You’re the one who needs to get help to figure out why you are trying so hard to smear Queen Flo Jo.
You act like 10.49 is so far beyond what Flo Jo was capable of. It’s not. Her 200 is proof. Look at the points!
I hope Flo Jos records keep standing
Pro News/Info/Results
-
15
-
GOAT Jo wrote:
JustNo wrote:
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.
That's hardly the comparison I'd use. Shacarri is a sprinter with limited 200M experience and much room to develop and grow.
21 -
Is Christian Coleman experienced enough for you? His 9.76 in the 100 should be a 19.52 200 based on your formula but his fastest 200 is 19.85.
12 -
GOAT Jo wrote:
You act like 10.49 is so far beyond what Flo Jo was capable of. It’s not. Her 200 is proof. Look at the points!
Yes, we are aware of how fast FloJo was able to run once she started using drugs in 1988.
41 -
Cultureguy wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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
Forget about testing not being good back then. Out of competition drug testing didn't exist at all.
30 -
GOAT Jo wrote:
You’re the one who needs to get help to figure out why you are trying so hard to smear Queen Flo Jo.
You act like 10.49 is so far beyond what Flo Jo was capable of. It’s not. Her 200 is proof. Look at the points!
At this point we all know you're trolling. There isn't a single ounce of critical thinking in your responses.
51 -
Nice concession speech
13 -
Drive Faze wrote:
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.
We’re not actually lol. But he did take up the cause. Look, I don’t really care how the records were set. I just don’t like this current crop of sprinters that are getting close. I just feel like those records wouldn’t feel as special with any of them
13 -
Three points from a long time lurker.
1) Like many of you, I think that it is almost certain that Flo Jo was doping in 1988. The improvements in her times, the changes in her physique and appearance, the deepening of her voice…pretty telling.
2) That being said, I kind of understand what the OP means. What’s the point of another obviously roidsd up Jamaican/ American sprinter taking away the WRs at this point? Not only are these women obviously doping, but none has the star quality that Flo Jo had (in my eyes at least).
3) Perhaps I’m just blind, but Flo Jo never looked that enormously muscular to me. She did look super ripped in a way that is virtually impossible for a woman to achieve (naturally, at least), but she didn’t look freakishly huge in terms of mass. Shericka Jackson and SAFP just look ridiculously huge in comparison, as did Kratochvilova.
52 -
Think Again wrote:
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
Does the wind account for her 200M 21.3 WR as well?
Nope. That was just a lot of drugs.
So if she could run 21.3 doped, why couldn't she run 10.4 doped?
12 -
que no wrote:
GOAT Jo wrote:
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.
It's not real? and yet it's the WR? Dude, whatever you are smoking, put it down. You are being silly.
Bolt ran 9.5 and 19.19 for his WRs.
14 -
GOAT Jo wrote:
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
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!
That guy is just being a bit silly. As if the then IAAF didn't ratify the performance. They may not have tested for drugs, as is done now, but they certainly investigated the performances.
03 -
David Paterson wrote:
Three points from a long time lurker.
1) Like many of you, I think that it is almost certain that Flo Jo was doping in 1988. The improvements in her times, the changes in her physique and appearance, the deepening of her voice…pretty telling.
2) That being said, I kind of understand what the OP means. What’s the point of another obviously roidsd up Jamaican/ American sprinter taking away the WRs at this point? Not only are these women obviously doping, but none has the star quality that Flo Jo had (in my eyes at least).
3) Perhaps I’m just blind, but Flo Jo never looked that enormously muscular to me. She did look super ripped in a way that is virtually impossible for a woman to achieve (naturally, at least), but she didn’t look freakishly huge in terms of mass. Shericka Jackson and SAFP just look ridiculously huge in comparison, as did Kratochvilova.
Kratochilova looked like a man. Even more so than Semenya or Mboma.
21 -
GOAT Jo wrote:
Is Christian Coleman experienced enough for you? His 9.76 in the 100 should be a 19.52 200 based on your formula but his fastest 200 is 19.85.
Lyles has a PB of 19.3 but has never run a sun 9.8.
Michael Johnson has a PB of 19.3 but has never run a sub 9.8 100M.
Bolt PBs are 9.5 and 19.1
Do I need to go on?
22 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Todays women sprinters are much more muscled than flo jo was,even at her peak.Their legs are similar,but their upper bodies are twice as muscled.a google comparison will show you.
11 -
JustNo wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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 must be blind.Todays women are way bigger,and more muscled than flo jo.If you dont believe me,go do a google image search,and compare.Also some of them really do look like female bodybuilders,or at least womens physique bodybuilders.
22 -
02
-
GOAT Jo wrote:
Is Christian Coleman experienced enough for you? His 9.76 in the 100 should be a 19.52 200 based on your formula but his fastest 200 is 19.85.
No, he is not. He is a one off 200M sprinter who has not seriously committed to running the event. Same for Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce with 10.60PB in the 100M, who has dabbled in the 200M. 200M requires speed + endurance.
You have to commit to the distance and do background training over longer distances to be a top tier consistent 200M sprinter. This is where 300-400M background training comes in.
21
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.