Still believe that Flo Jo's 10.49 isn't legit?

A 10.54 today is less impressive than the same time would have been 30+ years ago with slower spikes and on a slower track surface.

Flojo didn't run on mondo tracks with superspikes (however little effect they may have on sprints) either.

But I find the debate about the wind gauge to be a little bit moot anyways, because even if it was wind aided (it probably was but not massively so), there have been plenty of other wind-aided times and none have come close to 10.50.

So whether or not the specific time of 10.50 is legit, Flojo is the undisputed GOAT.

oldschoollrc wrote:

A 10.54 today is less impressive than the same time would have been 30+ years ago with slower spikes and on a slower track surface.

Flo Jo had no out of competition testing and had an obvious wind gauge error, so when you put those factors in the equation. Thompson's time is more impressive all things being equal.

That we believe (or know) that 10.49 was wind-aided has no bearing on whether we believe a woman can run that fast.

Btw, IAAF commissioned a report on that and it was estimated to be between +5.0m/s and +7.0m/s.

habs wrote:

Flojo didn't run on mondo tracks with superspikes (however little effect they may have on sprints) either.

But I find the debate about the wind gauge to be a little bit moot anyways, because even if it was wind aided (it probably was but not massively so), there have been plenty of other wind-aided times and none have come close to 10.50.

So whether or not the specific time of 10.50 is legit, Flojo is the undisputed GOAT.

**10.49. Flojo has 5 performances 10.62 or better including wind aided performances. Thompson has only 2 runs under 10.70.

Elaine could maybe beat Flojo's legacy next year if she keeps it up but it hasn't happened yet.

habs wrote:

habs wrote:

Flojo didn't run on mondo tracks with superspikes (however little effect they may have on sprints) either.

But I find the debate about the wind gauge to be a little bit moot anyways, because even if it was wind aided (it probably was but not massively so), there have been plenty of other wind-aided times and none have come close to 10.50.

So whether or not the specific time of 10.50 is legit, Flojo is the undisputed GOAT.

**10.49. Flojo has 5 performances 10.62 or better including wind aided performances. Thompson has only 2 runs under 10.70.

Elaine could maybe beat Flojo's legacy next year if she keeps it up but it hasn't happened yet.

Double-double plus an actual WR, she needs nothing else to prove.

Here's the said report:

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/Publications/IAAFReport(Linthorne).pdf

Elaine has two 10.5 basic times and way more medals. If flo Jo's 10.49 isn't legit her next best basic time 10.66 I can't think of one single sprinter that never got within .17 secs of their basic pr. People there,in the stadium, believe it was wind aided

Yeah, the first heat was ran with a +5.0m/s reading. No way it suddenly just went completely still.

I knew this would happen. The closer they come the better it is for Flo Jo. It's the way people think. Greater benefit of a doubt. Flawed but inevitable.

Meanwhile I remember watching that 10.49 live and thinking it was so obviously wind aided that they would eventually come to their senses. It looked like a wind that adds 20 yards to my driver. Late that night I was still expecting to hear the verdict had shifted to not a legal wind.

paris2024hawk wrote:

Elaine has two 10.5 basic times and way more medals. If flo Jo's 10.49 isn't legit her next best basic time 10.66 I can't think of one single sprinter that never got within .17 secs of their basic pr. People there,in the stadium, believe it was wind aided

That's not true, she has a wind-legal 10.61. Flojo's top 5 all-conditions times:

1 10.49 ±0.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1q1 Indianapolis 16.07.1988

1 10.54 +3.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1 Seoul 25.09.1988

2 10.60 +3.2 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1h1 Indianapolis 16.07.1988

2 10.61 +1.2 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1 Indianapolis 17.07.1988

4 10.62 +1.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1q3 Seoul 24.09.1988

Thompson's top 5:

_ 10.54 +0.3 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Eugene

2 10.61 -0.6 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Tokyo 31.07.2021

9 10.70 +0.3 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Kingston 01.07.2016

6 10.71 +2.4 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Kingston 07.05.2016

14 10.71 +0.5 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Rio de Janeiro 13.08.2016

I guess you can adjust those times if you'd like but I just don't see those two lists as equal even if you adjust the 10.49 to e.g. a 10.60.

