Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ato skeptical on new 100m World Record

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by gh
    Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14. The 9.84 was clearly a fraud; I agree.
    Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell.

    Comment


    • #62
      This has probably been said, but dont we have for Gatlin 9.95/-0.1 and 9.76/1.7? Basic, these are 9.94 and 9.84, so they differ by only 0.10. We might expect some improvement from the first race to the second (he has done a couple of anchor legs which for for the top-end speed). In the second race he also had someone to chase, which might be worth 0.02-0.04.

      I also would like to see backup. However, we think that Powell is a 9.77 runner (with wind), and we think that Gatlin is better than Powell in at least key regards.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by gh
        Originally posted by Powell
        Perhaps not to dismiss it - certainly not to derecognize it once it's been ratified - but there will be lingering doubts in the minds of many people (including myself) if they don't get close to these performances in the next few races.
        Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14. The 9.84 was clearly a fraud; I agree.
        Yes, and we can't forget that Bailey ran 9.84 in early May at one of his first GP meet of the year... A bit of a weak comparison, I'm afraid. Remember, Bailey was a defending world champion coming into that meet. It's not like he was a relative unknown.

        Also, as other have pointed out, we need to be focusing on the corrected values of these times. Take about 0.08-0.1s off those Doha finals to gauge the actual performance. That gives Fasuba a "basic" of about 9.93s for that final. His 9.92s in the heats was more like a 9.98. Still a chunk off his previous PR.

        Can Gatlin back up his time? Most likely. Can Fasuba? As many have pointed out, we'll have to wait and see.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Jon
          Originally posted by gh
          Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14.
          If Fasuba could churn out times like that in his next few races, then that would be more than enough for me. I'm not asking for another 9.84.
          He should be able to since his times before the race were 10.09, 10.13, 10.14 in 2005 -- and 10.11, 10.13 this year. What's the difference between being satisfied NOW, since he's consistently run the times you mentioned, versus waiting?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by bekeselassie
            Originally posted by gh
            Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14. The 9.84 was clearly a fraud; I agree.
            Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell.
            No, I'm deadly serious. In fact, I'm starting to think that all 100 WRs are fake. Pre-Bailey, look at the Burrell sequence:

            10.27w, 10.29, 10.08, 10.06, 9.85 WR, 10.12, 10.11, 10.00w(A), 10.39.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by JRM
              Originally posted by gh
              Originally posted by Powell
              Perhaps not to dismiss it - certainly not to derecognize it once it's been ratified - but there will be lingering doubts in the minds of many people (including myself) if they don't get close to these performances in the next few races.
              Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14. The 9.84 was clearly a fraud; I agree.
              Yes, and we can't forget that Bailey ran 9.84 in early May at one of his first GP meet of the year... A bit of a weak comparison, I'm afraid. Remember, Bailey was a defending world champion coming into that meet. It's not like he was a relative unknown.
              Powell said he wouldn't believe unless there was confirmation "in next few races." Bailey offered no such thing, Burrell (see subsequent post) offered no such thing. If you make that a prerequisite to believing a time (particularly from somebody who is merely the reigning World and Olympic champion!) you've got a tough row to hoe.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by TrakFan
                Originally posted by Jon
                Originally posted by gh
                Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14.
                If Fasuba could churn out times like that in his next few races, then that would be more than enough for me. I'm not asking for another 9.84.
                He should be able to since his times before the race were 10.09, 10.13, 10.14 in 2005 -- and 10.11, 10.13 this year. What's the difference between being satisfied NOW, since he's consistently run the times you mentioned, versus waiting?
                His best before this year was 10.09. If he can run a few 10.03-10.06's like Donovan did (i.e. go faster than he had done before '05), PLUS throw in another sub-10, then that will seal the deal for me. Donovan's post-Atlanta series is very different to Fasuba's pre-Doha series.

                For the record, I'm 90% sold on Fasuba's time anyway. Why don't you go pick on someone who isn't even 50% sold on it?!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by gh
                  Originally posted by bekeselassie
                  Originally posted by gh
                  Donovan Bailey's sequence of races after his WR of 9.84: 10.06, 10.06, 10.03, 10.19, 10.09, 10.13, 9.95 (GP Final), 10.14. The 9.84 was clearly a fraud; I agree.
                  Are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell.
                  No, I'm deadly serious. In fact, I'm starting to think that all 100 WRs are fake. Pre-Bailey, look at the Burrell sequence:

                  10.27w, 10.29, 10.08, 10.06, 9.85 WR, 10.12, 10.11, 10.00w(A), 10.39.
                  AH HA!!! I think Dan Browne has already started a book on this massive historical fakery.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    But to be perfectly clear; the Fasuba performance is indeed anomalous, and does make me at least twitch an eye. But as noted before, since the race was full of other stud muffins, and they weren't in PR range, I have to discount any bad wind reading or clock malfunction (unless somebody has looked at film and decided the gap between 1-2 and the rest doesn't jibe with the time interval.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by gh
                      But to be perfectly clear; the Fasuba performance is indeed anomalous, and does make me at least twitch an eye...
                      ...which is all I was trying to say.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by gh
                        But to be perfectly clear; the Fasuba performance is indeed anomalous, and does make me at least twitch an eye.
                        Yet you can't accept my position when I'm saying the same thing.
                        BTW, since I haven't seen the race yet: did it look like Fasuba might have caught a flyer? There's been some talk about how great his start in the Doha race was.
                        Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by gh
                          No, I'm deadly serious. In fact, I'm starting to think that all 100 WRs are fake. Pre-Bailey, look at the Burrell sequence:

                          10.27w, 10.29, 10.08, 10.06, 9.85 WR, 10.12, 10.11, 10.00w(A), 10.39.
                          Ha! My first thought was Bob Beamon. That led me to think of Lee Evans. But then I remembered who I was talking to.

                          At any rate, who then was the last record holder in the 100 that was "believable" based on performances immediately preceding or succeeding the record?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JRM
                            Yes, and we can't forget that Bailey ran 9.84 in early May . . .
                            Actually, July 29th, 1996 at a little meet down in Atlanta.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Was Steve Lewis "believable" based on this criteria? He never ran sub-44 again in his career after his one - repeat, only - 43-second clocking (43,87 WJR in Seoul). The year prior, he ran only one sub-46 second clocking - a 45,76, and two sub-46,50 times. Fasuba:s mark strikes me as odd, becuase it comes in a 100m race - not in a 400m endurance race.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                give me quality control info - ratification

                                No one here has really nailed down any facts.
                                It's all speculation, mostly intelligent, I'll give it that.

                                Where is the data and facts....
                                1) verify video timing franes/sec? HDTV transmission change to 50HZ analysis.
                                2) report by reliable witnesses at track level about the wind.
                                3) how about the distance?

                                If the ratification process reports the data conclusively (1-2-3) then I'm a believer.
                                If they ratify WR without any decent statements on their quality control methods then no way.

                                I'd bet there is no international conspiracies.
                                If there is something wrong, It would be confined to a silly error or silly person or two.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X