Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fastest 100m on cinders

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Django
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    I'll need to look this up, but I think that Bob Hayes' great 100m final at Tokyo was run in lane 1 after the 10k final, so that lane must have been in less than perfect condition for his race.
    In any case, it's wonderful to watch "Tokyo Olympiad", and to see that final and Hayes' tremendous relay leg in the 4X100m.

    Leave a comment:


  • wsatch
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    >Lets not forget the guy that ran the third leg on that relay, O.J. Simpson.

    SATCH SAYS, he always made fast getaway especially after using javelin.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnie
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    Lets not forget the guy that ran the third leg on that relay, O.J. Simpson.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    Wrong Jamaican. It was Lennox Miller, not Don Quarrie.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    I'm pretty sure that Provo was synthetic by 1967... wasn't that the year and venue where the usc short relay set the still standing WR for 4x110yds (oj, mccollough, quarrie and fred kuller?)? If so, it was a synthetic track.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    Bob Hayes also ran a wind aided 9.91 in the Tokyo semi. It was interresting to see that the AAU in '68 was on cinders/dirt. Besides Hines 10.03 (9.9) both C. Greene and R.R Smith ran fast times (10.10 & 10.14). I guess Smith held the WJR record for many years with that time. The previous year (1967) Charlie Greene ran a couple of very fast 100 yards times at Provo with 9.21 & 9.23. Both times would convert to sub 10 second auto times for 100m (using my own convertion giving Greene a "medium fast" finish of the last 8.56m with 0.76sec) resulting in 9.97 and 9.99sec times! Was Provo also a non-synthetic track in 1967? Anyway, a good candidate for the first sub 10 sec 100m run (non-wind aided, since Bullet Bob already had his 9.91w).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    I notice one correction that needs to be made. This thread specifies "cinders". Many of the non-synthetic times metioned here were not run on cinders. Dirt tracks, sometimes called clay, were generally regarded as faster than cinders.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    hi, sorry to enter the debate at this late date.....but.......exactly which copy of TFN did you read that showed the auto times from Sacramento. My TFN for 68 (vol21 no10)show differentials between placers but do not show 1st place time to 100ths!!!!
    As far as i know only Patinaud published the auto
    times from the 68 AAU and then only times up to 10.50 ! Did Patinaud or some other ATFS member see
    the Bulova film of the 68 AAU and interpret the times and was it all published.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    >If unofficial 'retroactive' auto-timed WRs were
    >recognized, does anyone know if the following
    >were not FAT or otherwise unacceptable: 10.29
    >(1.4w)Peter Radford (age 18!), 9/13/58 Paris ;
    >10.32(?w) Jocelyn Delacour & Ray Norton, 8/58
    >Thonon-les-Bains,Fr.; and, once and for all, was
    >the 10.38 for Tolan & Metcalfe,'32 OG, FAT or
    >hand/electric?(also, Tolan's 10.53 in heat, and
    >21.12 in 200 final)

    The 9.95 was recognised as the inaugaural auto-timed WR; no preceeding auto-timed marks were given WR status. The hand timed progression just stopped and the auto timed progresion started. All the times you list were the fastest auto-time ever at the time they were run but were not officially recognised as auto-timed WRs in retrospect.

    Radford's 10.29 is sometimes listed (eg by Patinaud) as 10.31. That aside, as far as I know all the above are legitimate fully-automatic times.

    Leave a comment:


  • michael lewis
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    "PS. Correction to previous posts by me: Hines "re-covered" Mexico-time was of course 9.95, not 9.96 as I erroneously wrote." -jla

    "I can't believe no one has pointed out that Hines ran 9.95, not 9.96 in Mexico City."

    Neither can I!

    Leave a comment:


  • BisonHurdler
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    I can't believe no one has pointed out that Hines ran 9.95, not 9.96 in Mexico City.


    Not that it's directly related to the subject, but still.........

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    If unofficial 'retroactive' auto-timed WRs were recognized, does anyone know if the following were not FAT or otherwise unacceptable: 10.29 (1.4w)Peter Radford (age 18!), 9/13/58 Paris ; 10.32(?w) Jocelyn Delacour & Ray Norton, 8/58 Thonon-les-Bains,Fr.; and, once and for all, was the 10.38 for Tolan & Metcalfe,'32 OG, FAT or hand/electric?(also, Tolan's 10.53 in heat, and 21.12 in 200 final)

    Leave a comment:


  • larwood
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    Citing as an urban legend that synthetics are as fast as cinders jla uses as an example Ron Clarke's 27:49.4 (a recent trivia question!) on Crystal Palace's synthetic surface in 1968--which was indeed slower than his 1965 Oslo race. However, jla fails to point out that it was a very windy evening for that race and Clarke himself thought the effort was only worth 28:20 and thought synthetic tracks were much faster. (Ron Clrake Talks Track, p.47.)

    Leave a comment:


  • trackhead
    replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    Hines' 10.03 is still the stadium record at Hughes Stadium.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Fastest 100m on cinders

    Very interesting and informative on the relative "fastness" of cinders vs. synthetic for 100 meters. What about for the middle distance and distance events? Were there any indications that one or the other was faster? (And isn't it true that a track built fast for sprinting may not be the best for the longer events?)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X