He looked and sprinted GREAT, HOW good would he be today? SATCH says 9.88, 19.6 and big meet , not cow pasture , competitor!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bobby MORROW
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X
-
Re: Bobby MORROW
Back in 1963-64 Roberto Quercetani had a series of articles in "World Sports" magazine where he described mythical races at various events. He had Bob Hayes winning the 100 (in 10.05 - he ran 10.06 in Tokyo the following year), and Henry Carr the 200 (in 20.28 - compared to 20.34 later that year - though RLQ would have been closer - Carr ran against a 1.1 wind in the straight). Second in both races was Morrow (10.08/20.39 from memory). In Melbourne in '56, Andy Stanfield (the USA's best sprinter 4 years earlier in Helsinki) stated that the track was at least 0.2 slower over 200m than in Helsinki. Apply that to the 100m (i.e 1/10th of a second), and then allow for the wind which was -5.0 in the final
10.62 for Morrow
-0.10 track surface (compared to Helsinki)
-0.10 further improvements in surface quality
-0.35 negative wind
-0.10 wind positive maximium of 2.0
9.97 (with runner-up Baker on 10.12)
Ok - it's not scientific, but it gives an idea of what good runners in the 50's (Morrow, Golliday, Sime, Tidwell (the unluckiest of all), King and Norton) were truly capable of.
Comment
-
Re: Bobby MORROW
>Who's Tidwell? Why was he so unlucky?<<
Charlie Tidwell was the NCAA 100 and 200m champion in 1960 for Kansas and he equalled the WR of 10.1 seconds, although the performance was never ratified. He also ran a 200m that would have shattered the WR, but the track was slightly short. He pulled up with an injury in the final of the 100m at the Olympic Trials. Ten years later, he OD'ed.
Comment
Comment