Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flo-Jo 10.49

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Flo-Jo 10.49

    Since people are saying it was bogus, because of the wind........please tell me what the actual wind reading was.

    I'm dying to know. :roll:

  • #2
    Re: Flo-Jo 10.49

    Originally posted by guruof track
    Since people are saying it was bogus, because of the wind........please tell me what the actual wind reading was.

    I'm dying to know. :roll:
    What prompted this never-before-discussed thread? Have you just woken up from a 21-year sleep?

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you familiar with Carl Lewis's 9.78 race when five men ran 9.90 or faster and seven broke ten seconds? In the 1980s! The wind speed was +5.2. I believe this final was the event either before or just after the women's 100m quarter finals. Herein might lie your answer.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dakota
        Are you familiar with Carl Lewis's 9.78 race when five men ran 9.90 or faster and seven broke ten seconds? In the 1980s! The wind speed was +5.2. I believe this final was the event either before or just after the women's 100m quarter finals. Herein might lie your answer.
        so her wind was 5.2????

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by guruof track
          so her wind was 5.2????
          Her wind was most likely between 5-6m/s. No one knows exactly what it was (the gauge told us "0.0" -- or at least that's what it said before it blew away).

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Flo-Jo 10.49

            Originally posted by rabalac
            Originally posted by guruof track
            Since people are saying it was bogus, because of the wind........please tell me what the actual wind reading was.

            I'm dying to know. :roll:
            What prompted this never-before-discussed thread? Have you just woken up from a 21-year sleep?
            Well, from the m100 thread someone brought up that Flo-Jo's 10.49 was bogus. Some cautioned him that he might get kicked out for saing that. But gh said that it was ok to call the time bogus, because it was. A question was asked why the time was bogus and another poster said that it was because the wind gauge was broken.

            I've never heard about the broken wind gauge. I've seen the video of the race and I know there was some confusion because they kept checking with the speed gauge and checking it to make sure the time was legal. I just assumed that the reason most consider the time bogus was because of the unproven accusations of drug use.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Flo-Jo 10.49

              Originally posted by TrainerPhil
              I've never heard about the broken wind gauge. I've seen the video of the race and I know there was some confusion because they kept checking with the speed gauge and checking it to make sure the time was legal. I just assumed that the reason most consider the time bogus was because of the unproven accusations of drug use.
              Long story short: the race (a quarter-final that had most participants setting mega PRs, as well as a WR) was sandwiched between two other qfs that had illegal wind readings (> 4m/s). The wind gauge at the long jump pit -- parallel to the 100m straight -- concurrently read winds in excess of 5m/s. Most of the LJ performances that day were well over the limit. Most of the 100m races that day were well over the limit.

              The mysterious quell in wind-speed for that one race is highly suspicious, and quite doubtful.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Flo-Jo 10.49

                Originally posted by JRM
                Originally posted by TrainerPhil
                I've never heard about the broken wind gauge. I've seen the video of the race and I know there was some confusion because they kept checking with the speed gauge and checking it to make sure the time was legal. I just assumed that the reason most consider the time bogus was because of the unproven accusations of drug use.
                Long story short: the race (a quarter-final that had most participants setting mega PRs, as well as a WR) was sandwiched between two other qfs that had illegal wind readings (> 4m/s). The wind gauge at the long jump pit -- parallel to the 100m straight -- concurrently read winds in excess of 5m/s. Most of the LJ performances that day were well over the limit. Most of the 100m races that day were well over the limit.

                The mysterious quell in wind-speed for that one race is highly suspicious, and quite doubtful.
                Why was it ratified as a WR then? If its commonly excepted...............

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Flo-Jo 10.49

                  Originally posted by guruof track
                  Why was it ratified as a WR then? If its commonly excepted...............
                  Life isn't fair.

                  (also because much of this circumstantial evidence didn't come to light until years later -- at which point there is no way to prove definitively that it was so at the time).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    and the manufacturer wasn't about to admit that their fancy new system had bugs in it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I was working the LJ while that race was run 5 meters away parallel to the LJ runway. It was WINDY. Coke cans were blowing down the track in the wake of the runners. We had persistent reading continously of over 5.0.
                      Flo Jo was famous for her self-designed running costumes. As I recall, she wore a white lace "dress" for that race.
                      I don't think there was anything wrong with the wind gauge. I think it was "Pilot Error." I have always suspected the operator had turned the gauge off between races, perhaps to save battery, and simply forgot to turn it back on.
                      I don't remember, if I ever knew, who was on the wind gauge but I am sure someone in meet management/official selection does. He/she may have even signed the record application.
                      IMO, the honorable thing would have been for the operator to admit error instead of perpetuating a verrryyy questionable world record. I saw the hat from that meet hanging on a nail on my gargage wall. Maybe I can find the program with list of officials.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        One side of me says wind and .... stuff

                        The other side of me wonders if she was the Usain Bolt of her time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The time was wind-aided. I do not want to get into the discussion of her body before the oly 88 and the 87 WC. Whenever you guys have the opportunity, do the comparision.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Flo-Jo 10.49

                            Originally posted by guruof track
                            Originally posted by JRM
                            Originally posted by TrainerPhil
                            I've never heard about the broken wind gauge. I've seen the video of the race and I know there was some confusion because they kept checking with the speed gauge and checking it to make sure the time was legal. I just assumed that the reason most consider the time bogus was because of the unproven accusations of drug use.
                            Long story short: the race (a quarter-final that had most participants setting mega PRs, as well as a WR) was sandwiched between two other qfs that had illegal wind readings (> 4m/s). The wind gauge at the long jump pit -- parallel to the 100m straight -- concurrently read winds in excess of 5m/s. Most of the LJ performances that day were well over the limit. Most of the 100m races that day were well over the limit.

                            The mysterious quell in wind-speed for that one race is highly suspicious, and quite doubtful.
                            Why was it ratified as a WR then? If its commonly excepted...............
                            B/C FloJo proved to be a very marketable athlete...let's face it, she pretty much was Ms. T&F @ the Seoul Olympics. Do you think the sport's decision-makers were going to allow something as "trivial" as a disputed wind gauge reading (or lack thereofr...take your choice) nullify the ratification of a WR when there was $$$$ to be made?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It wouldn't have mattered she set a valid WR at the same meet anyway. There was no reason to accept the obviously ridic one.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X