Yeah, I get that about the drugs. But it somehow still matters to me. I dunno. Que sera, sera.
I like your inclusion of Lyles. He was in the mix for me, too, but I'm holding out on giving him a big foothold in the all-time greats until I see one more/his next big maxed out result and/or another major global title. Plus I want to see what he can/will do once he fully embraces the 100, as well, but that's a bit independent of his place in this 200m scenario.
I feel like that mid-to-late 60s sprint era doesn't get as much attention as it should, and why that is would be a fascinating discussion. Hayes, Carr, Smith, Hines, Carlos...these guys have a place in the pantheon as it is, obviously, but if they did what they did in the 80s or onward I feel like the conversation would be different for them. The transition to FAT, synthetic tracks, training, amateur vs. pro, even media coverage/racial complexities/politics all seem to have really put that mid to late 60s era behind a bit of an eight ball, at least in terms of how they measure up compared to some of the greats since then.
Measuring between eras is hard anyway; guys like Owens and Paddock, etc. are hard to quantify, as well -of course-. But, like, I just read how they weren't really planning on using the FAT results as the official time during Tokyo '64, so they used some lame plan of taking the time Hayes ran FAT [10.06!, as discussed on a cinder track in CHEWED UP LANE 1), and randomly decided to subtract .05 from the time and then round to the nearest tenth from there (apparently up or down, as needed, hence why he was given an "official" 10.0).
That is some of the most nonsensical 'ish I have ever heard. I feel like someone said, while they were trying to come up with what to do with the times, "well let's subtract .05 and then just round it up from there like we do with the stop watches."
And then someone heard that and was like, "But that'll give Hayes a damned 10.1, and there is NO WAY he ran 10.1. We've got our official guys who clocked him at 9.9 the old fashioned way. It's probably the fastest race ever run EVER. He broke 10! I know we aren't just using the hand times this year, but you can't just give him 10.1 for that!"
To which some curmudgeon probably butted in and says, "If we had timed the way we ALWAYS have, none of the official timers would have clocked him at under 10. That's an anomaly because we decided we weren't doing the hand ONLY. We'll...just...round his time down to 10.0, instead. Lets just take all the sprint times and round to the NEAREST tenth after that .05 subtraction. Yeah, SURE, that works. OK, it's settled..."
While the dude in the back who knows how stupid an idea that is, is drowned out and left shaking his head.