True, if Eddie Hart would have run in 72' he would have had a great shot at
winning and also true that if more of our sprinters had gotten a chance to
"mature" they may have run better in the future. But Borzovs' 10.07 was
superior to any 10.07 run today under similar conditions and particularly
those run in Sacto due to the hardness of the track. The tracks of the 70's
were considerably softer and slower than those of today, especially those
put in specifically for fast times at World or Olympic championship meets.
------Original Message------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 21, 2000 6:14:13 PM GMT
Subject: Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
In a message dated 12/21/00 7:49:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Actually Hines ran an auto timed 10.03 in his Sacramento race in 68 .. And
> Hayes auto time in Tokyo was 10.05 .. Nonetheless Borzov's 10.07 placed
> him right at the mark with the best of his time .. And even today, there
are
> only a hand full of sprinters that can say they can step on the track with
> confidence and run faster .. 10.07 made this year's American sprint squad
> for the games !!! And 10.07 would have placed 4th and just out of the
money
>
OK stop running down this endless road of who could do what, when and where.
There is no definitive answer. And the facts are being misconstrued.
Borzov's 10.07 is no where near the times run in Sacramento. And we can
never discount the variable of "level of competition."
Every champion was a champion of that time and era, very few transcend the
time gap, but not all. And Borzov was not one of them. What if in the 60's
and 70's the American sprinters could train beyond one Olympic Games, or had
the sports regime of the eastern Bloc? We would not know Valery Borzov.
DGS
The G.O.A.T.
