Calvin Smith: THE FIRST SUB 10

jim hines kinda ran a sub 10 in mexico city, the wind was good, but the timing wasn't FAT by the standards of today.

Altitude is great for sprinters! As distances get shorter, altitude hurts you less and less, and eventually even helps. Smith doesn't get as much recognition as you'd think because running a sprint WR at high altitude is similar to Geoffrey Mutai running a "WR" at Boston with a tailwind. Fantastic performance, no doubt, but Lewis doing it at low altitude was obviously more impressive.

Flo'da boy wrote:

Was looking at sprinting videos and cam across this interview with Calvin Smith preceding a battle with Allan wells. Smith seems to be an under appreciated athlete considering he was the first man to break 10.

Calvin Smith was the only clean runner on the line for the 100m in 1988. Totally under appreciated. He is probably still the fastest clean sprinter to ever live.

joel przybilla wrote:

jim hines kinda ran a sub 10 in mexico city, the wind was good, but the timing wasn't FAT by the standards of today.

that there was an electric time on Jim Hines 9.9h final in '68 OG final. It read 9.95 and most people I know take that to be the first sub 10 under electronic timing.

America right wrote:

Calvin Smith was the only clean runner on the line for the 100m in 1988. Totally under appreciated. He is probably still the fastest clean sprinter to ever live.

That would be one Franklin Fredericks; the man who got robbed of problably the highest number of golds in any sport during his carreer bij generations of dirty sprinters coming from the ol' US if A, Britain and Canada.

No "kinda" about Jim Hines. Fully automatic timing for 1968 Oly 100m, and Hines' 9.95 is accepted by IAAF, T&FN, and FAST (statisticians group). Yes, it was at altitude, but so was Smith's 9.93.See official IAAF WR progression on page 547 of this document:http://tinyurl.com/qhcnmeoYou will find Hines' 14 Oct 68 mark listed in the progression, and also this note: "Progression of automatically-timed records following the first such ratified mark, 9.95 Hines as above"You are welcome.

joel przybilla wrote:

jim hines kinda ran a sub 10 in mexico city, the wind was good, but the timing wasn't FAT by the standards of today.

I apologize for my ignorance. I suppose o though Hines' time was wind aided or not FAT but I suppose Hines was first. Either way it's strange that there could even be confusion over something so apparently momentous. Our passion for arbitrary numbers seems to have its limits

It can be confusing because although the race was FAT, in that era they still officially recorded the marks in tenths. Luckily, the records of the complete times in hundredths, and perhaps the photo, survived for historians.

Flo'da boy wrote:

I apologize for my ignorance. I suppose o though Hines' time was wind aided or not FAT but I suppose Hines was first. Either way it's strange that there could even be confusion over something so apparently momentous. Our passion for arbitrary numbers seems to have its limits

calvin was unlucky not to get "full" wr :

9.91+2.1 Calvin Smith USA 08.01.61 1 Karl-Marx-Stadt 09.07.1982