Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GOAT- womens 100m

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #61
    Re: GOAT- womens 100m

    But they were still all done in the same year.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: GOAT- womens 100m

      I'm bored of this one now

      i can't choose between Marlies and Evelyn they have a similar global champs record (one gold one silver each) and same years ranked (13 one pioint diffference in world ranking points) Marlies has additional continental champs (in high class competition) Evelyn has better times and win/loss record but Marlies has more world records and more years ranked at number one :? :?

      i like to call it a draw and move on to
      i deserve extra credit

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: GOAT- womens 100m

        200 - M or W would be interesting.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: GOAT- womens 100m

          Originally posted by John G
          200 - M or W would be interesting.
          w200 is overwhelmingly Irina but we could do both at the same time to add variety

          if nobody objects by midnight GMT (6 hours from now) i'm declaring a draw and we'll do a 200m GOAT special
          i deserve extra credit

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: GOAT- womens 100m

            So the Official T&FN w100m GOAT is

            Marlies Ashford

            Mens and womens 200m to follow
            i deserve extra credit

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: GOAT- womens 100m

              FWIW my top ten:

              1. Gohr
              2. Ashford
              3. Stecher
              4. FloJo
              5. Tyus
              6. Blanker-Koen
              7. Devers
              8. Szewinska
              9. Rudolph
              10. Cuthbert.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: GOAT- womens 100m

                Originally posted by Rog
                10. Cuthbert.
                Betty shouldn't really be in anyone's all-time top ten for the 100. Her only signficant win was in the Melb 1956 100m final, she never set a WR at 100m (or 100y), was only 4th in the 1958 and S/F in 1962 Empire Games 100y. She never won an Australian championship over the distance either.

                Marjorie Jackson on the other hand was just about undefeated (think she lost maybe 3 races, usually when injured/ill) over 100y and 100m (and 200m/220y) from 1949 to 1954, set WRs for both distances and - from memory - had the biggest winning margin in an Olympic 100m final until Flo-Jo.

                ETA - actually Cuthbert did equal the 100y WR once but it was beaten (within a week I think) when she next raced her great rival Marlene Mathews.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: GOAT- womens 100m

                  Originally posted by Rog
                  FWIW my top ten:

                  1. Gohr
                  2. Ashford
                  3. Stecher
                  4. FloJo
                  5. Tyus
                  6. Blanker-Koen
                  7. Devers
                  8. Szewinska
                  9. Rudolph
                  10. Cuthbert.
                  What about Olympic Champion Thanou, who backed that up with european gold, world silver and bronze and numerous sub 11's? :P :twisted:

                  I go for Ashford just over Gohr.

                  Championship medals (Gohr over Ashford)
                  I am a firm believer that Gohr's Wch win in 83 is worth more than Ashford's win in 84 - everyone was in Helsinki that mattered while they weren't in LA. They then have the same 'second medal' - Gohr an Olympic silver from 80 and Ashford's silver from 88. However, Gohr's is devalued because of the US boycott and she didn't have to face someone in surreal form like EA did in Flo Jo. However, as Gohr's big win was un-boycotted, she get's the nod.

                  Championships places (Ashford over Gohr)
                  For their non-winning head to head runs, Ashford beat Gohr in Montreal. In addition, Evelyn has good placings in Tokyo 91 and Barcelona 92.

                  Cup wins (Ashford over Gohr)
                  World Cup wins have been mentioned already, but Ashford had the edge.

                  Head to Heads (Ashford over Gohr)
                  Stats above

                  Big head to heads (Ashford over Gohr)
                  Zurich 84 was the big one.

                  Sub 11 secs (Gohr over Ashford)
                  Stats above

                  WR's (Gohr over Ashford)

                  Number 1 rankings (Gohr over Ashford)

                  Longevity (Ashford over Gohr)

                  So that's 5-4 to Ashford on my criteria.

                  Also, it's worth pointing out:
                  1. Gohr's 3 European golds. No Americans but great championship runs nonetheless.
                  2. Gohr's image is tarnished because of her (relatively) 'poor' last two seasons. She should never have gone to Rome and seeing her limp out in the SF and then get thrashed in the 4x1 tarnished her image. To then see her not make the final in Seoul and have Ashford medal, and then get beaten by Ashford in the 4x100, also doesn't help. But between 77 and mid 87 she was fantastic.
                  2. Ashford get's added kudos for Tokyo and Barcelona when way past her best.
                  3. Ashford had the opportunity to race more if she wished and lived in a country where conditions were generally better.
                  4. Stasi files on Gohr. Not good.
                  5. Just because there are no similar such files on Ashford does not mean we shouldnt quedstion the performances. If we disregard Jones' times from the all-time list (should we?) then up until 2009, a full 25 yrs after Ashford's 10.76, only 3 women ran faster: Flo Jo (enough said) Arron once (14 yrs later and she had a +2.0 wind in a bizarre standard final) and Ottey once (12 yrs later and only just faster by 2/100ths) So, if we accept the Stasi file, we should perhaps question how a time from 1984 can be so high on the all-time lists. There is a tendancy from a lot of posters here to blindly accept 10.76 (and other US performances) because of who set them, yet they question every european performance from the 80's. Let us all view WR times from the 80's as question marks.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: GOAT- womens 100m

