2001 100m qf revisited


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

2001 100m qf revisited

Postby Smoke » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:39 pm

Now that we are seeing these unworldly times in the 100, i.e. 9.9s from the regular sprinters. Are we entirely sure that qf round of the 100 was actually flawed??? Thoughts? I have always thought 9.9 from MLF that year was completely believable.
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: 2001 100m qf revisited

Postby gh » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:36 pm

I was always a believer.

The only reason we didn't get an explosion of fast times subsequently is because the wind turned around, and there were headwinds for all the semis and finals (both men and women).

Remember that despite a -0.2 (admittedly almost negligible) and hobbling across the line that Mo ran 9.82. Little doubt in my mind he was on target for something in the 9.7s that day, and with even a mild tailwind (at 650m of altitude), low 9.7s. I think the best race I ever saw him run.
gh
 
Posts: 46299
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 2001 100m qf revisited

Postby Pierre-Jean » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:07 pm

And it's not unusal that 2nd round times are faster than semi finals without the help of the wind (see WC 1997 and 2003).
Pierre-Jean
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: NGR

Re: 2001 100m qf revisited

Postby Smoke » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:29 pm

I think we may have all jumped the gun back then. It all seemed so unreal, now it would be par for the course.

gh it was his best race. I think barring injury, that would still be the AR race. He and I were just talking about this race Monday. Craziness.
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: 2001 100m qf revisited

Postby JRM » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:17 pm

Smoke wrote:Now that we are seeing these unworldly times in the 100, i.e. 9.9s from the regular sprinters. Are we entirely sure that qf round of the 100 was actually flawed??? Thoughts? I have always thought 9.9 from MLF that year was completely believable.


As I recall, the unbelievable part was the wind reading (-3 or so, wasn't it?). There was, in principle, nothing wrong with the "times" (at least numerically).
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: 2001 100m qf revisited

Postby gh » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:35 pm

The wind gauge was broken and they threw out all the readings, yes.
gh
 
Posts: 46299
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 13 guests