Well it takes Allan Wells a lot longer to polish his Olympic medals than it does for you to polish yours.
Yep, winning an Olympic gold medal in the most competitive event on the planet is garbage? That is absurd.
Going from an average club sprinter with no sprinting pedigree and a PB of of 10.72 at the age of 24 to becoming world class with a 10.11.....that's impressive in anyone's language.
the problem is
no way any of the 3 americans wouda all run slow-ass 10.25 in that final with that good 1.11 wind
wipper won a default gold in actual race
When congratulated after his surprise gold medal victory in the 100 meters Olympic finals, Wells was asked by a reporter whether "he had done it for Harold Abrahams" (the last Briton to win the event at 1924 Olympics). Wells paused and replied, true to his Scots heritage, "no, this was for Eric Liddell".
Gee I wish people would simply do their homework & not continue to speculate what 'might' have happened had the Amercsns not boycotted Moscow. The reality is what it is, Wells won beating Jamaica's best, Russia's best, Germany's best, etc.
Seriously how more sophisticated and drug enhanced were the programs in Germany & Russia with their sports scientists and thousands of athletes, at the time; AND they still couldn't beat the bloke from Edinburgh, training on a shoestring budget with none of the state of the art training methodologies of the eastern block.
It has already been mentioned - The fact is Allan Wells raced the USA lads a month after the Olympics and beat them.
What I always find interesting with the yanks is how they are quick to denigrate & cheapen the medals won at Moscow, but never cheapen the medals they won at LA in 1984 when those Olympics were boycotted by several eastern block countries.
Agreed. On a different note altitude helps a lot. Just look at all the prs set at the Great Southwest track classic in New Mexico. Those kids all run way better.
Youngy wrote:Gee I wish people would simply do their homework & not continue to speculate what 'might' have happened had the
Amercsns not boycotted Moscow
gee
i wish people woud stop talking drivel & realise informed observers that year were only interested in how quick final was v american times
it is accepted a fit sanford wouda crushed everything in moscow, but he was injured before so may not have made team
The reality is what it is, Wells won beating Jamaica's best, Russia's best, Germany's best, etc
eh ???
apart from jamaica who where nobody 100m guys back then, the ruskies/germans have been crap before/after excepting hary/borzov
Seriously how more sophisticated and drug enhanced were the programs in Germany & Russia with their sports scientists and thousands of athletes, at the time
no amount of dope will turn a crap sprinter into a champ
german/ruskie sprinters were crap in '80
AND they still couldn't beat the bloke from Edinburgh, training on a shoestring budget with none of the state of the art training methodologies of the eastern block
because german/ruskies drew on crap pool to dope
It has already been mentioned - The fact is Allan Wells raced the USA lads a month after the Olympics and beat them
USA guys who had lost all interest in training when moscow meet taken away
he turned up in peak shape v guys who had sat around at home cursing their era
does your peabrain need to be told once again :
wells won gold in pathetic 10.25 with big 1.11 behind him ???
do you think the 3 americans wouda run slower than
10.31 basic ???
What I always find interesting with the yanks is how they are quick to denigrate & cheapen the medals won at Moscow
utterly cheap 100m medals
but never cheapen the medals they won at LA in 1984 when those Olympics were boycotted by several eastern block countries.
moron
King won in 9.99 & 19.80 !!!
those times crushed anything in moscow
What was the track like in Moscow? Was it hard or soft?
iaaf have always had same 65% return on track
don't get bogged down about tracks
older ones get baked to near concrete hard with iaaf no $ to re-assess
moscow was very good track, virgin track
markin ran 44.60 which was fastest white-boy ever on low-altitude/auto :
44.26 - caballo - mulato
44.40 - fred - homeboy
44.60 - markin - ruskie
44.66 - vince - homeboy
44.70 - honz - fdr
moscow wouda been wonderful meet in '80s on that track given same weather as games
Stick to the facts. Allan Wells was the number one sprinter in the world in 1980. He had no need to race the Americans a month after winning the Olympic Lgold medal but he had the balls to front up anyway.
If anything the Americans would have been hell bent on beating Allan Wells and should have been far fresher than Allan. Wells would have been far more cooked from the Olympic 100/200 campaign.
Yet you come up with she pissweak excuse as to why they were beaten. You have absolutely no proof of you theories as to why they were beaten. It's pure conjecture.
