Does the wind account for her 200M 21.3 WR as well?
That question is the trump card in this debate. Her 21.34 is right in line with her 10.49. Take that, haters!
What the hell does that race done at another meet have to do with this race that had a faulty wind gauge? Plus 21.34 does not come close to indicating Flo Jo was capable of 10.49 basic.
Sherricka Jackson is a 10.70 runner (like Flo Jo was from July to September 1988). With the right wind she could have run faster than 21.34 this year. But that then doesn't mean she can run 10.49 BASIC. Shes more than two tenths slower.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Santa Claus , the tooth fairy , the Easter bunny and 10.49 aren't real.
Claro que sí, her 21.34 has everything to do with her 10.49 because it’s indicative of her ability. A 21.34 is valued at 1308 points and 10.49 is 1314 points. Very close!
Jackson is a terrible comparison because she was a 400 runner not a pure 100-200 sprinter like Queen Flo Jo.
Claro que sí, her 21.34 has everything to do with her 10.49 because it’s indicative of her ability. A 21.34 is valued at 1308 points and 10.49 is 1314 points. Very close!
Jackson is a terrible comparison because she was a 400 runner not a pure 100-200 sprinter like Queen Flo Jo.
Exactly right. Her undisputedly wind legal 200m record shows her 10.49 ability.
Plus 10.49 is the best all conditions 100m too. NO ONE has EVER equaled her time with ANY amount of tailwind. So all these arguments against her are mute.
And this record gives mystique to these events. Jackson,SFP, ETH, SCR. None are worthy to carry this crown.
Well you all seem to forget Gatlin's 9.45....the differential performance in his run compared with his SB was quite.similar to FloJos 10.49 from 10.7 basic in 1988....so we can infer the wind assistance was similar for FloJo as for Gatlin...that's not "0.0" lol....
FloJoBest and GOAT Jo are clearly the same poster. That aside, let's look at how the field of runners in that QUARTERFINAL race did in the next round when wind was way down across the board (from about +5 is every race except the 10.49 race) down to about +1.5.
From AdrianSprints.com:
"Six athletes who recorded massive improvements during the quarterfinal 1 (Flo-Jo’s heat), have recorded ~0.28 secs slower during their semi-final races, even though the races were ‘assisted’ by tailwinds greater than >1.3 m/s."
The speculation here is wild. Again, none of you have ANY evidence that she cheated or that her records were tainted in any way. You just have broken hearts that FloJo remains the GOAT. Get over it!
I'm actutally saying she possibly wasn't 'cheating' (in strictly letter of the law terms at least - moral terms could be interpreted differently) in '88 as HGH wasnt considered a banned substance at the time - she may well have been 'technically' clean in that year.
Absolutely not. The improvement from '87 defies any natural progression. Her 21.34 for the 200 has resisted attack for 35 years.
You also forget that in her "wind-assisted" 10.49 there wasn't another American Olympian near her. They didn't appear to get the same kind of advantage that she had in that race.
Claro que sí, her 21.34 has everything to do with her 10.49 because it’s indicative of her ability. A 21.34 is valued at 1308 points and 10.49 is 1314 points. Very close!
Jackson is a terrible comparison because she was a 400 runner not a pure 100-200 sprinter like Queen Flo Jo.
Exactly right. Her undisputedly wind legal 200m record shows her 10.49 ability.
Plus 10.49 is the best all conditions 100m too. NO ONE has EVER equaled her time with ANY amount of tailwind. So all these arguments against her are mute.
And this record gives mystique to these events. Jackson,SFP, ETH, SCR. None are worthy to carry this crown.
Apart from her phenomenal speed and dominance over her competitors in '88 the thing that struck me the most watching her at Seoul was her musculature - especially her legs. I had never seen anything like it before on a woman sprinter. Physique-wise, she looked more like Ben Johnson than any female athlete (although a lot better-looking). But looking back at footage from that era I realise how normal her "look" has become; most women sprinters are like that now.
21.34s divided by 2 is about 10.67s over 100M. Flojo was no better than a 10.6x sprinter.
Shericka Jackson's fastest 200M of 21.41s (divide by 2) is about 10.7s over 100m. That's pretty close to her fastest 100M time of 10.65s and she ran that 10.6x only once and it was with a decent tail wind. She is a 10.7x sprinter which is why breaking 21.4 is a challenge without decent wind.
