London GP men's SP [Hoffa 73-7 1/4--22.43]

[steveu]

Yep ... #11 all-time, #7 US

[Kurt Francis]

Here's some trivia for y'all:

22.43 (73-7 1/4) would have only been good for the 4th best effort of Randy Barnes world record series back in May of 1990!

Kurt

[Daisy]

22.43 (73-7 1/4) would have only been good for the 4th best effort of ......back in May of 1990!

Why the sudden decline, are these current SP's just smaller while the crop of the class are all lineman? Poor technique?

[tandfman]

22.43 (73-7 1/4) would have only been good for the 4th best effort of ......back in May of 1990!

Why the sudden decline, are these current SP's just smaller while the crop of the class are all lineman? Poor technique?

2 1/2 months after that meet in May, Barnes tested positive for a steroid and was suspended. No further comment.

[Kurt Francis]

They were ALL on equal grounds, then. Barnes was the best technically with the spin. Your argument doesn't hold water when it comes to supposing that Barnes had an unfair advantage.

22.43 (73-7 1/4) would have only been good for the 4th best effort of ......back in May of 1990!

Why the sudden decline, are these current SP's just smaller while the crop of the class are all lineman? Poor technique?

2 1/2 months after that meet in May, Barnes tested positive for a steroid and was suspended. No further comment.

[tandfman]

They were ALL on equal grounds, then. Barnes was the best technically with the spin. Your argument doesn't hold water when it comes to supposing that Barnes had an unfair advantage.

Perhaps they were all on equal grounds then, and Barnes had no unfair advantage. But that's not what I was talking about. The topic being discussed was then versus now.

Edited to fix typo.

[Daisy]

They were ALL on equal grounds, then.

But aren't we comparing the putters now with then? Being on equal grounds then does not seem to negate the argument from tandfman

[Kurt Francis]

My original observation was that the 22.43 would have only been 4th in Barnes series. It wasn't meant to be a philisophical debate of "clean" vs. "non-clean". It was simply an observation.

BTW - Barnes series from that Jack-In-The-Box meet is STILL LEGAL! So is his OG win in '96. So are many of the top 10 performers of all-time, despite the fact that many of them later tested positive.

As we've seen from history, NOT testing positive doesn't necessarily mean an athlete is "clean". The DDR did it for years and got away with it. So have many Americans. Ben Johnson did for 7 years, along with Desai Williams.

Trying to distinguish between "clean" and "non-clean" performances is a FUTILE and POINTLESS argument these days unless you are willing to start re-writing the entire record book from scratch!

Your argument therefore is of little use.

Kurt

They were ALL on equal grounds, then.

But aren't we comparing the putters now with then? Being on equal grounds then does not seem to negate the argument from tandfman

[Daisy]

Trying to distinguish between "clean" and "non-clean" performances is a FUTILE and POINTLESS argument these days unless you are willing to start re-writing the entire record book from scratch!

Your argument therefore is of little use.

Actually my argument was a softball question for you to hold forth on your favourite topic. I thought there might be a technical answer here. i agree it is pointless to try and identify clean vs non clean. i also believe that it is best not to dwell on the history of the event, it can wreck the enjoyment of the present rivalries.

[Kurt Francis]

OK, truce is called. But I still love the history of the event. The rivalries of the past were just as good as the rivalries of today.

LONG LIVE THE FIELD EVENTS!

Trying to distinguish between "clean" and "non-clean" performances is a FUTILE and POINTLESS argument these days unless you are willing to start re-writing the entire record book from scratch!

Your argument therefore is of little use.

Actually my argument was a softball question for you to hold forth on your favourite topic. I thought there might be a technical answer here. i agree it is pointless to try and identify clean vs non clean. i also believe that it is best not to dwell on the history of the event, it can wreck the enjoyment of the present rivalries.

[Daisy]

OK, truce is called. But I still love the history of the event. The rivalries of the past were just as good as the rivalries of today.

No reason why you can't enjoy both sets of rivalries. The pointless bit is trying to put them in the same imaginary circle. There are just too many variables. Of courses it's fun to try, which is why we always see those types of threads. But its like watching dog chase its tail.

LONG LIVE THE FIELD EVENTS!

Thank god for WSCN putting field events back on the screen.