Fastest historic untainted 100m times

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Belated Twelfth Night wrote:

Sprintgeezer, why is Calvin Smith not listed? Thanks.

His 9.93 was done with altitude assistance in Colorado Springs. His next-fastest is 9.97, which doesn't make the 9.95 cutoff.

For sure, for sure, FOR SURE he was amazing, one of the top, if not THE top, "untained 100m career" IMO, right up there with Owens.

Seems like a good guy. Excellent athlete. Too bad he didn't make my arbitrary cutoff, but lots of guys come in at 9.96 and 9.97 and that's a ton of work to consider.

Nooooooo, I thought you were gone for good!!!

Sprinter Type wrote:

Can you enumerate the cloud of suspicion around Bolt?

Done many times, search the threads. You will notice that I have been correct about ALL the top guns, most recently Carter. It was funny to read back in this thread and see that I made the list before Carter was busted. I'm glad I spoke my mind, I was vindicated yet again.

But enough about the tainted ones, check out the new guys, and how good they are relative to history. "Real times" haven't gotten any worse at all--in fact, we are seeing some of the best-ever untainted performances in the current crop.

Forget about the users--a new era may be coming where we see some of the best historic untainted times winning global championships, as it should be. They are as good as ever. Anything at or below 9.90 is absolutely smoking.

Sdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

His 9.93 was done with altitude assistance in Colorado Springs. His next-fastest is 9.97, which doesn't make the 9.95 cutoff.

For sure, for sure, FOR SURE he was amazing, one of the top, if not THE top, "untained 100m career" IMO, right up there with Owens.

Seems like a good guy. Excellent athlete. Too bad he didn't make my arbitrary cutoff, but lots of guys come in at 9.96 and 9.97 and that's a ton of work to consider.

Nooooooo, I thought you were gone for good!!!

Do you have a problem with either the list, the criteria, the analysis, or any combination thereof?

This is extremely interesting...hope you stick around for longer this time and teach us more on sprint related topics!

Also, check out how many of the guys on the list are currently competing, and are at or near the top of their game:

Bromell

Vicaut

Simbine

Martina

Dasaolu

DeGrasse

Ashmeade

Lemaitre

Bailey-Cole

Bracy

Good times. Also, I see that I have Ash on the list twice. Here is the list, less his 9.93:

Bailey 9.84

Bromell 9.84

Burrell 9.85

Thompson 9.85 (I have questions about Port-of-Spain results)

Fredericks 9.86

Obikwelu 9.86

Bledman 9.86 (I have questions about Port-of-Spain results)

Vicaut 9.86

Dix 9.88

Frater 9.88

Padgett 9.89

Patton 9.89

Makusha 9.89

Simbine 9.89

Scott 9.91

Atkins 9.91 (I have lingering doubts)

Martina 9.91

Dasaolu 9.91

DeGrasse 9.91

Ashmeade 9.91

Cason 9.92

Lemaitre 9.92

Marsh 9.93

P. Johnson 9.93

Williams 9.93

Bailey-Cole 9.93

Vaughn 9.93

Bracy 9.93

Ogunkoya 9.94

Batson 9.94

Fisher 9.94

Webb 9.94

Henderson 9.95

Aliu 9.95

J. Johnson 9.95

Martin 9.95

Forsythe 9.95

Hyman 9.95

Dasaolu suspect as hell.

Yes I agree, but I would need specifics to boot him from the list.

As I said the list is no doubt imperfect, but I do think that it has successfully excluded many times of distinctly lesser merit. There are some like Burrell and Dasaolu that bother me, but for now they are ON.

Unless you can build a good case, that is.

Somewhat unrelated, but what are your thoughts on Van Niekirk and the 200m? Some people I listen to think that he might get close to Bolt territory but I just don't know what to expect and that seems insane

rudkin wrote:

Notably absent, of course, is Bolt. If even his 9.76 (-0.1) in Rome on May 31, 2012 is to be believed to have been clean, it adjusts to 9.75

Not a chance. I repeat, not a chance. Bolt is OFF the list.

yeah, and mark off Hemingway, Einstein, Churchill, Hannibal and Picasso too, because no way anyone could be that much better than everyone else. No way. Not a chance.

Can you really not think of competitors to each of the above in their respective fields? Really?

Reads some wrote:

rudkin wrote:

yeah, and mark off Hemingway, Einstein, Churchill, Hannibal and Picasso too, because no way anyone could be that much better than everyone else. No way. Not a chance.

Can you really not think of competitors to each of the above in their respective fields? Really?

Right? What a ridiculous comment. What's especially hilarious is to put Hemingway's name next to Einstein. LMFAO Obviously rudkin hasn't heard of people like Newton, Alexander, and Braque.

flo'da, regarding van Niekerk...that was an insane 400m, the guy just does not seem to fatigue. I have no doubt that he can run a 200 that is right up there with the 2nd-tier best of all-time, that is, in the 19.5-19.6 range.

