Bobby MORROW

[satch400]

He looked and sprinted GREAT, HOW good would he be today? SATCH says 9.88, 19.6 and big meet , not cow pasture , competitor!

[hj197steve]

Re: Bobby MORROW

great then, would be just as great now. Not in Carl's echelon, but pretty close. He's as good as Mo.

[79.]

Re: Bobby MORROW

Today, I would see him more as a 10"00 and 20"00
sprinter.
May be as a sub-44"5 quarter miler?

[Per Andersen]

Re: Bobby MORROW

Morrow would have been right at the top in both the 100 & 200. One of the greatest competitors of all time.

[mrbowie]

Re: Bobby MORROW

He was one of the smoothest runners, too. He seemed to have effortless motion. He was just a natural talent.

He would be the fastest man in the world today.

[Since 1956]

Re: Bobby MORROW

Morrow was one of the great athletes that got me interested in track in 1956 when I was 12 year old. He was an extraordinary talent who would be capable of 10.00 or better and 20.00 or better with todays training, shoes and tracks.

[rhymans]

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.

[mrbowie]

Re: Bobby MORROW

Andy Stanfield was an 800-meter runner.

[The King]

Re: Bobby MORROW

>Andy Stanfield was an 800-meter runner.

Andrew 'Andy' Stanfield won the 1952 Men's 200m (20.7s, equalled the-then OG record) and 4x100m relay (40.1s) as part of the USA team...

[Sprintstatman]

Re: Bobby MORROW

I remember being struck when I first saw film of Morrow run how much he looked like a modern sprinter - powerful, smooth, technically superb. Up there with Owens and Borzov (also both ahead of their time) as a sprinter who was just poetry in motion (sorry for the cliche).

[Rob]

Re: Bobby MORROW

..

[Since 1956]

Re: Bobby MORROW

>Andy Stanfield was an 800-meter runner.

mrbowie...You may be thinking of Lang Stanley..he was a very good 800m runner in the 50's.

[satch400]

Re: Bobby MORROW

I remember there was article about MORROW in SI a few years ago .Was bitter about track and treatment he received . Is there any news about him since then?

[Jacksf]

Re: Bobby MORROW

re....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.


Who's Tidwell?
Why was he so unlucky?

[tandfman]

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.