Run-Down Forums

Justin · Varsity Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London

The two pieces Dan has kindly put in the Guest section - about Calvin Smith and Harold Davis - raise the question, who are the greatest athletes never to win a world title?

At 100m candidates, as well as Smith and Davis, include Fredericks, Ralph Metcalfe, Eulace Peacock, Harry Jerome, Charlie Greene, Steve Williams.

With a double double Olympic silver, Fredericks must be a candidate for greatest loser ever, although he did win a world title at 200m.

Justin

Conway · Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:52 am Post subject:

I would include Don Quarrie in the 100 meter list .. And put him right there with Fredericks as he competed in several Olympics and only got the one win over Hampton in 76 ..

Calvin Smith didn't get anything in the 100 but did get two World Championships win in the 200 !!

Another 100 candidate would have to be Leroy Burrell as he went into two major championships as World Record Holder and came away without gold ..

Conway · Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:53 am Post subject:

And of course we can't over look Butch Reynolds in the 400 !!!

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:30 pm Post subject:

AND while ElG has gotten several World Champs win in the 1500 his Olympic record is quite different ... Which begs the question - do athletes view the Worlds and Olys differently ...

Oh .. One other notable not to win a major world title would be Larry Myricks !!!!!

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:38 pm Post subject:

I imagine the Olympics are viewed as the ultimate title for just about everyone. ElG's lack of success there is probably due to two things: 1) too much pressure placed on himself, and 2) others being well prepared and rising to the occasion.

Dan

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2001 9:58 pm Post subject:

So then you don't think that the Worlds are held in much regard ?? Not that I am in disagreement .. Although hear is my thought .. Sprinters and Hurdlers tend to hold it in higher regard than distance runners do ... Not sure about field eventers .. Although in a year like last year when there were few opportunites to compete for field people it was obviously the ultimate ...

Dan · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:44 am Post subject:

I think the World's are held in pretty high regard, but nothing quite compares to the Olympics (not exactly how I view them, though) in the minds of most. You may be right that different event areas view their importance differently, but I can't help feel that the legacy of the likes of Gebrselassie and Kipketer was built through WC performances. The same could probably be said of Greene in the sprints.

Dan

Conway · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2001 10:17 am Post subject:

Yeah .. But Geb won everywhere .. And Kipketer was not able to compete in the Olympics due to politics .. And ElG has been forced to go there to get his respect ..

But now sprinters and hurdlers have found it a haven for developing a reputation .. Ben Johnson and Donovan Bailey started there .. Carl Lewis got his record there .. Michael Johnson and Maurice Greene emerged there ..

And you heard it here first - Ingo Shultz will go on from there to other things ... Smile

Dan · Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:18 am Post subject:

True, but Geb and Kipketer won the WC's ('95) before Geb had a chance to win everywhere and before Kipketer had a chance to get the short end of the political stick -- other than maybe the mainstream media, their reputations were pretty much cemented before Atlanta. Doesn't seem any different than Ben, Donovan, and Maurice to me...

Dan

Conway · Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2001 9:49 pm Post subject:

Hmmm ... I suppose .. But they are not the norm it seems for distance runners ...

Back to the original thought of Justin's Geb makes me think of Tergat as one of the greatest "losers" of all time .. As Geb was always in front ... Wink

Conway · Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:15 pm Post subject:

On the note of great losers, I am curious as to what Justin thinks of John Carlos and his place in history as a winner or loser .. DEfinitely one of the great talents of all time ... As well as one of th egreat trash talkers .. But aside from NCAA could never win anything big - although he won a lot of races and ran some extremely fast times .. and not sure if his split was timed, but his first 200 in the 68 Olympic final had ot be one of the fastest ever as he buried the field on the turn !!!!

Justin · Varsity Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London

I rate John Carlos as highly as I rate Calvin Smith, Ralph Metcalfe or Charlie Greene, ie as a great athlete with the misfortune to race against one of the great, great athletes. The only thing which blots Carlos's record is losing the silver medal in Mexico City. Had he hung on to run 19.9something behind Smith, his position in the all-time top ten greats would have been assured.

As it is, he has an even more powerful place in history thanks to the medal ceremony black power salute, to me one of the great iconic images of the 20th century and a more lasting contribution to the world than any 200m race.

Justin

Conway · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2001 12:22 pm Post subject:

Carlos was indeed a fantastic talent .. I had the fortune to see him compete in my youth as he ran often here on the West Coast .. I agree that Mexico City was competitively his biggest failure .. First becasue he should have run 19.5x and put the record out of reach until Atlanta .. And then hsi failure to secure the silver .. I had the fortune to speak with John in the early 80s .. His explanation of the race was that Tommie was hurting coming into the race (he had suffered a hamstring strain in his semi) .. When Carlos came off the turn and into the straight, he KNEW he had the gold medal wrapped up !!! Of course Tommie surged and as he came up on Carlos, Carlos was caught off guard and snatched violently to his left throwing him off balance and allowing Norman to dip him for the silver ..

Two questions Justin .. Do you know why for years the results were listed as:

1. 19.8
2. 20.0
3. 20.0

When Carlos' time was 20.10 ??? Also does anyone know what Carlos'split was for the first 100 .. HE claimed 10.0 when I talked to him - "I'm the only man to run that fast on a curve" .. Does anyone have an official ??? I have the race on tape and may have to go back and try to get it myself ...

Justin · Varsity Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London

There was always confusion as to how to list performances timed to hundredth in the era of hand times. The hand timers in Tokyo has Hayes at 9.8 - 9.8 - 9.9 (yup, that's a 9.8 WR before anyone had even run 9.9) but the auto time was official. Of course, 10.06 is properly rounded off to 10.1, not 10.0. So he was given a 10.0 WR, which is wrong any way you look at it (and somewhat understates the run).

In Mexico City the officials were similarly confused. 9.95 should become 10.0 if rounded off, and again the (unofficial) hand timers had Hines in 9.8. So 9.9 is another compromise - the one time he definitely didn't run! If rounded off correctly the 200m times should have been 19.9, 20.1 and 20.1. There is no logic to why they weren't - someone just decided to round down rather than up.

Justin

Justin · Varsity Joined: 08 Oct 2001 Posts: 312 Location: London

As regards the curve time, I have never seen either an official or an unofficial split for Carlos. This sounds like puffery - a bit like Jon Drummond claiming to have run under 10.00 for the first leg of a 4x1 although I've never seen an auto split under 10.3 for him.

The fact is that the splits from Atlanta - 10.12, 10.14 and 10.18 for Johnson, Frankie and Ato - are by far the quickest first 100s ever timed (relay or 200) and before them Carl Lewis was the only athlete to break 10.30 regularly around a bend. Even the great 3rd leg runners like Mitchell and Smith 'only' ran 9.20-9.40 with a flying start (worth at least a second). I think sub 10 around a bend is a long way off.

Justin

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New