What They Never Told You About The Greatest World Records Of All Time...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 апр 2022
- Not all records are created equal...
Full Study of Wind on Sprinting Performances:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...
Full Study on Flo-Jo's 10.49:
www.brunel.ac.uk/~spstnpl/Pub...
=================================
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS 
Спорт
I always love it when my man Blake finally gets some recognition. He was soooooo close before that dreadful injury in 2013.
he has been overshadowed by Usain Bolt reign and its just ashamed that he's not mentioned enough
@@apstudios966 I always say that if he was in his prime a little later, he would get the recognition he deserves. Because he ran during the same time period as Bolt he was always overshadowed by being second to him and second fastest ever.
So unlucky! Even Bolt had tremendous respect for him; I remember an interview where Usain quoted something like "watch out for my man Blake here cuz he's a beast, man!" - Yohan's moniker.
your man huh? that's cute.
If you are going to do adjustments for wind condition you should do the same for altitude as well. in the case of yohan Blake 9.69, he did it in a -0.1 headwind. But he was also assisted by the high altitude in Lausanne. if you look at Trayvon bromell 9.7 in Kenya it was at high altitude as well.
If you adjust altitude and wind it's a 9.70 so with max wind it's 9.60.
@@yennox5338 the guy who made this video said yohan Blake would run 9.61 with max wind how would he run 9.60 if you take away the altitude wouldn’t the time be slower he was comparing yohan Blake 9.69 to bolt 9.58 bolt 9.58 wasn’t at high altitude Blake 9.69 was. If you going to adjust Blake 9.69 because of the wind factor you should adjust bolt 9.58 with the same high altitude as yohan Blake 9.69
@@marlonhudson2544 I'm so annoying, I had a detailed reply but RUclips nuked my shit. Long story short I use a website where you can adjust wind and altitude.
There’s less wind resistance at altitude since there the air is less dense. But at the same time, that makes wind a little less of an issue. Usually you can ignore the lesser effect, but for purposes of WRs, it’s important. All that to say, you’d need a model that accounts for altitude and wind simultaneously-not individually.
High altitude doesn't help the performance per se....High altitude TRAINING helps your mitochondria function overtime, i.e. ATP production, red blood cell formation etc....so after a lengthy, and arduous altitude training, you need to go down to SEA LEVEL, where the oxygen is denser than in altitude, to have a performance boost, with your "denser blood" gained from 2000-2500ms altitude, again OVERTIME, normally after altitude training, there is a 2 weeks window for peak performance, than it levels out!
Bolt's 9.77 in Brussels in 2008 also astonishing. RT: 0.223s and -1.3m/s headwind in the rain
One of the greatest races ever
If Blake competed in any other time outside of the Bolt Era, he would have been a world sensation. It's so unfortunate that his amazing speed was overshadowed by Bolt
Iniesta, robben, xavi, neymar bale, zlatan, etoo, lewa couldn't get hold of the balloon coz of Messi n Cr7
I am glad how you handled the Flo Jo part - you did your research and even pointed us to the research.
TRP, thank you for finally mentioning the 1995 study here.
I think it really taints Flojo's career that the 10.49 was so flawed, when we compare to her more legit 10.61 second best WR if we discard the the .49.
That 10.61 would still have been a WR from 1988 over Marion Jones, Carmelita Jeter, SAFP and all the way to ETH tying it and then breaking it, in 2021!
Still a good run and well we all know they took something back then and take something harder to find today and have better tracks and new shoes, so all that being equal, FloJo still had a hell of a run with her 10.61 and her 21.34 still stands.
Also worse shoes, slower track and no drive phase. Running 10.61 (and 10.62) and especially 21.34 under these circumstances is very exceptional to the point I don't even care that much if the 10.49 was legit. Can Elaine and Shelly or anybody else run 10.61 without a drive phase? Show me please.
How does it "taint" her career that the wind device malfunctioned? That wasn't her fault. The fact that she was doped more than a Kentucky Derby stallion, however, is certainly a blemish on her career. Yeah, I know, there's no evidence, but c'mon, let's be real here. She ran before testing for doping was very advanced, had a mustache, and died prematurely. That's all the evidence I need.
@@Pablito46 The fairy tale continue. She was prone to having faciar hair even in 1984 years before she was fast. Also, that means Evelyn Ashford was also doped because her moustache was even more prominent, although she is always potrayed as the angel of that period. Go type in Ashford and see some pics for yourself. Also, look closely on Elaine in some pics.
@@tool2158 ? u serious bro shes always been fast ? and her phisique is not normal for a woman also smh she 100% doping
Respect to that 21.34sec 200m 😉
Flo-Jo trained so hard her muscle mass increased dramatically, her voice got deeper, and her skin became shiny.....weird.
Every athlete at that level is on something stop being so naive
All in the space of less than a year too! Then retired suddenly at her peak at barely 29 when she could have dominated for another Olympic Cycle when random out-of-competition testing was FINALLY introduced...weird!
@@abone2pick I'm not being naive. I know many dope at that level. But her dramatic and obvious changes from 1984 to 1988 are astounding.
She also grew a penis, put that can happen if you just train harder than everyone else.
say you think she cheated without saying that she cheated.
The tricky thing especially with the 200m wind conversions is that the anemometer only records the wind in a single direction: directly against the athletes on the home straight. In a 100m measuring crosswinds doesn't really matter, since athletes are only running in one direction anyways, but in the 200m, it means that there is typically more than meets the eye to a simple one-direction wind reading; a crosswind headwind component blowing towards the athlete at the beginning of the race won't be measured, and neither would a similar tailwind. Because there is actually a lot of missing data on wind conditions in 200m races, there can't really be any consistently accurate conversions in these races.
Exactly, these wind converted times that have gained popularity recently are baseless imo. 200m especially, a headwind would actually accelerate runenrs at the start of the race potentially.
@@ffvgaming3735 It's not "baseless" for the 100m.
@@yennox5338 not baseless bus still speculative, there's so many other factors nowdays. Recently I've seen people dropping 3/10ths off of 100m times for a 0.6m/s headwind. I think you have to compare times in like conditions, which is why championship finals and head to heads are more important than time comparisons imo.
@@ffvgaming3735 I think it’s all tied to people growing obsessions with times in general. People like to quantify the ability of an athlete based purely on their personal best, a number. In reality the most important thing even for track athletes is the ability to perform under pressure and compete to win. The athletes care about wins, while the obsessive fans care too much about times and records, which leads them to grasp at whatever impressive numbers become available to them, even when they’re just grasping at straws.
@@ffvgaming3735 That's unrealistic then because the difference from 0.0 wind to 2.0 wind is just 0.1 seconds, anything else is headcanon. Like conditions? We have websites where we can adjust not only winds but the altitudes too. For example a time like Omanyala's 9.77A wouldn't be as impressive as Jacobs' 9.80 on regular altitude.
You deserve to have more than 10 million subscribers. This is the most thorough track channel on utube no opinions or biases just facts love it.
this is the most awesome track channel out there. but i think you're splitting hairs delving into converting previous times based on wind. i'm sure that the wind research was thorough and reasonably accurate to provide a general assessment of wind effects. but i think there's too many variables involved (eg., athlete physical stature, air pressure, relative humidity, etc.) to make your adjustments and report them to the hundredth of a second. like i said, i love your channel, but i'm hoping that you don't go down this wind-adjusted times rabbit hole too much further.
I agree. It happened with the Steiner 200 and I thought "that's not how it goes". You don't get to adjust times like that. Where does it end?
I am in agreement and also think this type of analysis should cease as all this wind adjusted talk ONLY appears to focus on the winners of the events in question. For the record wind affects everyone in the race so please stop talking about wind aided or wind adjustments for the winners only.
I referenced in my post above a calculator takes into account the 1. Temperature, 2. Barometric Pressure, 3. Relative Humidity, 4. Venue Altitude/Elevation along with 5) Wind. It then gives a "corrected time" as well as the advantage/disadvantage for the time given the actual conditions.
I think the calculator sets all "corrected times" to 0.0 mph and gives you the corrected time under such conditions. However, you can set the wind to 2.0 m/s for any race as was done in this video to assess what could have been run with max allowable wind..
@@billybussey This stuff has been done forever by older track heads. I'm in my mid/late 40s and have been following track & field for 30-35 years. There is a track message board with veterans older than myself that list "corrected times" as well as the scoring table assessment for top races. There are actual threads dedicated to the topic.
This may not be the forum for that level of discourse but this is just touching the surface in comparison to some advanced physics and calculus based concepts discussed on the message that i am referencing.
@@GreyBeard_Fit I didn't read the details. My bad. A very impressive piece of research. I'm still thinking that revisiting many previous races on this issue isn't terribly interesting to me. Take care.
Really interesting video. This channel goes from strength to strength. You work hard and you deserve success.
Thanks for shedding some light on the circumstances surrounding the women's 100m record. Unfortunately, very few people are aware of the likely illegitimate nature of that race, and it hurts women's track and field. I remember when I first started watching track and field around the 2012 Olympics, and saw Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce win with a 10.7, I saw that time next to the 10.49 record and thought "this isn't very close to the world record at all. I guess these current women aren't very good compared to other generations" and I paid very little attention to the women's sprints as a result. Faulty records like these seriously hold back peoples' perception of women's track and field, and waste the marketing potential that many all-time greats bring to track and field.
EXACTLY
Good for you Elliot, putting the obvious out there to be shot at.....well maybe not? there might be more rational people like You, 'TimmytheInventor' and I than not?
I have never seen a more beautiful sprinter than flo and marcel jacobs , infact I believe she actually could have ran faster if infact she did not already with that 10.49 , if the wind reading was accurate the adjusted time would be too
@@silindomdlalose3550 I’m not saying she wasn’t a great sprinter. I’m also not saying she shouldn’t have had the world record. I’m just saying that her 10.49 record should not have been ratified, and it actually has significantly damaged the sport of athletics as a whole.
@@Elliottklassen I hear you but I love women sprinting and if it wasn't for Shelly-ann Frasier Pryce , I would have never heard of florence Joyner , An now the mantle has been passed onto her fellow Jamaican who will go down as the fastest women of the 21st century !
What really blows my mind the most by considering potential variables is Carl Lewis' 8.87m Long Jump right after Mike Powell's World record. After Carl landed on his feet, his behind touched the ground AT LEAST 8 inches behind his feet. If he landed to the side on his back like how Mike powell did (which I realize is incredibly difficult) the jump would have been 9.07 meters. It was also into a head wind of -0.3 m/s, if it was the max wind of 2.0 m/s, it could theoretically be 9.20 meters, which is 30 feet 2 inches.
Lewis 3 jumps over 8.80m had the same landing.
I think he took off about 5 inches shy of the white board on his winning jump in the 1992 Olympics.
That 8.91 (with too much wind) and 8.87 combo was definitely the best long jump performance ever not to win any record or gold.. ;)
I agree with you that technically it looks like his behind is indeed, far behind. The headwind makes this jump an even more remarkable achievement.
FloJo just happened to knock of a lot of time within a short period of time, not to mention her complete body transformation. Hmm...Lance Armstrong also never tested positive.
Great point - but Lance did eventually get caught and banned.
@@blaze1148 He was daring the doping agency to catch him, so they upped their game. Also, he had teammates testify against him. From what I recall FloJo never raced again, so there weren't opportunities to test her.
@@stevewise1656 I see - extremely suspicious from Flo-Jo to say the least !
Pretty sure Armstrong actually tested positive but this was at the height of his popularity that the cycling head honchos buried it!
@@stevewise1656 Samples are kept around for some time for future testing. Micheal Johnson lost/gave up one of his gold medals because a team members sample was tested years later and was found to be doped.
I was there when Elaine ran that 10.54. I wanted to get a selfie but was too shy 😔 A year later I competed on the same track she did when she got that and it was surreal
There was an article in a magazine (I believe Sports Illustrated) back in the late 80s or early 90s about an Oxygenated drink/shake that was increasing performance. I think it was Flo Jo in the article and there were test results showing percentages in performance gains. Something like her bench press went from 95 to 125 etc. Anyways, maybe someone remembers it.
I enjoy your channel, always entertaining and educational.
Sounds like something that would make one fart a lot . . .
But 100m is anaerobic.
Thank you for an excellent analysis of these world records.
Awesome video, really enjoyed the quality👍🏼
Flo-Jo's 200m WR is by far the harder to break, not even Elaine could get close to it. I'm not even sure if she could break it, we would be approaching 21.2 territory which is unprecedented.
Elaine has stated that the 200m world record would be easier for her to break. Having watched her run 21.66 then a 21.53 after rounds in Tokyo, I don’t disagree!
@@motionsickness9610 Saw that interview, she never said it would be easy, just easier than the 10.49 which was guessing at its best. I disagree, her 21.53 is miles away. This WR is unbroken for 30+ years for a reason. It'll never be easy, not even for Elaine. Just wait amd see.
@@tool2158 What are even you talking about! Yennox said it would be “harder” … I said I agree with Elaine that it would be “easier” for her to break than the 100m record and stated (explicitly I might add) why! No one but you used the word “easy”!!! 🙄
I think the 200m world record will go before the 100m...and Elaine Thompson has the speed to break it. What I consistently argue against is people who somehow believe that by this season Mboma will break the 200m world record. Many faster female athletes have failed within careers that span from 10 through 15 years. Mboma is only 18 going on 19 years old and has not even run a sub 10.80 or 10.70 100m..she has no realistic shot at doing this season...
@@noeljames1254 Yo I forgot about Mboma, when she reaches her prime maybe she can approach it.
The thing with FloJo's 100 record was even the TV announcers who called the race were baffled by the wind gauge reading and that the time wasn't labeled wind aided. You could see her hair blowing in the wind before she got in the blocks, and the announcers mentioned the wind in the stadium. And then there's a 0.0 reading, and it made absolutely no sense.
Yeah, here's an interesting theory: her 10.49 was actually wind-assisted, but they F'd up and counted it. If so, ladies have been chasing a phantom ever since. Meanwhile, some other time, like 10.61 I think, is her true PB, and they've already surpassed that . . But are today's athletes any cleaner . . . . .
@@henrybrowne7248 It's the wind gauge reading 0.0 that caused them to count it, and interestingly it also registered 0.0 for the race before, another 100m quarter-final. But it registered winds for all the races before that and after Flo-Jos race. Why that didn't turn heads after the first 0.0 when it was clearly windy, has always been a mystery.
I love this channel. One small thing though. It's a track MEET, not a meeting. Keep up the great work.
amazing dive into the wind topic
FloJo And Usain were also the Queen and Kings of Charisma and Marketability. Hard to believe that Flojo really only had 1 year of Super Stardom.
True but if you knew about her life story you'd know her life wasn't easy and she often worked 2 or 3 jobs just ro make it. Tough lady. RIP
Comparison literally a -
Cheater vs a Cheetah
2 year rise vs 12 year dominance
Controversy vs transpirance
Flo Jo is a shame to track whilst Bolt brought it back to legitimacy
I'm not anti US track but they have brought the sport in disrupute with athletes like Flo, Carl, Marion, Green etc
That 19.02 would’ve been in the 18s if he tried at the end too
He literally did try at the end
It would've been in the 18s if he didn't run the race after multiple rounds.
Wish it were possible to subscribe 100 times. Great work.
This is fascinating, thank you. Mind you there is one other dimension to consider and that is altitude.
Pietro Mennea was a fine sprinter. But, his old world record over 200 metres was certainly assisted to a significant degree by the rarified conditions that day. He never ran anywhere near that before or since.
True. As an Italian, I was a big fan of Mennea, and I know he went to Mexico City with the express intention of setting a world record aided by altitude.
A couple more things. Mennea's best time on the 200 at low altitude was 19.96, he was the first sprinter to run under 20 sec 3 times and the first sprinter to run in 4 Olympic 200 meters finals.
Superb video, thank you. We should popularise saying that Elaine Thompson-Herah is the 100m world record holder but Flo Jo's 200m still stands and is mindblowing. And she celebrated through the line, could have been faster!
Don't ever stop making these great videos. Best one ever is thr Jan Zelezny video
You need to do a video solely on the Flo Joe 10.49 race. You dont have to state your opinion - just throw down the facts and let the people make their own judgments and opinions. Regardless of weather she was doping or not, the wind aspect is especially intriguing. I do remember a video with Merlene Ottey making this point pretty emphatically
I love these vids they’re super entertaining
Also remember that Bolt slowed down at the end. Blake ran through his to the end because he was pushed
Good vid. Also, imo, you've gotten much better at making videos
The 🇯🇲Jamaican girls just broke the U20 4×100m World record today at the Carifta Games April,17. You can do a video about that if you can.
I'll always be sad that Bolt never pushed to his full potential, he always pulled up a little at the end. I will always be convinced that we could have seen both a sub-9.5 100m and a sub-19 200m
I wonder what would flojo’s world record setting performance time would be if it was adjusted from the average tail wind of all the other 100m heats that day to a 0.0 mph wind.
Flo-Jo was doped to the freaking gills.Even had a mustache.
I appreciate your work brah! Keep up the good work 👏 👍🏾... no bais opinion, just facts based on sound research.
I get in the 100 M event runners are always in a straight line (so wind speed is calculable) but how is wind calculated in the 200 M event when runners start off one direction, then suddenly in a sweeping curve and finally in a long straightaway? Is the entire 200 M length wind adjusted, where part of the race wind helps the runner and another part it hinders the runner?
I know just how powerful the wind can be altogether as here in palmy the wind almost blew me over about 3 years ago when I was skinnier than I am now, I also saw a trailer in a paddock which must have flown over the fence into the paddock
Also, since this video is about the effects of wind, let’s be clear about a popular lie that’s being spread lately (The Way to Win made a video on it some months back, which was false):
Athletes do NOT run faster into headwinds than with tailwinds. The stats are very clear on this. The average wind for all men’s 100m times under 10 seconds in history is 1.54 metres/second. I don’t want to take away from the content of TRP’s channel, but The Way to Win’s video stated many false claims and statistics, and deleted and comments providing counter arguments. Thank you Total Running Productions for your integrity in your videos. Your content quality has been consistently getting better for years now.
Jeez, who could possibly believe you run faster into a headwind? I've run against the wind many times and I hated it.
Nice analyses 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Since you are doing hypothetical readings, you should do a FULL HYPOTHETICAL. 2.0 Wind, Altitude, and erase the reaction time so basically the clock starts when the sprinter starts. I believe you did the reaction time hypothetical scenario with Yohan Blake’s 19.26 200m and it was calculated down to 18.99s.
That's a unique idea. I'll take a look into that.
@@TotalRunningProductions yes you should take in account also the perfect starts of the performances..those time of course would even be lower
Each company providing blocks and starting equipment measure things differently, so RT comparisons are moot unless it is at that exact meeting
Not a no reaction time because that’s impossible but a perfect reaction time
@@TotalRunningProductions קכק'
Love your videos!
I remain, however, unconvinced. There are many sports where a headwind is favoured, the throwing events for example.
When a sprinter is running into a headwind, the cumulative effect is not a net negative. During the drive phase, there is a minute assist from the wind in supporting the body. Whilst the effect is small, it can contribute to a slightly faster time.
The net value of a headwind would, in terms of adjustment, need to allow for a 10 -15% positive variance over the mean value extrapolated.
I believe that this effect contributed to Blake's scintillating time.
Fun fact, SaFP is assisted by *gravity* when she drives. She leans further forward than her opponents, thus allowing gravity to pull her 'down'. With her short legs and insane turnover speed she counteracts that force with momentum, whilst converting the gravitational assist into assisted forward motion.
Well done finding that paper. It's basically irrefutable evidence. The catch with Flo Jo's time is that it was wind aided with at least a +5.0m/s - It is clear in the video there is a gale blowing and 5 athletes in that race ran huge personal best times that also correlated with a 5ms wind, which they never came close to before or after.
I'm in my 70s and live in West Texas where I bike in the mountains. The wind was fierce today and was in my face in the uphills. Frankly, I'd rather face a steep hill than a heavy wind.
Pls make a video about “The iceberg of athletics”, including the “0.0” wind of Flor-Jo record
During FloJo’s race on some videos there is a man on the right side at around 15 meters in I think a red shirt. You can see his badge flying towards the finish line. I am surprised no one has ever noticed it .
Hey TRP! What's the song you used around the 11:22 second mark, it sounds nice
there is direct evidence in the video itself showing Flojo was in fact running into a HEADWIND when she set the world record. the official standing behind the runners is holding a flag that is blowing backwards and the banner on the pole-vault pit also blows backwards.
BOOM TNT
If that’s the case, you can go write an extensive 60 page detailed study and report on it, rather than a two sentence RUclips comment. Your little personal and biased eye-test doesn’t exactly overturn the evidence.
Not to mention that if she WAS running into a headwind, we can agree the anemometer was broken, since it wasn’t not in fact 0.0m/s wind. In the case of a faulty wind gauge, records are given a NWI (no wind information) status and are ineligible for records. Either way, the 10.49 shouldn’t have been ratified.
@@Elliottklassen i would have to know how they determine wind speed - is it an average throughout the race or do they spot check once during the race - no we do not agree the device was broken - remember this is 1988
@@Elliottklassen direct evidence is best evidence - 60 page study is mere speculation
@@gilbertmatta5364 According to the paper referenced in this video, the anemometer takes a series of measurements for 10 seconds after the gun goes off and calculates an average. It’s extraordinarily unlikely that the two consecutive quarterfinal races in question (and only these two) had zero wind over a ten second period. Additionally, in a semi final race, where people rarely run their very best times, 6/7 of the women in that field ran them personal bests. Pair that with the fact the the men’s triple jump was happening simultaneously, where 43/46 of the jumps were wind-aided, with a wind of 4.3m/s occurring directly at the start of the women’s 100m quarterfinals. The lowest wind reading at the triple jump that day was 1.0, which makes the likelihood of even a single 0.0 reading extremely unlikely, let alone two consecutive readings.
You can't talk about FloJo's record without laughing.
Yeah she was so far ahead of rest of the Field its funny
A New solution: Every Track should Have A Glass Containment and have no wind inside.
we already have indoor meets
Lmaoo
Or you could design/renovate every major track stadium similar to how The London Olympic Stadium's partial roof was designed to negate strong winds.
It is popular to hate Flo Jo. But she was amazing! Elaine Thompson Herah is amazing. Love both.
Great comment.
@Total Running Productions I would be curious if track surfaces as well as shoe advancements since the 80's make any difference. I was told by someone currently competing in NCAA that shoes have definitely made a difference in times but not sure how true that is.
Most definitely. All tracks are not equal in hardness nor actual shape as some tracks have longer curves for the 200m race while on other tracks the curve is shorter with a longer straight-away. 1996 Atlanta Olympic Track was "allegedly" illegal based on the iAAF "Ball Drop Test" that measures the springiness of a given track. The higher the bounce the more assistance given to the runners, especially the sprinters and hence the faster the sprint times. Harder the track [to a certain level] the faster the sprint times.
I never knew that the day FloJo set her 100 m WR all other heats that day had significant wind but hers had zero wind. I guess her prayer on the starting blocks paid off.
Would've thought she'd have prayed for +2.0 😊
We need that 1-hour video on that 10.49s WR!
everyone at the trials knows her 100 M time was wind aided .
I would do all wind adjustments to the no-wind case rather than the +2.0 m/s. And also in the 200m the wind effect is very different in the first 100m than in the second 100m, are the wind corrected times correcting only the effect in the second 100m in that case?
Love your track videos and the wind analysis here is enlightening. Maybe there was no proof, but I think most track people understand the real controversy with FloJo is that she was juicing and this record is tainted regardless of the wind controversy.
Hi warren from Australia really good video so interesting one of the videos I’ve seen play Flo jo hair was blowing forward at the start just before they took off But she did a very good time in the semi the question remains
idk,,, youre talking about a major what if here. the best performance of these sprinters combined with ideal wind, thats one in a million if we think how many races they have raced. also if youre going to that road you have to go all the way fe different shoes technology, different floor and stadium weather/altitude, so that making it out of reach of predicting... still a nice effort, keep it up!
I understand the adjustment for headwind in the 100m, but not sure the same can be true for the 200m when you are running in 2 different directions/legs
Flo Jo is an anomaly. An average international sprinter who never won a gold medal at either the Olympics or world championships but suddenly for 6 to 8 weeks between the US trials and the 88' Olympics was destroying the women's sprinters by 5 plus meters. Immediately after the Olympics she disappeared from track and field at the "height of her career" only to make a cartoonish entry in a tryout for the US 400m team 8 years later in 1996. She died suddenly 2 years later. Carl Lewis tested positive three (yes 3) times for PED at the 1988 US trials but his failed results were all hidden by the USTFA - governing body for US track and field and was only made public years later AFTER the expiration of the statue of limitations, meaning he could no longer be stripped of the medals he won during the same Olympics he and Flo Jo dominated. Marion Jones never failed a drug test and could have been the 2nd most famous US women's sprinter if not for her ex husband snitching on her. She was stripped of her medals and ended up serving prison team for lying under oath about her drug use
Wow. This is perfectly stated by you, Tony. Excellent job.
Great content
Thank you very much
2:32 who's that !? Nd which vid u took the clip from?
Great contents
I doubt the accuracy of different wind readings a lot.
Is the value of the wind reading averaged? are short gusts of wind dedected?
Would love some one to calculate wind + the runners body area & air density. A taller runner would get more forward push from the wind then a smaller runner 🤓
Do I see wind blowing Flo-Jo's hair just before the gun goes off? Looks like a grad wind as gercgair is blowing backwards? Cheers
Good video. U forgot the Blake 19.27s run with a horrible reaction time and the Brussels 9,77s win for Bolt over Asafa with with negative wind and horrible weather conditions.
Thank God you covered the controversy of Flo-Jo's 10.49 wind reading. Tired of the denial.
Those other women were running in the same conditions (legit or not) and were not close. How did FloJo take advantage of that wind but nobody else could is the real question..
Holy shit 2 minutes since uploading great videos
Since the 100 meter is in a straight line shouldn't that mean it is possible to run in the opposite direction for trying to hit a WR run for favorable wind conditions? I know there are other factors that makes this more difficult than just "run the opposite direction" but still something worth imploring for a topic that talks about headwind and tailwind.
Wow!!! Florida does it again under the 3 minute mark. Here are your team's under the 3 minute mark.
Florida 2:58.53
Usc 2:59
Texas A&M 2:59.06
North Carolina A&T 2:59.21
Lsu 2:59.59
Ucla ( First collegiate team to break the 3 min mark) 2:59.91
Georgia Tech 2:59.95
Florida: 2:59.99
You just made me remember the “Usain Bolt celebrates early” video.
Can you do times adjusted for wind, shoe technology, running surfaces, starting blocks, clock accuracy, and last of all steroids, and tell me what Jesse Owens times would be now?
Make sure you account for the ladies records being achieved with those spikes that now have air soles in the forefoot, and, the carbon foot plates. This was tested back with Boldon and we're shown to return energy to the runner and provide added stability that the sprinter would otherwise have to maintain without any help. We're the other sub 10.6 times, that Flo Jo ran, wind aided? She was blowing EVERYONE out, so I'm questioning how that was happening without her actually just running that fast. Bolt, Blake, Gay, and Powell and Flo Jo didn't get help from their shoes. Frazier and Thomas didn't approach her records until these shoes.
wind resistance
altitude resistance
locations( tropical, north/south hemispere)
atmospheric density
temp.
etc.
Does anyone know where to find the method of conversion?
What about counting backwards also, for example IF the 10.49 was windaided by, for lets say +3,5 m/s, what would in that case the time have been? 10.54 ... maybe? Nevertheless, the technical execution of this 10.49 race is stunning ... what a flow!!!
You FINALLY adressed the elephant in the room, i'm so happy
Gwen Torrene’s 21.72 into a -2 headwind iso wolf my favourite wind affected performances. I think becomes a 21.5+ (Or even 21.4 high?) with a +2 tail wind
Except she never ran that time into a -2 wind. She ran it into -0.1 wind. She ran 21.77 into a -2 wind in 1995 but got disqualified for stepping over the line so it was never ratified.
@@tool2158 meh. I still count it.
@@tool2158 actually with a +2 it comes down to a 21.39… it’s a 21.53 with a 0.0
@@Ineddiblehulk This is only theoretical at best as some have pointed out. The wind conversion in the 200m is problematic because of the curve. I mean Torrence ran that 21.77 into a -2, but her fastest on postive wind up to +2 is only 21.72.
Barcelona 92. Semifinals.
It also depends on altitude, what shoes they wear and what the surface is made from
at 12:00 it looks like there is a flag "moving" between the #1 and #2 lane markers.
You forgot Yohan Blake's 19.26 200 meters race. When you adjust his time as compared to Bolt's time and subtract reaction time, Blake actually ran a faster 200 meters than Bolt did. Not sure what the wind conditions were. But this is a major race you missed. Check it out !
@Total Running Productions you need to consider one thing regarding Florence's 100m record. You have to look at the margin that Florence beat both Diane Williams and Gail Devers who were consistent 10.9s sprinters. Diane Williams had a personal best at the time of 10.94s and Gail Devers had a personal best 100m time of 10.97s.
Well said man, I just posted something similar before reading your comment.
FloJo was in sensational form at the Olympic trials & at the Olympics which were held on either side of the Pacific Ocean yet her sensational times remained in the same ball park.
Nobody smashed their PB by the same percentage that FloJo smashed hers, they're trying to make out that FloJo was the only one affected by this fairy tale wind that somehow managed to not be detected.
Her records are legit.
The clocks at the stadium were state of the art technology & functioned fine before, during & after FloJos performances.
Like Bolt during his best period, she was just that much better than her competition.
@@SPIDERM0OSE nobody is denying her prowess just the legitimacy of the WR, its rather bizarre that there was 2 womens quarter finals races and the final with a -0.0m wind reading which is vastly different from all the other readings taken
In the case of those two women you mentioned:
Diane Williams had a PB of 10.94 from 1983, five years prior to this race. She only ever ran under 11 seconds ONCE in her entire career (that same 10.94), and she hadn’t ran under 11.04 in five years. In this race her time was 10.86: the fastest time she ever ran by far, and only the second time she ever ran under 11 seconds. She ran this in a semi final, and her next fastest wind-legal time that season was 11.33. The way you described her was very inaccurate.
While it is a very small difference, Gail Fevers’ personal best before this race was not 10.97, but actually 10.98. Similar to Williams, at this point in her career, Devers had only run under 11 seconds with legal wind a SINGLE time (also that same 10.98). Her time in this semi final was also a PB, though only by a small amount. However, the way you described her was also not very accurate.
Neither of these women were “consistent 10.9s sprinters” as you say; both of them had only run 10.9 legally a single time in their careers. Furthmore, both of these athletes achieved personal bests in a semi final with “zero” wind. You’ve conveniently left those details out.
@@SPIDERM0OSE So yes, plenty of other athletes in that field smashed their PBs as well. Devers ran 0.08 faster than her next fastest time that season, and Williams ran 0.47 seconds faster than her next fastest time in 1988. FloJo ran 0.12 seconds faster than her next fastest time that season. All in all it seems pretty consistent. Obviously like you said, she was way ahead of her competition. Nobody is saying the wind made her better than the other athletes. We’re saying it made her better than herself (just like it did for everyone else in that field).
@@Elliottklassen Gail Devers ran a slight wind aided 10.86s a month earlier in the NCAA women's 100m final in which she won the national championship. She also won the women's 100m hurdles as well.
I know very little about track and field, but I always thought that outdoor times are consistently better than indoor. Is that wrong?
The 200m race starts on the curve so the wind is dispersed differently throughout the race
The biggest issue with wind adjusted guesstimates is the fact that they do not account for the athlete's rate of respiration at that current moment within the race, which is obviously impossible to accurately measure, even with state of the art equipment - which when attached would actually hinder the performance on top of that. Had the ideal wind actually taken place in the race, there's no way to prove or disprove that the athletes rate of respiration would've increased or decreased obviously dramatically influencing the time produced. The higher the rate of respiration the faster and more efficiently the muscles are able to contract and relax, and on top of that less lactic acid is produced allowing the athlete to run faster, for longer. With an extra push from the wind the athlete would therefore use a lot less of their own energy to produce to maintain a top end speed, and result in the positive bi-products I mentioned above. This is why almost "baseless" claims about wind adjusted times should be avoided.
Regardless I thank you for the informative and interesting video as always.
what you are not pointing out is why the huge differences in their times compared to everybody else, and how that happened.
Flow Jo was a second rate runner for most of her career until '88 when she broke the world records. She beat Evelyn Ashford's record of 10.76 in the 100m by 27 hundreds of second, which is roughly the same as beating the marathon record by 2.5 minutes. She then beat Grace Jackson's 200m record of 22.72 by 28 hundreds, at the same meet in S Korea, which is the equivalent of lapping someone in the 3,000m. And those record still stand today. The fastest woman this year in the 200m is Abby Steiner at 22.09, 75 hundred off the record and she is beating her opponents by a 10-15 hundreds.
Bolt lowered the 100M record by a full 0.13 secs, set by his training buddy Powell, also unheard of. It took 30 years to lower Jesse Owens 10.3 in 100M, by a fraction.
Most of the records made in the eighties and early nineties are suspect due to the prevalence of EPO. All the Chinese swim records from the 90s were drug driven. Look at the Kenyan runners of late; Jamaica has organized a state sponsored drug program much like the Russians in Sochi. It is sad to see, but it is the legit and clean runners that have to suffer for it. But for our purposes, when you have an obvious case like Flow Jo, call it BS when it is. And by the way, she died suddenly and inexplicably at 35 or something...
Wonder what Blake's 19.26 is with 2.0
a few points:
1) Blake's 19.26 with 0.7+ wind was great. Think you made another video discussing his bad start on that day as well. He had so much potential.
2) why arent all times just adjusted for wind? Bolt running 9.5 with 2.1m/s wont count, and neither would some 9.60 ran into a headwind. Both would clearly be records so wondering why that 2.0 limit exists.
3) Id like to see the times the other women in Flo-Jo's heat ran and compared to their PBs. If its something sus like how everyone's time improved by 0.16s in that men's 100 recently, its fair to dismiss it
There are 1-2 sites that list the all-time "top-corrected" times. 20 years ago I was as deep into track & field data/statistics as the owner of this channel is now. I probably had 200-300 track & field sites bookmarked on my computer at the time and I probably spent 2-3 hours a day during track season on track message boards.
because corrected times are bullshit, people get more or less advantage by the wind depending on several variables, (how much air time they have in the run, how much they weight, how fast they get up from the drive phase etc.) so for each individual it would be different. this concept of corrected wind time is just stupid. if we really wanted fair times in competition we would need closed stadium with no wind so all times would be (roughly) the same, if we take away the altitude variable (which for 95% of stadiums doesnt make a difference because they are close to sea-level)
As far as the other women in that heat were concerned, 5/6 of them also set new personal bests. Some of them broke it by considerable margins, while others like Gail Devers only broke her personal best by 0.01. I think it’s more telling to compare each athlete’s time with their next fastest time that season, since it better reflects the kind of form they may have been. In the case of Devers, her next fastest time was 0.08 seconds slower, while for others like Diane Williams, it was an astonishing 0.47 seconds.
And of course, FloJo’s next fastest time was 0.12 seconds slower.
The problem with women's WR is that so many stood for so long with real doubts about PEDs which could never be settled due to lack of drug testing at the time. At least some of those records have gone and athletes are getting closer to the 100m & 200m times but that still leaves the 400m, the 48.19 by Naser is in doubt due to her subsequent ban for missing tests, where the fastest time with no doubts is Perec's 48.25 from 1996 (more than 25 years ago) and the 800m where the WR is close to 40 years old and only 8 of the top 30 times ever have been set this century as drug testing stepped up! (although Athing Mu should eat into that incredibly bad stat).
But if you think that is bad try looking at the longest women's discuss or shot put records, you will struggle to find any throws in the last 30 years in the top 20. If that does not raise suspicions then nothing will
The problem is that because everyone views those records with suspicion it creates a mental block - everyone knows those records cannot be beaten without drugs and drug testing now means you will probably be caught whereas 30+ years ago you probably would not
You could never calculate how wind affects times in a track when the runners run a bend
(200)… Let alone, wind does not blow consistently in one direction and even if it did, running the turn of the 200M would produce a variable tail and/or headwind as you run the turn and no one has the data to be about to truly account for this…
The closest one can come is a very loose very approximate guess…
If you look at the start of Flo Jo's 100m world record run, a person is standing behind the runners holding a white flag which shows the wind is blowing briskly into the runners , not with them. What the wind was doing the rest of the way down the track is a guess. They should have had wind guages every 10m for the 100m, lung jump and triple jump, at any track meet of any size to eliminate controversy. That's going back many decades when wind guages were first used, to the present. She had lost a lot of excess body fat and gained a lot of muscle compared to earlier years, and her form at this point and at the 88 olympics was unparalled then or now , male or female. Which is why even with the advances in track surfaces and shoes, her record still stands.
I like how you did not try to add +2.0 wind to that 10.49. You could try - minus the 4.0 wind that was behind her
I don’t know what it is… but these videos give me chills on how good they are
Interesting and totally valid-unlike,in my belief,any records set by athletes from countries with an inherently corrupt"win for the glory of the nation & we'll turn a blind eye,be complicit or even actively help you cheat"-culture-(whether as an individual,or part of a system).
A very reputable track & field website actually lists the top "wind-legal" women's 100m race as Elaine Thompson-Herah at 10.54. Flo Jo's 10.49w has a following "W" meaning they list the mark as wind-aided.
Not sure of the calculator that was used for this analysis but there is also a calculator that also includes the temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure and elevation of each race and changing these variables also changes the "adjusted time" similar to how the wind-reading impacts the times.
@BioHacking FinTech What website would that be?
@@TheRednose3269 I replied but they deleted the links. Sorry.
@@GreyBeard_Fit Oh I was just curious. No worries bud.