If Flojo was capable of dropping 10.49s ,her 200M time should have been closer to 21.00s (i.e. 10.49 * 2).
As a point of comparison, Bolts 19.19s 200M WR, divided by 2 is 9.59s over 100M which is very close to his 100M WR of 9.58s.
Apart from her phenomenal speed and dominance over her competitors in '88 the thing that struck me the most watching her at Seoul was her musculature - especially her legs. I had never seen anything like it before on a woman sprinter. Physique-wise, she looked more like Ben Johnson than any female athlete (although a lot better-looking). But looking back at footage from that era I realise how normal her "look" has become; most women sprinters are like that now.
No. I don't see any of the current crop of 100M female sprinters with that level of muscular development. Elaine Thompson, Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce, Shericka Jackson, Shacarri Richardson - none of them look like female bodybuilders which is what FloJo looked like when she started dropping other worldly times.
I'm actutally saying she possibly wasn't 'cheating' (in strictly letter of the law terms at least - moral terms could be interpreted differently) in '88 as HGH wasnt considered a banned substance at the time - she may well have been 'technically' clean in that year.
Absolutely not. The improvement from '87 defies any natural progression.
You misunderstood his point. What Darren H said was that since HGH wasn't on the banned substance list in 1988, FloJo could have been taking HGH in 1988 and still been telling the truth about not taking a banned substance.
Darren H was NOT saying that FloJo's improvement from 1987 to 1988 was natural.
Absolutely not. The improvement from '87 defies any natural progression.
You misunderstood his point. What Darren H said was that since HGH wasn't on the banned substance list in 1988, FloJo could have been taking HGH in 1988 and still been telling the truth about not taking a banned substance.
Darren H was NOT saying that FloJo's improvement from 1987 to 1988 was natural.
He may have been saying that but I doubt that Flojo was taking anything legal that year or we would have seen other sprinters doing the same and achieving similar massive improvements. We didn't. If it was "legal" it would have been a commonplace.
Apart from her phenomenal speed and dominance over her competitors in '88 the thing that struck me the most watching her at Seoul was her musculature - especially her legs. I had never seen anything like it before on a woman sprinter. Physique-wise, she looked more like Ben Johnson than any female athlete (although a lot better-looking). But looking back at footage from that era I realise how normal her "look" has become; most women sprinters are like that now.
No. I don't see any of the current crop of 100M female sprinters with that level of muscular development. Elaine Thompson, Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce, Shericka Jackson, Shacarri Richardson - none of them look like female bodybuilders which is what FloJo looked like when she started dropping other worldly times.
You need to look at that '88 footage again. Her successors are pretty much the same - especially in the legs. None of them look anything like Wyomia Tyus or Wilma Rudolph.
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
FloJoBest and GOAT Jo are clearly the same poster. That aside, let's look at how the field of runners in that QUARTERFINAL race did in the next round when wind was way down across the board (from about +5 is every race except the 10.49 race) down to about +1.5.
From AdrianSprints.com:
"Six athletes who recorded massive improvements during the quarterfinal 1 (Flo-Jo’s heat), have recorded ~0.28 secs slower during their semi-final races, even though the races were ‘assisted’ by tailwinds greater than >1.3 m/s."
Explain that one away.
100%
One of the best athletes to look at is Sheila Echols. This is her over a 4 year span including 1988
'87 > 11.09
'88 > 10.83
'89 > 11.07
'90 > 11.05
But even better is her series of runs in Indianapolis. 4 runs tell you everything about Echols ability and tell you the story of the infamous QF race. Echols 3 other runs in Indianapolis were not just indicative of her form at the trials but of her entire career.
Heat > 10.83 +3.9 (11.03)
QF > 10.83 0.0 (10.83)
Semi > 10.99 +1.3 (11.07)
Final > 11.00 +1.2 (11.08)
The heat and QF were run within 2 and a half hours of each other. She did not go from running an adjusted 11.03 to 10.83 in 150 minutes.