FACT is Allan proved himself the best. He trained on speedball, bodyweight exercises and solid old hard work and beat all comers.
That's the end of the story.
In respect to LA in 1984, I wasn't referring to the sprints. There were a number of USA medals won in events traditionally dominated by eastern block countries but try telling the yanks that their medals were ONLY won because the Russians & East Germans were absent. They'd say "No godamn way, we'd have beaten anyone, because we're American".
The record books show that Allan Wells was the Olympic champion in 1980, AND unlike Carl King Lewis he has never tested positive for a banned substance. Lewis was protected and really should never have been allowed to compete at Seoul as his failed tests were covered up.
Instead of denigrating a great athlete in Allan Wells how about acknowledging what an amazing accomplishment it was. As I said before, this was a guy who hadn't broken 10.7 until he was 24 and embarked on a training formula that took him from an average club athlete to an Olympic champion. That is phenomenal in the sport of sprinting.
Ran a lot of his races without blocks.
I forgot to mention that Gary Winckler used the speed ball with his athletes. Lots of records and medals from his crew.
ventolin^3 wrote:
the problem is
no way any of the 3 americans wouda all run slow-ass 10.25 in that final with that good 1.11 wind
wipper won a default gold in actual race
Well he beat them all the Americans that year and nearly beat the WR holder in the 200m.
He also ran 10.11 in the heats
He was the number one sprinter at that time and a championship performer, something you will never understand
Wells used a standing start until he was in his mid-twenties.
Wells looks like he has the neanderthal gene, a powerful runner, and surely with standard training and blocks practice in a faster era he'd have run a lot faster. An entirely different type than the Brits' current 17 year old star, the 20.37 200m kid. That slow final time was surely for a reason--probably an erroneous wind reading, as he ran 10.11 the previous round. It looks to me from the film that he stumbled a bit at the start--his start was crap. But he also rose to the occasion that year and with the Americans there would have run faster. The gold was not likely with the best American, but that was the fault of the boycott, not Wells. By the way, Jamaicans weren't crap in the sprints in that era--a Jamaican beat Wells barely in the 100m in that same meet where he beat various American sprinters and won the 200m after the games.
People also forget that at the time the world record was 9.95 and it was only that fast becase it was run at altitude.
Silvio Leonard had a 9.98 pr at the time. That was faster than the American's had run and Wells beat him
Here is Wells demonstrating that for a couple of years he was the best sprinter in the world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PJJsLorhXE
Check out the post by Mel Lattanys son!
Her is Wells beating a young Ben Johnson:
Ventolin 3 = lpd light....
ukathleticscoach wrote:Well he beat them all the Americans that year and nearly beat the WR holder in the 200m
learn the facts
he lost 2 to 1 v floyd in '80
too much of their 1st encounter is made in lowly koln, when the meet up aimed for was zurich where floyd hammered wells & then 3rd in brussels behind floyd/mel
He also ran 10.11 in the heats
& floyd 10.07 & 10.10
He was the number one sprinter at that time and a championship performer, something you will never understand
no
learn to think
he lost 2 v 1 to floyd in '80
jjjjjjj wrote:That slow final time was surely for a reason--probably an erroneous wind reading, as he ran 10.11 the previous round
0 chance
it was the olympic final
10.25 with 1.1 is a rubbish time
It looks to me from the film that he stumbled a bit at the start
not to me
he got his usual good start
his start was crap
no
it was good start
But he also rose to the occasion that year and with the Americans there would have run faster
not borne out
he ran a "free" race in lane 8 & ran rubbish 10.25
if americans had been there, it's very likely 1 or more of 3 wouda run 10.1+ in final
The gold was not likely with the best American
yes it was
By the way, Jamaicans weren't crap in the sprints in that era
yes they were in '80
a Jamaican beat Wells barely in the 100m in that same meet where he beat various American sprinters and won the 200m after the games.
wells lost to no jamaican over 100m in '80
Wells was a championship performer aiming for victory when it counted, at the Olympic Games.
This is what you don't understand about track and field.
Being able to perform your best and win when it counts is the most important aspect of the sport at the top level.
Wells was a track version of Jack Morris. He performed better than his stats would indicate. He won back to back Commonwealth 100/200 meter titles, he won the Olympic gold and World Cups. He was just "money". Times don't do justice to his greatness.