history's best 100s, adjusted for wind & altitude

[gh]

Charley Shaffer's latest compilation (m/w both) now linked here

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/displa ... p?id=32850

[Paul Henry]

Interesting to note: corrected Sub9.8s have never been run at the World champioships and only once at the Olympics. The guy to do it, if it is done in berlin would add a first to his name.

Asafa accounts for 3 of the 5 corrected sub.8s and Bolt already for 2. Never realized that Gay has none as yet. What can we make of this? Is it really nothing to note?

[Marlow]

Kinda funny that Bruny Surin and Derrick Atkins make the 9.88 'basic' cutoff, but King Carl doesn't!

[Pego]

Kinda funny that Bruny Surin and Derrick Atkins make the 9.88 'basic' cutoff, but King Carl doesn't!

Nor did Evelyn A.

[bad hammy]

Kinda funny that Bruny Surin and Derrick Atkins make the 9.88 'basic' cutoff, but King Carl doesn't!

Nor did Evelyn A.

I'm shocked! :lol:

[26mi235]

Kinda funny that Bruny Surin and Derrick Atkins make the 9.88 'basic' cutoff, but King Carl doesn't!

Nor did Evelyn A.

If you remove Jones, there is more room in that list! (also remove 10.77 Lalova, adjust 10.49 from 0.0 to ~4.0 [still stays high on the list].

[The Atheist]

Asafa accounts for 3 of the 5 corrected sub.8s and Bolt already for 2. Never realized that Gay has none as yet. What can we make of this? Is it really nothing to note?

We can actually make a lot of this.

People tend to underestimate just how important wind and altitude are in figuring out how fast someone truly ran.

If one guy runs 9.79 a gazillion times, but each and every single time he ever did it, he had a huge tailwind behind him, and another guy runs 9.85 a gazillion times but each and every time he runs he runs into a huge headwind, you can bet your ass the 9.85 guy is going to DESTROY th 9.79 guy when they finally race in the same race as each other. Because if you take their basic-times, the 9.85 guy is going to have far superior basic-times than the 9.79 guy in that imaginary scenario, meaning he is the genuinely faster runner, and just looked like he wasn't becaue the other guy was fortunate to always run with tailwinds while he was always unfortunate to run into headwinds.


Basically, with this list, what you see is what you get.

Yes, peak form Usain really was the fastest ever. Yes, peak form Asafa really was the second fastest ever. Yes peak form Maurice really was he third fastest ever, and yes peak form Tyson really was the 4th fastest ever, and no he really never did run a sub 9.80-basic yet.

As far as I'm concerned, that corrected-list is the TRUE list of the ranking of the fastest people ever. The one with uncorrected times is NOT. And for those who disagree with me, let me ask you this: Do you REALLY think Obadele Thompson was the second fastest 100m runner of all time? Because if you don't want to take wind speed into account, this is basically what you are saying. And you KNOW Obadele was not the second fastest guy ever. Even though he really did run a 9.69 windy that one time with a gigantic tailwind at altitude. See, this is why you have to account for windspeed and altitude. It really DOES matter.

[imaginative]

Kinda funny that Bruny Surin and Derrick Atkins make the 9.88 'basic' cutoff, but King Carl doesn't!

Actually, to be expected: CL was arguably at his height in the early eighties,
when the circumstances were very different. The track revolution, in
particular, only truly affected him in Tokyo where he run an unadjusted 9.86.
The others have had many more opportunities at the height of their game.

[toyracer]

People tend to underestimate just how important wind and altitude are in figuring out how fast someone truly ran.

True, and Obadele Thompson is the perfect example.

[Mike67]

These types of lists are pure conjecture and dream fodder for the "what if" dolts who have a problem with reality! I've said it once and I'll say it again, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his arse on the ground!

[Paul Henry]

These types of lists are pure conjecture and dream fodder for the "what if" dolts who have a problem with reality! I've said it once and I'll say it again, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his arse on the ground!

Last time I checked these lists were the worldwide accepted timings adjusted based on accurate mathematical models. These times are actually the times ran by the respective athletes and not supposions. As amtter of fact have you ever noticed that when the intial flash times comes up at a track meet it is then rounded up or dowwn. Would you call those conjectures too? By the way, were you talking about the adjusted times list or some other lists.

[tandfman]

have you ever noticed that when the intial flash times comes up at a track meet it is then rounded up or dowwn.

Strictly speaking, those times aren't rounded. They are two totally different times taken by different means. The flash times are not taken in accordance with the timing rules--they're just done to create an immediate display for the convenience of the spectators.

[Paul Henry]

have you ever noticed that when the intial flash times comes up at a track meet it is then rounded up or dowwn.

Strictly speaking, those times aren't rounded. They are two totally different times taken by different means. The flash times are not taken in accordance with the timing rules--they're just done to create an immediate display for the convenience of the spectators.

Got that and well noted, but at the end of the day the accurate time was derived from some level of scientific interpretation instead of "slack bam boom"?

[Taliban]

These list don't mean a thing in my opinion. Do they factor in body weight, physical strength, etc.... F these lists.

[Paul Henry]

These list don't mean a thing in my opinion. Do they factor in body weight, physical strength, etc.... F these lists.

But would they need to? (asking this one strictly because I don't know) Boy I miss you Elddy in this discourse could really use your delusionsal calculator, analyticalator here.