2001 100m qf revisited

[Smoke]

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.

[gh]

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.

[Pierre-Jean]

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).

[Smoke]

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.

[JRM]

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).

[gh]

The wind gauge was broken and they threw out all the readings, yes.