Same for future OC Gail Devers
Heat > 11.15 +3.5 (11.34)
QF > 10.98 0.0 (10.98)
Semi > 11.24 +1.3 (11.33)
How can anyone argue against this? It's frightening levels of delusion. It's crucial to have these comparisons and patterns from other athletes - because despite the other boatload of evidence we see and hear in the footage, the last bastion of hope for supporters of the legitimacy of this run is that she "just had a once in a lifetime moment where it all clicked". Okay - but the odds of this happening for multiple other athletes all to the exact same degree are essentially zero. I can do this for every single athlete that ran at least 2 other races other than QF 1 or 2(the "0.0" races). If the pattern is the same for another 10 athletes is that enough evidence?
If anyone still believes that this race was run in absolutely no wind conditions, then I feel really bad for you - that's the nicest way to put it.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
21.34s divided by 2 is about 10.67s over 100M. Flojo was no better than a 10.6x sprinter.
Shericka Jackson's fastest 200M of 21.41s (divide by 2) is about 10.7s over 100m. That's pretty close to her fastest 100M time of 10.65s and she ran that 10.6x only once and it was with a decent tail wind. She is a 10.7x sprinter which is why breaking 21.4 is a challenge without decent wind.
If Flojo was capable of dropping 10.49s ,her 200M time should have been closer to 21.00s (i.e. 10.49 * 2).
As a point of comparison, Bolts 19.19s 200M WR, divided by 2 is 9.59s over 100M which is very close to his 100M WR of 9.58s.
That’s an overly simplistic formula that is far from universal. Sha’Carri Richardson’s fastest 100 is 10.65. Multiply that by 2 and you get 21.30 but her fastest 200 is just 21.92.
First, you know the top sprinters don’t run all out in the first round, so don’t even bother comparing those times.
Second, it is not uncommon for an outstanding athlete to pull an entire field to fast times. Did you not watch the 2012 Olympic 800 final with David Rudisha?
Third, it’s also not uncommon for a sprinter to run slower in the later rounds if they go hard in one of the early rounds. It’s called fatigue. Just this year, it happened to Keni Harrison. She ran 12.24 in the opening round, then 12.33 in the semifinal, and finished with a 12.46 in the final. These are humans not robots.
First, you know the top sprinters don’t run all out in the first round, so don’t even bother comparing those times.
Second, it is not uncommon for an outstanding athlete to pull an entire field to fast times. Did you not watch the 2012 Olympic 800 final with David Rudisha?
Third, it’s also not uncommon for a sprinter to run slower in the later rounds if they go hard in one of the early rounds. It’s called fatigue. Just this year, it happened to Keni Harrison. She ran 12.24 in the opening round, then 12.33 in the semifinal, and finished with a 12.46 in the final. These are humans not robots.
Get help.
You know I was going to add in a point about how as this messageboard is predominantly distance running based, that I could understand how sometimes these times are looked through the lens of say a distance event where clearly it's not uncommon to see large variance across times from a heat to a semi and to a final and how some people might innocently think that this would apply across all track events that have heats/finals from a 5000m to a 100m. But then I thought that this would just be insulting peoples intelligence to do this as clearly there is a massive difference between a 100m event, run in lanes, with essentially no positional/racing tactics and an 800m event and it would be utter ridiculous to compare the two. Surely nobody would actually do that without stopping and thinking about the absurdity of doing so.
For you to try and compare an 800m and a 100m and say "well Rudisha ran 1.45.90 in the heats in London and then 1.40.91 in the final so there, explain that" - I really want to use a word but I know I can't.
Just as (wish I could use the word again) is trying to compare the hurdles to the flat 100m - sure, the same distance run but one is over 10 hurdles which can create far greater fluctuations in performance irrespective of actual form due entirely to the added variables in the race. For you to say that 2 tenths of a second over hurdles is the same 2 tenths over 100m in terms of an indicator of form/fitness - I mean I don't even know why I am dignifying this with a response. There is just a massive fundamental issue here with your knowledge of the sport.
Apart from her phenomenal speed and dominance over her competitors in '88 the thing that struck me the most watching her at Seoul was her musculature - especially her legs. I had never seen anything like it before on a woman sprinter. Physique-wise, she looked more like Ben Johnson than any female athlete (although a lot better-looking). But looking back at footage from that era I realise how normal her "look" has become; most women sprinters are like that now.
I concur, there was indeed something really fishy about her musculature, like Kratovchilova in the womens 800m. But testing wasn't all that good back then so what can anyone do but to gasp in awe?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.