People are comparing his 200 ability to that of MJ based on their 400 and 300 times. Even though MJ's 300 was at altitude, it wasn't at a favorable time during his training, and IMO is still significantly faster than van Niekerk's. Yes van Niekerk is superior over 400, but it is entirely possible that MJ gets faster than van Niekerk as you move down in distance. Yes I know about van Niekerk's 100 exploits, but MJ never ran the straight 100 when he was at his 200 or 400 peak.

Then people consider what van Niekerk can do in the 200 relative to Bolt, given their similar 300m performances. Just because van Niekerk can stretch greatness out to 400m and Bolt couldn't, does that mean that he will be near Bolt in the 200? I doubt it. In the 100, Bolt has an insane top speed. In the 200, he has that "easy" high speed that has allowed him to literally jog to a 9.8 clocking, and that easy high speed is what got him to 19.19.

van Niekerk hasn't shown that special ability, and there is no way he will get near 19.20 using that strategy.

Is there another strategy to get there, or near? MJ got to 19.32 using a different strategy, he had a better 2nd 100 in his 19.32 than Bolt had in his 19.19...BUT it got him to only 19.32, not 19.19. IMO the 2 times are distinctly different.

In my mind, it will depend on whether van Niekerk can maintain a faster "easy high speed" than did MJ, because that's all it comes down to. He has a good start, he runs and accelerates on the turn well, and he has excellent SE.

Can he do it? I honestly don't know, but I would love to see him try. 200's are sure a lot easier to take than 400's!

ahh your back....way better to see you return then vent, that guy is an idiot beyond comprehension

i will add in if thats ok. most of the time some troll bashes me and then the lamo bros delete my comment. wish i screen shot my prediction on van n, vent was claiming merritt was going to get the WR cause he opened with a 44, but in the vid as in all merritts runs he was maxed out, stiff and that ugly choppy stride tying to look like MJ...i predicted van would run the WR because he was so fluid and smooth in this 43.48, had a sub 10 when MJ's best was 10.09 and yes i would say that was in his peak time.

then he dropped a sub 20..and then the fast 300...vent still called me drivel and idiot and moron cause merrit was his sexual fantasy.

anyways van has sub 10, sub 20, a fast 300 and crushed merritt and of course the HUGE 400m, i think he can run 19.30s as well.

in his 300m he took off "slow" and relaxed and hit 31.03, in his 400 WR he split 31, but this time he took off HARD, as in the fastest first 100 in a 400, 10.7! MJ was only 11.10

he ran 10.7 and 9.8 for a 20.5...think about that for a sec

he ran 19.94 to do a PR of 43.48, so adjust half second on the 400, how much faster is his 200? merritt has a 19.74, 31.23 and 43.65, and a 60m of 6.68 which sprintgizer im sure you can see that is around 10.05-10.10 depending on the sprinter

so in that aspect it proves that van is faster than him at every distance, but has taken off too conservative in his races until his WR. i predict 9.7's and 19.30s if he focused on it

Yes I agree that van Niekerk is faster than Merritt at all distances, and yes, his first 200 of his WR 400 were insane.

You know what? 9.7 might not be as ridiculous as it sounds, except for the fact that he has had injury issues, which is apparently why he doesn't train specifically for the 100.

However, he does have those issues, and his 100 is not as great as all that, yet. His 9.98 was done with a 1.5 wind (legal), but 1400m of elevation, which is huge.

All that adds up to being miles away from 9.7.

But he does have a beautiful stride down that back stretch. Who knows.

I would like to see him do some early-season high-altitude races at the various altitude venues in South Africa, from 100-300m, with a focus on the 200

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Yes I agree that van Niekerk is faster than Merritt at all distances, and yes, his first 200 of his WR 400 were insane.

You know what? 9.7 might not be as ridiculous as it sounds, except for the fact that he has had injury issues, which is apparently why he doesn't train specifically for the 100.

However, he does have those issues, and his 100 is not as great as all that, yet. His 9.98 was done with a 1.5 wind (legal), but 1400m of elevation, which is huge.

All that adds up to being miles away from 9.7.

But he does have a beautiful stride down that back stretch. Who knows.

I would like to see him do some early-season high-altitude races at the various altitude venues in South Africa, from 100-300m, with a focus on the 200

Hey Sprintgeezer is back! Awesome! We missed you, dude.