One of my former profs was on the field that day gathering stats and info. He had no doubt the time was wind-aided.

habs wrote:

paris2024hawk wrote:

Elaine has two 10.5 basic times and way more medals. If flo Jo's 10.49 isn't legit her next best basic time 10.66 I can't think of one single sprinter that never got within .17 secs of their basic pr. People there,in the stadium, believe it was wind aided

That's not true, she has a wind-legal 10.61. Flojo's top 5 all-conditions times:

1 10.49 ±0.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1q1 Indianapolis 16.07.1988

1 10.54 +3.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1 Seoul 25.09.1988

2 10.60 +3.2 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1h1 Indianapolis 16.07.1988

2 10.61 +1.2 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1 Indianapolis 17.07.1988

4 10.62 +1.0 Florence Griffith-Joyner USA 21.12.59 1q3 Seoul 24.09.1988

Thompson's top 5:

_ 10.54 +0.3 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Eugene

2 10.61 -0.6 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Tokyo 31.07.2021

9 10.70 +0.3 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Kingston 01.07.2016

6 10.71 +2.4 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Kingston 07.05.2016

14 10.71 +0.5 Elaine Thompson-Herah JAM 28.06.92 1 Rio de Janeiro 13.08.2016

I guess you can adjust those times if you'd like but I just don't see those two lists as equal even if you adjust the 10.49 to e.g. a 10.60.

Basic means wind equals 0, flo jo hasn't gone below 10.66 basic

Flojo ran her record in a quarterfinal and others in her heat also set lifetime PRs, like Sheila Echols and Diane Williams.

Most events were over 4.0 wi d that day including Willie Banks going way over the triple jump record but nullified for wind.

33 years later and these 3 women are still on the all time list from this quarterfinal race.

And 10.54 from today still isn’t faster.

It was wind-aided.

Curious_Cat wrote:

Here's the said report:

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/Publications/IAAFReport(Linthorne).pdf

Comparing the other athletes' career times with the wind aided race would convince me more than any of this evidence.

habs wrote:

Flojo didn't run on mondo tracks with superspikes (however little effect they may have on sprints) either.

But I find the debate about the wind gauge to be a little bit moot anyways, because even if it was wind aided (it probably was but not massively so), there have been plenty of other wind-aided times and none have come close to 10.50.

So whether or not the specific time of 10.50 is legit, Flojo is the undisputed GOAT.

Incredibly poor post.

The wind for all but 2 races that day had wind of +4 or stronger. The triple jump going on right beside the race had sustained wind over +4. Flo Jo ran between 10.68 basic and 10,70 basic 3 times that season. Guess what 10.49 w/ +4.0 wind works out to?

And Flo Jo the GOAT? Based on one amazing year?

Richardson Last wrote:

habs wrote:

Flojo didn't run on mondo tracks with superspikes (however little effect they may have on sprints) either.

But I find the debate about the wind gauge to be a little bit moot anyways, because even if it was wind aided (it probably was but not massively so), there have been plenty of other wind-aided times and none have come close to 10.50.

So whether or not the specific time of 10.50 is legit, Flojo is the undisputed GOAT.

Incredibly poor post.

The wind for all but 2 races that day had wind of +4 or stronger. The triple jump going on right beside the race had sustained wind over +4. Flo Jo ran between 10.68 basic and 10,70 basic 3 times that season. Guess what 10.49 w/ +4.0 wind works out to?

And Flo Jo the GOAT? Based on one amazing year?

Again I'm not disputing it was wind-aided, I wasn't alive then but the evidence is pretty clear it was. 10.49 w/ +4.0 wind is still equal to a 10.57 with +2.0 wind. If the wind was +3.0, then it would be equivalent to a 10.53 with +2.0.

So even if you substitute that time for 10.53 or 10.57 the lists speak for themselves.

Wind is less of a factor in that time than old-school PEDs.

No. The evidence is not “entirely anecdotal”. You’re either uninformed or confused about what anecdotal means