

It' s a shame Hayes got the start he did in that 100m final in 64. If he'd gotten out poorly and had to have made up ground we probably would have seen a 9.98ish or so.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Per Andersen » Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:03 pm

Avante wrote:

It' s a shame Hayes got the start he did in that 100m final in 64. If he'd gotten out poorly and had to have made up ground we probably would have seen a 9.98ish or so.

Dave Sime tried in Rome, but maybe he just overdid it :)
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3737
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Vault-emort » Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:15 pm

Avante wrote:How old was Wilma in 1960? I'm thinking 1968 might be a bit of a strecth.


Some star sprinters of the 60s who didn't compete in Mexico City, but could well have on today's standards:

Wilma Rudolph 23 Jun 40 (28) retired aged 21 after winning 3 Olympic gold
Edith McGuire 03 Jun 44 (24) retired aged 21 after winning Olympic gold
Betty Cuthbert 20 Apr 38 (30) retired aged 26 after winning 4 Olympic gold (1st retired at 22)
Judy Pollock 25 Jun 40 (28) came back to run at Montreal in 1976
Marilyn Black 20 May 44 (24) retired aged 20 after winning Olympic bronze
Ann Packer retired 08 Mar 42 (26) retired aged 22 after winning Olympic gold/silver

And those who did:

Wyomia Tyus 29 Aug 45 (23) retired after Mexico Games
Barbara Ferrell 28 Jul 47 (21)
Raelene Boyle 24 Jun 51 (17)
Irena Szewinska 24 May 46 (22)
Chi Cheng 15 Mar 44 (24)
Diane Burge 09 Oct 43 (25) retired after Mexico Games
Colette Besson 07 Apr 46 (22)
Lillian Board 13 Dec 48 (19)
Maureen Caird 29 Sep 51 (17)
Pam Kilborn 12 Aug 39 (29)
Vault-emort
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:42 am
Location: In the pits

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Avante » Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:04 am

Per Andersen wrote:
Avante wrote:

It' s a shame Hayes got the start he did in that 100m final in 64. If he'd gotten out poorly and had to have made up ground we probably would have seen a 9.98ish or so.

Dave Sime tried in Rome, but maybe he just overdid it :)


I've used that Dave Sime dive and crash as an example of something we never see from Asafa Powell. He loses in...ho hum...fashion.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby CookyMonzta » Sat May 01, 2010 11:07 pm

Vault-emort wrote:
Avante wrote:How old was Wilma in 1960? I'm thinking 1968 might be a bit of a strecth.


Some star sprinters of the 60s who didn't compete in Mexico City, but could well have on today's standards:

Wilma Rudolph 23 Jun 40 (28) retired aged 21 after winning 3 Olympic gold
Edith McGuire 03 Jun 44 (24) retired aged 21 after winning Olympic gold
Betty Cuthbert 20 Apr 38 (30) retired aged 26 after winning 4 Olympic gold (1st retired at 22)
Judy Pollock 25 Jun 40 (28) came back to run at Montreal in 1976
Marilyn Black 20 May 44 (24) retired aged 20 after winning Olympic bronze
Ann Packer retired 08 Mar 42 (26) retired aged 22 after winning Olympic gold/silver

And those who did:

Wyomia Tyus 29 Aug 45 (23) retired after Mexico Games
Barbara Ferrell 28 Jul 47 (21)
Raelene Boyle 24 Jun 51 (17)
Irena Szewinska 24 May 46 (22)
Chi Cheng 15 Mar 44 (24)
Diane Burge 09 Oct 43 (25) retired after Mexico Games
Colette Besson 07 Apr 46 (22)
Lillian Board 13 Dec 48 (19)
Maureen Caird 29 Sep 51 (17)
Pam Kilborn 12 Aug 39 (29)

And Szewińska kept on going. Ran 51.00 at age 34 in 1980. Did Boyle compete in Moscow? If I'm not mistaken, she retired in 1982.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Rog » Mon May 03, 2010 5:12 am

CookyMonzta wrote:
Vault-emort wrote:
Avante wrote:How old was Wilma in 1960? I'm thinking 1968 might be a bit of a strecth.