                    Ashford didn't make the final in Barcelona 92, surely?

                    Also, in terms of longevity, Gohr was ranked either 1 or 2 every year from 77-85, Ashford only made the top 2 6 times I think (79, 81, 82, 84, 86 and 88), so Gohr's longevity at the very top was longer (Ashford didn't challenge the no.1 ranked athlete during her final 4 seasons).

                    It's close between the two, but it was only when I sat down and looked at various criteria that I put Gohr first, which was not how I would have expected to go beforehand. But Gohr's consistency at the very top, and the unbroken longevity of that period, is astonishing when you consider it.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: GOAT- womens 100m

                      Gabriella said: -
                      There is a tendancy from a lot of posters here to blindly accept 10.76 (and other US performances) because of who set them, yet they question every european performance from the 80's. Let us all view WR times from the 80's as question marks.
                      Why pick on the 1980's?
                      Just because a Communist state is known to have had drug programmes for some of it's athletes, we can hardly tarnish all athletes from that period with the same brush!?
                      Should we not consider Moses, Bubka, Thompson, Ashford, Coe, etc as "freaks of nature" that all generations throw up?

                      Surely if we go down the path of questioning all athletes from the 80's; due mainly to state collusion; many of whom were subject to random out of season testing by their national federations, then we have to do the same for all endurance performances in the late 90's/early 00's, and all athletes from countries that still don't have a random out of season testing programme? We can't have it both ways!

                      I think Ashford, especially considering her size, was probably the most naturally gifted female sprinter I've seen. There's never been any suggestion that her performances are anything but natural.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: GOAT- womens 100m

                        Originally posted by Rog
                        Ashford didn't make the final in Barcelona 92, surely?

                        Also, in terms of longevity, Gohr was ranked either 1 or 2 every year from 77-85, Ashford only made the top 2 6 times I think (79, 81, 82, 84, 86 and 88), so Gohr's longevity at the very top was longer (Ashford didn't challenge the no.1 ranked athlete during her final 4 seasons).
                        Ashford didn't make the Barcelona final, but only just missed out by 1/100th, coming 5th in her SF in 11.29. Not bad at 35! She was the 4th fastest in the world in 89, 7th in 90 (3rd in Zurich) then ran 11.08 in 91. So,I'm not talking longevity at being number 1 or 2, I'm talking about longevity at elite level. Ashford's career went from Montreal right up to Barcelona, while Gohr's went from Montreal to Seoul. Thus Ashford had an extra 4 yrs at the top, getting to the Tokyo final aged 34 and Barcelona Olympic SF at 35 (as well as 4x100 gold!)

                        @deanouk
                        I say the 80's because that is the decade we still have outstanding WR's from. Where are the WR's still in place from the 70's and 60's? I'm well aware that drug taking was rife pre 80's but it was the 80's where it got more sophisticated.

                        It is not about 'tarnishing every athlete with the same brush', it's about taking a common-sense approach. No out of competition testing pre 89 = more athletes on drugs = let's be a little more sceptical. I don't say every athlete was a cheat, I say let's be honest when we look at performances that were super real or still stand after a quarter of a century.
                        If you believe that Moses, Bubka, Coe, Ashford, Joyner-Kersee, Kratochvilova, Thompson, Whitbread etc were all 'freaks of nature' then you must be very naive. What happened in the late 50's and early 60's for it to produce such out standing athletes that no other period seems to have? Why would athletes born in that short period have their performances last a quarter of a century after they were set?

                        We're more advanced than ever now, so performances set in the 80's should not be leading the world lists. Seeing results from 25 yrs ago at the top of the world lists across multiple events is because they were set at a time when there was no drug testing, it's that simple.

                        With regards to the 1990's, I believe this was not much better than pre 89, but it was better. Slightly. But yes, absolutely, we did see an influx of performances that appear to be as a result of EPO and should be questioned.

                        Rant and justification for my point 5 above over.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X