The Strange Case of Allan Wells

1980 yearly list 100m

http://digilander.iol.it/Mennea/Stagionali/WRL/1980/100.htm

ventolin^3 wrote:

- this is just an anecdote saying judge said wind was legal

why didn't he ask judge for the exact number ???

LOL - You're a very funny guy! Your fuzzy logic is endearing.

easy to answer wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

[quote]ventolin^3 wrote:

again clueless

olympics is NOT an iaaf meet

iaaf has nothing to do with it other than ratify wrs

whatever iaaf says for wind means nothing '

If a WR is set in the Olympics the IAAF ratifies it as it does all times.

Here is the ratified result:

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/great-britain-ni/allan-wells-9758#honours

That's not a "ratified" result. That is something that the IAAF published on the internet 35 years after the event. The internet didn't even exist in 1980

The 100m in 1980 had a headwind in every round, yet you want to believe that somehow the readings were wrong in the finals? BS.

You don't even know what a headwind and Ventolin thinks temp in 60's is good enough to run fast over 100m. Paper existed before 1980 you do know you can convert this to pdf given the right prevailing wind

The American's were 2nd raters who never won any major titles

ukathleticscoach wrote:You don't even know what a headwind and Ventolin thinks temp in 60's is good enough to run fast over 100m

i don't know where you got this nonsense from

wells ran his 10.11pb on hottest day of moscow year with temperatures well into 70s

the next day for finals, the temperatures were still in 70s

The American's were 2nd raters who never won any major titles

utter rubbish

they got no chance to win in '80

floyd beat wells 2 v 1, including crushing him in zurich, the biggest meet of the year & backed that up with another win brussels, another very big meet

The Olympics were the biggest meet of the year. Wells won that then proved his point by beating him straight afterwards. After winning the Olympics there are a lot of distractions, awards, press TV 2 v 1 is not 2-0 Wells was a proven championship performer unlike 2nd string Floyd. You are just speculating to say he would have won into a headwind on a cool day ideally suited to the Scot

only if you attended them !

for those that didn't, zurich was & wells got hammered there by floyd

by 0.02s in a nowhere meet in koblenz

floyd hammered him in what was scheduled to be the "boycott" olympic meet - zurich

not so much if world views you as a "boycott" champ

wells made so much money from all that fame he was soon back working as a maintenance man

err...

what part of floyd hammered him in zurich & also beat him in brussels your neurone unable to comprehend???

nonsense

i daresay at least 2 of those americans wouda run faster than 10.25 on that 70+F day with that +1.11m/s aiding wind

only if you attended them !'for those that didn't, zurich was & wells got hammered there by floyd.====================================Wells attended the Olympics as you said==================================

by 0.02s in a nowhere meet in koblenz

==============================

Still beat him

==============================

floyd hammered him in what was scheduled to be the "boycott" olympic meet - zurich

==================

Wells did not boycott the Olympics so just another meet to him well after his season peak

==========================================

not so much if world views you as a "boycott" champ

=============================

What like Cope & Ovett

================================

wells made so much money from all that fame he was soon back working as a maintenance man

===============================

He would still have gone to a lot of unpaid engagements and been celebrating his win. Plus an amazing achievment to win the Olympics when working full time.

===============================

err...

what part of floyd hammered him in zurich & also beat him in brussels your neurone unable to comprehend???

===================================

Neither was a championship. What championships did these great Amerian sprnters manage to win in the following years?

=====================================

nonsense

i daresay at least 2 of those americans wouda run faster than 10.25 on that 70+F day with that +1.11m/s aiding wind[/quote]

=======================================

Wind reading was changed by IAAF as everyone knew they got the wind reading wrong. Would they challenge it for no reason!. Temp was 70f at best

10f below ideal sprinting conditions

===================================================

You don't have any common sense which was proved some time back when you though some Ethiopian 'junior was running close to WR speed over xc. Has he set the world record you were predicting yet! Then what about your 1:39 for Ryun - just complete nonesense

ukathleticscoach wrote:Wells attended the Olympics as you said

it beggars belief your lack of insight !

that was the whole point !

americans weren't there !!!

Wells won that then proved his point by beating him straight afterwards

"by 0.02s in a nowhere meet in koblenz"

"Still beat him"

a meet no one had heard of

the rematch for world audience was scheduled for zurich

floyd hammered him there & for good measure beat him also in brussels

koblenz meet was same calibre as zurich/brussels ???

clueless

you clearly have no clue about the era

did you even watch or follow the sport in '80 ???

there was great media pressure on wells to prove his gold was not worthless & zurich was earmarked as rematch

he wasn't even scheduled initially to run in koblenz which americans were using as a prep meet for zurich

he caught them "cold" in koblenz but got hammered in "peak" meet of zurich

"not so much if world views you as a "boycott" champ"

"What like Cope & Ovett"

they had wrs & considered best in world before games

wells was never considered such before games & certainly not after zurich/brussels

i highly doubt he did any work in '80 but trained full-time

& a scotsman never goes to an unpaid engagement

nonsense

again you show you have no clue about the era

zurich was "unofficial" olympics of era, especially if you had no games to go to

floyd won it, hammering wells

more lack of knowledge :

floyd was superceded in '81 by an all-time great in Lewis, but still managed to be 2nd best in '81 & even ran 10.03pb in '82

by '83 he lost interest in track & went to football

if he'd stayed into track in '83 he couda got silver behind King in helsinki

nonsense

your ineptitude is embarrasing

moscow was NOT an iaaf meet & as 10.25 was no wr, it woud never have been submitted to iaaf

for umpteenth time :

the official olympic paper report says wind was

+ 1.11m/s

find me their amendment to this wind reading ???

what is this nonsense ?

i see logical analysis is completely beyond you

he tied 800m wr off serious -ve splits when ill, with a prelim 880 just 3 hours before on a semi-synthetic

a mark that lasted 7y !

in his own words, he was hugely better the next year

Resorting to racist stereotypes to support a half-baked point is not exactly going to win you this argument Ventolin.

'floyd was superceded in '81 by an all-time great in Lewis, but still managed to be 2nd best in '81 & even ran 10.03pb in '82

by '83 he lost interest in track & went to football.'

Sounds like a real champion

The wind reading was wrong

ventolin^3 wrote:

iaaf has nothing to do with it other than ratify wrs

Yes it does.

ukathleticscoach wrote:'floyd was superceded in '81 by an all-time great in Lewis, but still managed to be 2nd best in '81 & even ran 10.03pb in '82

by '83 he lost interest in track & went to football.'

Sounds like a real champion

utterly clueless

there was x5 money in nfl than track for wide-receiver

it is probably x10 now for even bolt-$ earner

witless

The wind reading was wrong

total nonsense

what part of your neurone can't read ioc report of

+ 1.11

???

then tell me where ioc changes reading ever ???

then tell me what the fuuck iaaf have to to do with an ioc meet ???

Randy Oldman wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

iaaf has nothing to do with it other than ratify wrs

Yes it does

no it doesn't

it has p!ss-ant income with nonsense $ of a few $10k for champs/diamond league winners

last i heard it had ~ $15m / y to spend on drug-testing research/etc & remainder left for prize $ in diamond league/senior wc/juniors/etc

it has p!ss-ant prize-money $

pathetic income & joe public only cares about it 1 meet in 4y & it is not even an iaaf meet !!!

Back then top American track talent went to the NLF and earned about what you said. Skeets was the fastest high hurdler and became a decent but not spectacular NFL player. But your point on the top receivers earning more than Bolt isn't true. Bolt earns about 20 million dollars I can't see a top receiver earning more than that(with endorsements).

Ps many world class American track athletes would rather be on the fringes of the NFL than being lane fillers at the golden league meets see Trindon Holliday.

My this thread has gotten out of hand

Drugs,Drugs,Drugs! wrote:Bolt earns about 20 million dollars

eh ?

no way

that's why any decent US wide receiver woud laugh at sprint career

i have seen 6'5 / 220 nigerians with 0 fat who have consulted me & laugh when i suggest they shoud be sprinting

i get

"i'm training to be/an accountant !!!"

frank obikwelu in '99 semis of 200 was just tip of iceberg !!!

So would any decent D-lineman to be a decent heavyweight boxer, but Wlad Klitschko earned 20 million plus last year. If you aren't the best you earn a fracton of what either guy earns. From what I read Bolt earns tons with endorsments and has a 250k appearance fee. Maybe he doesn't earn 20 million buts more than 7 figures with endorsements.

Vent comes up with original and bold posts. The various critics merely copy the vent posts and mock or counter the valid points presented. Vent 1 and critics 0