You really should try to do better than that, because that was totally ineffectual.
You really should try to do better than that, because that was totally ineffectual.
not well thought of wrote:
No sarcasm at all, wrong again from your side.
I forgot my reply to this nonsense justification for Collins.
Someone who puts "Collins" on 2 (no chance to be in top 200) and makes no explanation what this should mean just has shown his incapability for some discussion.
Than this nonsense about the "BJ" era we're still in...
Sprintgeezer, I have seen you a lot on many threads and all you ever talk about is if the athlete is doping and who is clean or not. You never actually give athletes their due credit and talk about their performance. For you, if an athlete is running faster than some arbitrary limit you decreed, they surely must be doping.
If that is your only contribution to this thread, please leave. The point of this thread is not to discuss who is doping or not.
1. Performances are due, in part, to the PED’s. I do credit athletes for their part, you can see it everywhere I comment on form, execution, etc.
2. The limit is not arbitrary. It is 9.80 or below. All bit Bolt, and I have detailed his confounding factor: Diack. Now Bromell, but it is too early to tell yet with him, history has not yet had its chance to review...although his total drop-off when he could be tested internationally is very suggestive. Oh, and Jacobs, for whom there is already ample circumstantial evidence to create a strong suspicion, even in the absence of the 9.80-or-better stats.
3. Clearly that has not been my only contribution to the thread—but even had it been, it would be valid. When you rank sprinters, you necessarily include their PED regimens because the performances are a composite of the two. Fine, that is why I have FloJo at #1–but it is also fair to extract PED’s from consideration, because the word “sprinter” properly applies to only the person, not the PED’s. That is why I mentioned Lemaitre and Pender.
I wonder if you even read the posts.
A serious top 10 definitely should include: Usain Bolt, Michael Johnson, Florence Griffith-Joyner, Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis, Marita Koch, Elaine Thompson-Herah, Shally-Ann Fraser-Pryce.
This is for the creteria used by the thread starter: men and women, all events up to 400m, the doping issue not in contention (or are athletes who actually tested positive not included?).
A ranking is very difficult, it could look something like this:
1. Bolt - three Olympic sprint doubles, untouched - especially the 100m - world records
2. M. Johnson - decade long 400m domination, three Olympic golds plus world records over 200m and 400m
3. Griffith-Joyner - reached a level which even 33 years later is untouched (considering tracks and shoes)
4. Koch - almost decade long domination of the 400m (interrupted by Kratochvilova), still untouched 4 decades after her best years, highest level from 60m to 400m
5. Thompson-Herah - two Olympic sprint doubles, 1st athlete relatively close to FloJo
6. B. Johnson - biggest leap forward in history in the 100m behind Bolt and maybe alongside Bob Hayes, tested positive and therefore could be excluded, but what could he have achieved if not banned at age 26?
7. Lewis - three Olympic golds, decade long in top 3 over 100m, world record (bests) over 100m and 200m, could be higher if he just concentraded in the sprints
8. Fraser-Pryce - two Olympic 100m golds, silver 13 years after 1st gold
Definitely in top 20 should be: Valeri Borzov, Renate Stecher, Irina Szewinska, Merlene Ottey, Evelyn Ashford,
Don't know where to rank the following athletes, since the eras they competed just differ too much from the following ones:
Jesse Owens, Bob Hayes, Betty Cuthbert, Wilma Rudolph, Eddie Tolan, Lee Evans
World rankings for non-Olympic/World Champs years should also be taken into account ... especially for those who competed before '83 (1st WC) and even before '93 (when Worlds went from every 4 years to every other year).
Also, why are you ranking women and men on the same list?
I am doing an overall comparison. It is not possible to compare men and women by times but it is possible to compare them by achievement
The two sprintgs obviously have no interest in arguments which could question their views.
.