I see lists all over the place from idiots who think they know sprints and what equals what.
They compare all performances by wind readings and make up their own lists based on their assumptions and to lick the butts of hosts on other sites.
I am so sick and tired of this total bullshit!
OK then. Besides the lack of consideration for temp, track, humidity, altitude by degrees, exact wind direction etc, I can sum it all up for you in one performance:
Flo Jo 10.49 BASIC
You made up the “rules” so live with it.
The official wind reading, accepted by the USATF and IAAF was 0.0!
Hat’s off Rocket Scientists!!
Of course, if you’d been in Indianapolis that day, your hat would have been blown off!
OF course we could get into the Edmonton 2001 fiasco, where MLF would get about a 9.20basic, but I think this one covers it nicely.
Sounds like the track and field news messageboard and some of the superfans(with one in particular) with some who think they can explain and predict every possible performance. Some (or at least one) go so far as to think that their fantasy track world extends into coaching recommendations.:rolleyes:
Legal conditions??? These WERE legal conditions!
That’s my whole point. Things are what they are and the rest is all speculation.
Are you suggesting that this is the one and only example of this and all those BASIC times really mean anything?
If you’re the best, you’ll win and if you’re second, all the huffing and puffing won’t change a damn thing except among a few of your pals.
I would have but that kind of discussion was coming over here when people started arguing over Bolt’s “BASIC” time in Berlin vs Beijing.
Like I said, virii spread through the net like “Sport Specific” Training regimes.
Yup, people who tend to fall back on “basic” conversion arguments often have an agenda way other than a simple theoretical one. It sure often looks like they haven’t, themselves, been involved in the practicality of the matter, at all.
Might be a time to reflect on the famous quote from Theodore Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.