Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10.49s & 21.34s

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • 10.49s & 21.34s

    I'm new to this forum. Thus, I don't know if this has been discussed. Where do you stand on these times? Clean? Dirty? Malfunction of clock? You say what?




    #BlackLivesMatter

  • #2
    The clock is good for both, the wind reading on the 10.49 is bullshit. The 21.34 has no technological problems attached to it.

    About the "clean" we shall not speak (by board rules). She didn't test positive; end of story (or you're on the wrong board).

    Comment


    • #3
      I remember the live call by ABC announcers, Al Trautwig and Marty Liquori.
      Al pointed out in the 100 although it was windy, the wind was coming across the track.
      I believe the wind to be legit. The 21.34 legal sort of affirms that a 10.49 is sort of equivalent to a 21.34. (If you disagree, please keep it to yourself).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bear.raccoon View Post
        . . . (If you disagree, please keep it to yourself).
        So . . . if there are no additional posts, can we assume that everyone disagrees with you? :-)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bobguild76 View Post
          So . . . if there are no additional posts, can we assume that everyone disagrees with you? :-)
          Bear!! You just got guilded.

          Comment


          • #6
            As soon as she ran the 10.49 I immediately knew there was something seriously wrong. I knew her past marks and there was nothing that suggested she was capable of coming close to that. The wind must have been near 5m/s. If it were in the other direction she wouldnt have broken 11.2. On the other hand she dominated that field in a way that wind can not explain. Honest men will wonder.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrt9yZL8dbI

            On a lighter note she and her husband were the kindest and most gracious people you could ever meet. True champions and ambassadors for the sport.
            user4
            Senior Member
            Last edited by user4; 08-03-2016, 06:11 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The "proof" of the bad reading for Flojo comes not from her, but from all the rest of the people in her heat, and those in the subsequent heat which also had a bogus 0.0 reading. Ludicrous PRs all over the place.

              Comment


              • #8
                Also the fact the last heat was 5.0+..in conditions that seemed remarkably similar that should have sent alarms ringing...at least that is what we thought watching it there.
                cubehead
                Senior Member
                Last edited by cubehead; 08-03-2016, 09:39 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by user4 View Post
                  As soon as she ran the 10.49 I immediately knew there was something seriously wrong. I knew her past marks and there was nothing that suggested she was capable of coming close to that. The wind must have been near 5m/s. If it were in the other direction she wouldnt have broken 11.2. On the other hand she dominated that field in a way that wind can not explain. Honest men will wonder.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrt9yZL8dbI

                  On a lighter note she and her husband were the kindest and most gracious people you could ever meet. True champions and ambassadors for the sport.
                  The comments on that YouTube are truly inspirational..........

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What were the times for 2nd-8th? Where those crazy fast also?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I adore her. She was a generous and kind person. The video and images of her cant capture her grace and unassuming humility. She and her husband Al were such good people.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cooter Brown View Post
                        What were the times for 2nd-8th? Where those crazy fast also?
                        Diane Williams 2nd 10.86 Gail Devers 3rd 10.97. Don't know others. I wouldn't call those crazy fast. (although for Williams and Devers at the time, they were fast times)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by trackCanuck View Post
                          Diane Williams 2nd 10.86 Gail Devers 3rd 10.97. Don't know others. I wouldn't call those crazy fast. (although for Williams and Devers at the time, they were fast times)
                          All consistent with a strong aiding wind. Devers was 22 years old and ran 10.97, that is not quite equivalent to Flo at 10.49. It seems that Flo's performance was quite a bit more extraordinary than the others. But that is usually the case with a WR !
                          user4
                          Senior Member
                          Last edited by user4; 08-04-2016, 03:35 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            https://www.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/Pu...Linthorne).pdf

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks for saving me a lot of typing.

                              Prof. Linthorne's numbers are beynd reproach.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X