Some star sprinters of the 60s who didn't compete in Mexico City, but could well have on today's standards:

Wilma Rudolph 23 Jun 40 (28) retired aged 21 after winning 3 Olympic gold
Edith McGuire 03 Jun 44 (24) retired aged 21 after winning Olympic gold
Betty Cuthbert 20 Apr 38 (30) retired aged 26 after winning 4 Olympic gold (1st retired at 22)
Judy Pollock 25 Jun 40 (28) came back to run at Montreal in 1976
Marilyn Black 20 May 44 (24) retired aged 20 after winning Olympic bronze
Ann Packer retired 08 Mar 42 (26) retired aged 22 after winning Olympic gold/silver

And those who did:

Wyomia Tyus 29 Aug 45 (23) retired after Mexico Games
Barbara Ferrell 28 Jul 47 (21)
Raelene Boyle 24 Jun 51 (17)
Irena Szewinska 24 May 46 (22)
Chi Cheng 15 Mar 44 (24)
Diane Burge 09 Oct 43 (25) retired after Mexico Games
Colette Besson 07 Apr 46 (22)
Lillian Board 13 Dec 48 (19)
Maureen Caird 29 Sep 51 (17)
Pam Kilborn 12 Aug 39 (29)

And Szewińska kept on going. Ran 51.00 at age 34 in 1980. Did Boyle compete in Moscow? If I'm not mistaken, she retired in 1982.


Boyle didn't go to Moscow because of the boycott - she was also given financial incentive by the Australian government not to go. By 1982 she had suffered numerous injuries, but she rallied herself to compete on home soil and won the Commonwealth 400 title in unhelpful windy conditions in around 51.2, later returning to anchor the Australian relay team to silver with a 50.1 split off a slow first 200. I think she would have been capable of around 50.5 that year, and at her peak 49.5, so it's a pity she didn't specialise in the event earlier - didn't she run one of the fastest legs in the 4x400 in Munich?
Rog
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby CookyMonzta » Mon May 03, 2010 7:14 pm

Rog wrote:Boyle didn't go to Moscow because of the boycott - she was also given financial incentive by the Australian government not to go. By 1982 she had suffered numerous injuries, but she rallied herself to compete on home soil and won the Commonwealth 400 title in unhelpful windy conditions in around 51.2, later returning to anchor the Australian relay team to silver with a 50.1 split off a slow first 200. I think she would have been capable of around 50.5 that year, and at her peak 49.5, so it's a pity she didn't specialise in the event earlier - didn't she run one of the fastest legs in the 4x400 in Munich?

My bad. I thought the Aussies went, along with the U.K. Or am I again mistaken, and the Aussies did go, but they paid her not to go? I thought an Aussie (Michelle Ford) won the women's 800 freestyle in Moscow.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Rog » Tue May 04, 2010 12:14 am

CookyMonzta wrote:
Rog wrote:Boyle didn't go to Moscow because of the boycott - she was also given financial incentive by the Australian government not to go. By 1982 she had suffered numerous injuries, but she rallied herself to compete on home soil and won the Commonwealth 400 title in unhelpful windy conditions in around 51.2, later returning to anchor the Australian relay team to silver with a 50.1 split off a slow first 200. I think she would have been capable of around 50.5 that year, and at her peak 49.5, so it's a pity she didn't specialise in the event earlier - didn't she run one of the fastest legs in the 4x400 in Munich?

My bad. I thought the Aussies went, along with the U.K. Or am I again mistaken, and the Aussies did go, but they paid her not to go? I thought an Aussie (Michelle Ford) won the women's 800 freestyle in Moscow.


You're correct in your last assumption - Australia went (although I'm sure Ian Campbell, cheated out of triple jump gold, wishes he hadn't) but some members of the team decided not to go, Boyle among them, and she later disclosed her government had given her a financial incentive to boycott.
Rog
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby mrbowie » Wed May 05, 2010 7:01 pm

Championships are more important than records to all but the truly pedantic and anal. They are lucky a sport such as track and field exists, otherwise they would be trolling the internet and bothering normal people.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby John G » Mon May 10, 2010 3:42 am

Hines' 10.03 (+0.8)at the OT in Sacramento was more impressive. I think he's underrated paradoxically because of the 9.95A. Had altitude assisted times been illegal, his 10.03 would have stood a WR til Sanford ran 10.02 (+1.0)in 1980 (Leonard equallled it in 77 with a +1.7). I don't think we saw a clearly superior sprinter to Hayes and Hines til Lewis ran 10.00 (nil) in Dallas in 1981.
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby Marlow » Mon May 10, 2010 5:02 am

mrbowie wrote:Championships are more important than records to all but the truly pedantic and anal.

Color me pedantically anal then. I am equally impressed by both. A record says you've done something no one has done before. A championship says you were the best that day, under those conditions.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Why Jim Hines 9.95 stood for 15 years!

Postby gh » Tue May 11, 2010 8:54 am

Records are made when the conditions are perfect; perhaps a perfection your closely matched rivals never see (see both World Records in the discus, for example). A championships win means you beat your peers with a completely level playing field.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests