Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59
  1. Collapse Details
    revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    60,691
    ever stop to think that in a rational universe that Sacramento's "night of speed" never would/should have happened?

    If the IAAF had had any brains at the time, when Hayes "tied" the WR of 10.0 in Tokyo, based on an auto timing of 10.06, they would have realized the apples/oranges nature of the two kinds of timing and gone w/ the hand-watch readings of 9.8/9.9/9.9 and given him the first 9.9.

    So all the 10-flats in Sacto (and various other places in '65 through mid-'68) never would have been thought of as WRs, because they really weren't.

    Worse, some bad hand timing in Sacto also led to some WRs that are pretty feeble.

    So here's what happened as the rounds unfolded in Sacto (where auto timing was available, but hand was used for "official" purposes):

    Greene ties WR of 10.0 (10.20); behind him Bambuck gets a 10.0 also (for a 10.28!).

    Then Hines runs a 9.9 (10.03); behind him Smith gets a 9.9 (10.14!).

    Then Greene runs 9.9 (10.10).

    If you go by the auto times coming in, Hayes holds the WR at 10.06. Hines edges that with a 10.03 and that's the sum total of the real WR-breaking.

    As it is, Hines (10.03) and Greene (10.10) are considered WR holders at 9.9, while Hayes (10.06) no longer is. Hayes ,meanwhile, has a 10-flat (10.06) that is "shared" by Smith (10.14), Greene (10.20) and Bambuck (10.28).

    Why should the official WR progression ignore the hand timing for one race then accept it for a bunch of subsequent ones? Terrible.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Knoxville and Seattle
    Posts
    825
    Fine presentation by editor-writer GH who has done much more re Sacramento times than I did via Historical board on 23 October 2013:

    http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/dis...art=25#p867733
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #3
    Why did they still bother with handtiming in Tokyo 64 when they had electronic timing?
    There are people in Germany who believe Hary was the first 9.9 runner in history. His first run in Zurich 1960 was timed 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 and was supposedly not a false start. What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #4
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    60,691
    Trouble is, nobody outside of Germany thinks Hary ran 9.9 :-) :mrgreen:

    Indeed, there are those who think he didn't run 10-flat either.

    Cordner Nelson's column at the time:

    <<I don't know what has happened to [the IAAF] but they seem to have lost all respect for World Records. I thought something had gone wrong when they approved the high jump record after banning the shoe which helped set it. I knew something was wrong when they approved Lauer's 13.2, made with the help of the notorious starter in Zürich. Now when they approve Hary's 10-flat at Zürich it will be the last straw.>> (Lest you think Cordner was a Hary-hater, I would note that in the same issue there's an international panel of Olympic predictions, and he was the only one who correctly predicted Hary to win)

    You asked "What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?"

    The 3 official watches read 9.9, 9.95 and 10.0. The 9.95 becomes a 10.0, so the official time was correct at 10.0. The "9.8" watch was an alternate that was not used in the calculation.

    The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:

    auf die plätze
    fertig-bang!
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #5
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    Trouble is, nobody outside of Germany thinks Hary ran 9.9 :-) :mrgreen:

    Indeed, there are those who think he didn't run 10-flat either.

    Cordner Nelson's column at the time:

    <<I don't know what has happened to [the IAAF] but they seem to have lost all respect for World Records. I thought something had gone wrong when they approved the high jump record after banning the shoe which helped set it. I knew something was wrong when they approved Lauer's 13.2, made with the help of the notorious starter in Zürich. Now when they approve Hary's 10-flat at Zürich it will be the last straw.>> (Lest you think Cordner was a Hary-hater, I would note that in the same issue there's an international panel of Olympic predictions, and he was the only one who correctly predicted Hary to win)

    You asked "What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?"

    The 3 official watches read 9.9, 9.95 and 10.0. The 9.95 becomes a 10.0, so the official time was correct at 10.0. The "9.8" watch was an alternate that was not used in the calculation.

    The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:

    auf die plätze
    fertig-bang!
    Well being a child of the electronic timing age, i think Hary ran a 10.25, which was the electronic timing for his 10.0. Which also shows how ridiculous Hayes 10.0 was, electronically he was 0.2 seconds faster than Hary, but both got a 10.0.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #6
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:
    auf die plätze
    fertig-bang!
    And the Z guy's name was Albert Kern.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    from an IP that never sent jazz that PM, never !
    Posts
    6,641
    Quote Originally Posted by norunner
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    Trouble is, nobody outside of Germany thinks Hary ran 9.9 :-) :mrgreen:

    Indeed, there are those who think he didn't run 10-flat either.

    Cordner Nelson's column at the time:

    <<I don't know what has happened to [the IAAF] but they seem to have lost all respect for World Records. I thought something had gone wrong when they approved the high jump record after banning the shoe which helped set it. I knew something was wrong when they approved Lauer's 13.2, made with the help of the notorious starter in Zürich. Now when they approve Hary's 10-flat at Zürich it will be the last straw.>> (Lest you think Cordner was a Hary-hater, I would note that in the same issue there's an international panel of Olympic predictions, and he was the only one who correctly predicted Hary to win)

    You asked "What were the timing rules, would 10.0/10.0/9.9/9.8 have been a 10.0 or 9.9 ?"

    The 3 official watches read 9.9, 9.95 and 10.0. The 9.95 becomes a 10.0, so the official time was correct at 10.0. The "9.8" watch was an alternate that was not used in the calculation.

    The legendary Italian historian Roberto Quercetani always said that the Z starter had only two commands:

    auf die plätze
    fertig-bang!
    Well being a child of the electronic timing age, i think Hary ran a 10.25, which was the electronic timing for his 10.0. Which also shows how ridiculous Hayes 10.0 was, electronically he was 0.2 seconds faster than Hary, but both got a 10.0.
    some of us consider that this shows how great a 100m man Hary was, that he was only .2 sec behind the greatest dash man ever, ... and he did it 4 years prior !! By the way, I wonder what Hary was doing in 1964, could he have picked up a silver or a bronze in Tokyo had he stuck with it?. My own guess, probably not, he would have been 27 in 1964.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #8
    Usain Bolt is 27 now. Are you suggesting that he must be over the hill?
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    from an IP that never sent jazz that PM, never !
    Posts
    6,641
    Quote Originally Posted by tandfman
    Usain Bolt is 27 now. Are you suggesting that he must be over the hill?
    2013 is not 1964

    Back to the night of speed : Question what was the wind reading on Hines' 10.03 ?
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Re: revisionist history: men's 100 WR
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    3,917
    Quote Originally Posted by user4
    Back to the night of speed : Question what was the wind reading on Hines' 10.03 ?
    +0.8 mps
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •