Run-Down Forums

[Justin]

Hi All

Dan's kindly posted my top 10 average list in the guest articles.

Needless to say the very first thing I noticed was that I've not added Kim Collins' 2001 times - sigh. No doubt there are other errors - please let me know if you spot any and I'll update the file.

A few notes:

Mo's average of 9.852 has only been bettered even once by 5 other men.

Ato's differential of 0.04 between fastest (9.86) and 10th fastest (9.90) is the lowest

Mark Lewis-Francis already has an average of 10.13

A few athletes for whom I need more data would probably qualify - Sam Jefferson, Stephane Cali, Darren Braithwaite, Koji Ito for example

Some older athletes like Hines don't have 10 auto times at all. For others (like Steve Williams and Valeriy Borzov)their average hardly reflects their ability, more the rarity of auto times

Look forward to your comments.

Justin

[Conway]

Outstanding work .. And very interesting .. As much improvement as there has been in the 100 over the past half decade or so (anual lists being so much faster than in previous years) There are still many many sprinters on the list from what I'll call the era before sub 10.00 was common (roughly pre 90's) .. And i agree that many pre 80's sprinters got slighted due to auto timing not being in regular use (mostly only in major championship events).. Williams, Borzov, and Quarrie were outstanding athletes .. Also interesting how many athletes that had very short careers like James Sanford and Mel Lattany, for example, had very good averages for their short stay in the sport .. Perhaps the commonality of sub 10.00 would have hit earlier had athletes stayed in the sport longer during that time ??

I am impressed by Lewis Francis .. But also by Bernard Williams who is already averaging near sub 10 .. And I don't think people realize just how special an athlete Mo Greene has turned out to be .. His top 10 average would have won every race in history (that he didn't already win) except for two !!! THAT is amazing !!!

Conway

[Dan]

I was also impressed to see some of the older generation athletes lingering on the list, some of them fairly highly ranked. I guess some things age gracefully...

For those athletes who ran many of their times before the prevalence of auto-timing, did you work with converted hand times at all?

If you make any corrections to the data, let me know and I'll update it. If you want to add any editorial comments to it, pass those along to. I could also place a link on the page saying to come to this forum thread to discuss what it all means.

Dan

[Conway]

Just from lookng at the lists I do not see converted times .. But I could be wrong .. Curious as to how that would afect things, although as I think of it I don't think it would be overly dramatic as the conversion factor for the hundred is a whopping .24 .. So a 9.9 becomes 10.14 which wouldn't help a whole lot on the upper end of the scale ..

[Dan]

Yeah, I figured it wouldn't make much, if any, of an impact at the top of the list, but it might get a few more career averages under 10.20 or shake up some of the lower order.

Dan

[Conway]

Do you know if Justin has any similar work for the 200 or 400 ??? Would be interesting .. I know MJ would dominate the 400, but not so sure about the 200 .. Actually not true .. He should lead that too as he has a few 19.7xs to go with his top two times .. But the next few individuals would be interesting .. I'm guessing a close one for the second spot in the 400 ... But I would think that Quincy Watts would edge out Butch Reynolds .. And Frankie Fredericks should be ahead of Carl Lewis I would think for second spot on the 200 list .. Will have to see if Justin has these already or if we will have to go and try to figure out a list or two ..

[Dan]

I'm sure Justin will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 100m is the only such list he's put together thus far. I imagine a lot of work went into that! Justin, are you planning on keeping it up to date as the seasons progress?

Dan

[Conway]

Well kudos to Justin .. The nice thing about a list like that is that it gives you a clear idea of how good someone really is/was !!! Anyone can hit one or two races .. But consistency NOW THAT is something else entirely ...

Conway

[Dan]

You know, I could get really creative with Justin's list and load it into a sortable database. That would allow you to sort the list in ascending or descending order by rank, average, differential, 6th best time, etc. Could be kind of cool.

Something like that would merit a section of the site set aside to stats. Anyone want to work on building up a collection of stats to supplement such a thing? Conway, I believe you mentioned toying with the idea of putting together stats or performance lists?

Dan

[Conway]

I do have a question for Justin however .. YOu have used all of Ben Johnson's marks that were removed via "drug use" except for the final one .. Is there a reason for that .. Replacing a 10.01 with a 9.79 would dramatically alter his picture ... Takes him from 9.967 to 9.945 and moves him up to #8 just behind Lewis and Burrell .. So curious as to why that one mark is omitted ??

[Dan]

Ah yes, I forgot to ask about that. My assumption was that the 9.79 was left out because that time was immediately dismissed, whereas the others were considered valid (and ratified for record purposes, where applicable) until much later.

Dan

[Justin]

Hi All

Glad you like it, and thanks for the kind words. To answer some of the points raised:

I only keep 100m stats although I have enough data to do top 10s for 200m and 400m at least for the top athletes. If I get time...

There are no conversions included, I think it would distort the picture, although I may well add a supplement.

Johnson's 9.79 is an anomoly but he was dq'd from the race, hence the exclusion. Again, one for a supplement perhaps.

Please feel free to take this data and do what you like with it, including database etc Dan - it's public domain as far as I'm concerned.

My main lists comprise every 100m time of 10.19 or faster - 3,000 legal times and 1,000 windy times - in a 1.4MB Excel workbook. I would be delighted to send this to anyone who wants it, or for Dan to put chunks of it on Run-Down.

On Conway's point about length of career, I agree absolutely. The single biggest change in the sprints in the last decade has been the length of career. Few ran past the age of 24 or 25, even the very best (Sanford, Lattany) - Lewis was the first true 'career' sprinter. I think Sanford (9.88 with 2.3m wind in 1980) was as talented as anyone in the 80s but he was retired even before the 1984 games. A shame (although not as much of a shame as the policy of destroying photo-finish pictures in the 1970s, losing dozens of results from the likes of Williams and co for ever).

Best wishes,

Justin

[Conway]

Again Justin great work .. Would be curious to see 200 & 400 lists .. Have thought about using data from somewhere like algonet to create something myself .. But time is always a factor

Sanford and Lattany were definitely capable of doing much better than they did .. Got to see them both many times .. Especially Sanford as he was here in California .. He was Ben Johnson and Mo Greene before they came about .. Very strong sprinter .. Had he not "retired" (from what I know he had a bout with drugs) I think the face of sprinting would have been altered completely ..

And it is a shame that photo finishes from the 70s were destroyed .. Steve Williams and Don Quarrie were definitely two of the greatest ever in my opinion ..

Back to Ben's 9.79 ... While he was immediately DQ'd at Seoul, he was retroactively DQ's from Rome and his 9.83 removed .. Lewis was "given" the WR with his 9.92 .. And Ben's other marks (9.95s, et al) were removed as well .. Seems a shame that all are used except the best one, since all suffered the same fate ...

But in either case this is great stuff and thank you ..

[Justin]

Sanford almost made history but for a puff of wind when he ran 9.88 - with 2.0 rather than 2.3 he'd still have run faster than 9.95.

There are other 'almost' times - Calvin Smith ran 9.91 in 1982 (vs GDR) with a tantalising 2.1 wind, a far better run than the 9.93 he ran with a 1.4 wind 2000m up at Air Force Academy in 83.

Tim Montgomery ran 9.96 in the 94 JUCO as an 18 yr old but the wind guage was on the wrong side of the track, so the 1.7 reading was discarded. Ironic that MLF should also be denied the first junior sub 10 by a faulty guage (although the qfs in Edmonton were almost certainly windy anyway).

Davidson Ezinwa's 9.91 in 92 was struck down because of a strange -2.3 reading on a still day. He never ran any quicker.

I'm sure there are more.

Justin

[Dan]

Maurice Greene has run several brilliant 100's and 200's in Eugene the past few years, but they are always over the allowable wind. Of course, as anyone sitting in the stands can attest to, those illegal winds are practically a dead calm for around here...