Coleman is ON at 9.95 with his 2016 9.95 (+1.7):

Bailey 9.84

Bromell 9.84

Burrell 9.85

Thompson 9.85 (I have questions about Port-of-Spain results)

Fredericks 9.86

Obikwelu 9.86

Bledman 9.86 (I have questions about Port-of-Spain results)

Vicaut 9.86

Dix 9.88

Frater 9.88

Padgett 9.89

Patton 9.89

Makusha 9.89

Simbine 9.89

Scott 9.91

Atkins 9.91 (I have lingering doubts)

Martina 9.91

Dasaolu 9.91

DeGrasse 9.91

Ashmeade 9.91

Cason 9.92

Lemaitre 9.92

Marsh 9.93

P. Johnson 9.93

Williams 9.93

Bailey-Cole 9.93

Vaughn 9.93

Bracy 9.93

Ogunkoya 9.94

Batson 9.94

Fisher 9.94

Webb 9.94

Henderson 9.95

Aliu 9.95

J. Johnson 9.95

Martin 9.95

Forsythe 9.95

Hyman 9.95

Coleman 9.95

I did a look at the wind readings. One might reasonably expect that any particular athlete's best absolute clocking would be achieved with favorable wind conditions--or at least not unfavorable wind conditions.

Of the 39 clockings, only 3 had negative wind readings, and then only just:

-0.4 Fredericks

-0.5 Atkins

-0.6 Marsh

The average of the wind readings is +1.051282 m/s, or +1.1 m/s if you round up.

Thanks, but it's only a guest appearance to update this thread.

I figured that I would come in here and reflect the fact that douchebags Carter and Kimmons got caught and suspended. I knew that Carter shouldn't have been on the list, and I strongly suspected that Kimmons shouldn't have been, either.

To my mind, in a way these represent the real top sprinters, and the real human record.

It's HUGE that Bromell has tied it, and that Vicaut recently got very close.

I also think it reflects how under-rated Dix and Frater are in the straight 100. Yes I know they have a boatload of medals between them, but they are even better than that, IMO.

It also shows that there are a few guys closing in on that 9.84, who are running very well: Simbine, DeGrasse, Ashmeade, and Bailey-Cole are probably the front-runners.

It also shows that low-9.9 is no laughing matter, even if it had some wind behind it.

I really think it's time we put the users out to pasture, and considered the aided performances as just not as good, although some are very notable like Smith's 9.93A and Hines 9.95A. Hines' time is 10.03 basic, and would put him at 9.93 without altitude and with a max legal wind, smoking for sure; Smith's time is 10.04 basic, so 9.94 without altitude and with a max legal wind.

They would both be in good company with those times, but consider that even WITH the elevation they went only 9.93 and 9.95, and so land near the bottom of the list, but still within the top 40 of all-time. As you would expect, for 2 great champions.

No, the list isn't perfect, and no, it's not definitive, it is just an attempt to recognize the excellence of some who have been overshadowed by junk athletes.

yeah i know but you have to look at his 200s and his 300s, way to slow...so i imagine if someone can find his 9.98 100 it prob looks like his 400...big strides and smooth...kinda like bolts first 100m 10.03 im sure was like how he used to run this 200 and 400, big slow opened stride. when bolt learned how to sprint with power boom 9.70s

van in my opinion is almost as smooth as JW but has way more power, obviously with his PR's. besides any PED talk, van did go and train with bolt for what 2 weeks or so? it would be cool if he tried to dial in his sprinting form and see what he could do, and hopefully not blow up a hammy!

found these, the 100m is pretty much a terrible vid but he was way way out front....watch the vid and see, i would think that its worth a low 9.9 easy if he wasnt with scrubs

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

and then his 200m, you can see he gets crushed hard the first 80 or so, then hits top "400m" stride speed and holds on, not once does it look like he is sprinting, but looks like he is doing the open stride style he does in his 400s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdGNGTakO8w

and then while im at it lets look at his 300 and 400 WR

300m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yQTrGi88dE

400 WR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG91krXuxyw

and as shown in the splits his 10.7 is the fastest anyone has ever done the first 100, so i imagine after that he knows he can take off with that intensity in the 200 and he will drop a fast time, well i think he will anyway

hey geezer, tell us what you think after analyzing them vids

I love you man, but no, I'm going to stick to the original topic. I will just say that van Niekerk is no doubt great, and that I can't wait to see what he does in the 2.

One last thing about the list: while by no means perfect, a smooth fit may very well reflect the tail of some normal distribution.

Look at the number of athletes at the top clockings:

7 - 9.95

4

6

2

6

0 - 9.90

4

2

0

3

2 - 9.85

2 - 9.84

I see a decreasing trend, from 7/6 to 3/2, which makes sense. If I took out those who I consider suspicious, it would be even better, but they're still IN.

I'm very excited for the post Bolt era. It's still it's a long shot but im hoping we'll see a lot more competition between the top guys and those on the edge, like we see in the hurdles. No more stars dodging each other and depleted fields

Also who do y'all call to go sub 9.95 this year for the first time?

Unknowns aside I say:

Fearon

Kiryu

Gemili