What's responsible for the rapid improvement in the 100

[trackinblack2]

What is responsible for the current leaps in ability in the 100 Meters?
Is the training that much different to allow for the drop in times?
In days gone by it would take 10 years to run .01 faster than before.
I am a true Fan and want to believe in the sport.

[tandfman]

In days gone by it would take 10 years to run .01 faster than before.

That is simply not true.

[trackinblack2]

Ten years was an arbitrary number. Look at these facts.

1968 9.95

1983 9.93 it took 15 years to lower .02 seconds

The progression then became faster.
1988 9.92

1991 9.90
The 1980's was the Ben Johnson era.

Simply not True? I think not!

[tandfman]

Ten years may be an arbitrary number, but it was YOUR arbitrary number. Also, you did not make it clear what "times gone by" meant . If you look at the time before Hines's 9.96, either hand or auto, you could not derive a conclusion like yours.

Furthermore, you have to recognize that because of Mexico City's altitude, the 9.95 represented an outlier that interrupted what would probably otherwise been a smoother record progression. Moreover, through much of the '70's, many races were not being auto timed at all. It is simply imposible to say what the WR progression would have been if the 1968 Olympic Games had been held at sea level and if auto timing had been uniformly in effect throughout history.

[Thor]

What is responsible for the current leaps in ability in the 100 Meters?

Faster runners.

[dakota]

1968 - 9.95
1983 - 9.93
1987 - 9.83
1988 - 9.79
1999 - 9.79
2002 - 9.78
2005 - 9.77
2006 - 9.77
2007 - 9.74

[parkerrclay]

you need to label or remove the steroid and altitude marks

[jazzcyclist]

What is responsible for the current leaps in ability in the 100 Meters?
Is the training that much different to allow for the drop in times?
In days gone by it would take 10 years to run .01 faster than before.
I am a true Fan and want to believe in the sport.

For the clean athletes, faster tracks, lighter shoes, lycra and creatine.

[Kevin Richardson]

Hooah for creatine! I love the stuff.

[gh]

Ten years may be an arbitrary number, but it was YOUR arbitrary number. Also, you did not make it clear what "times gone by" meant . If you look at the time before Hines's 9.96, either hand or auto, you could not derive a conclusion like yours.

Furthermore, you have to recognize that because of Mexico City's altitude, the 9.95 represented an outlier that interrupted what would probably otherwise been a smoother record progression. Moreover, through much of the '70's, many races were not being auto timed at all. It is simply imposible to say what the WR progression would have been if the 1968 Olympic Games had been held at sea level and if auto timing had been uniformly in effect throughout history.

Also need to remember that the U.S. didn't go to a metric standard for its national meets until 1976.... so in all the non-Olymmpic years before that, the nation that dominates sprinting had its sprinters running the 100 meters only rarely.

[tandfman]

Tru dat.

[bad hammy]

Tru dat.

Been watching "The Wire"??

[RMc]

The more interesting trace would be to show the annual bests since 1976, the tenth best performer and the average of the top 10 or 50. That would provide a much better measure.

[AS]

The more interesting trace would be to show the annual bests since 1976, the tenth best performer and the average of the top 10 or 50. That would provide a much better measure.

Only if the depth was consistent. Careers are longer now, more countries are likely to throw up a few entrants, more meets have elctronic timing etc...

[fez]

Check out this article about the silent starting gun (I finally found it again):

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/result ... times.html

As I tried to suggest on an earlier thread much of the improvement in 100m times comes from the introduction of the silent gun at the 1995 World Championships. Reaction times are 0.05 seconds faster on average, according to the above article, which might explain, for example, why Mo Greene was able to post a record number of sub 10s in his career (about twice as many as Carl Lewis) and why 9.7 has become a lot more common place.

Add this to all the other factors that have already been mentioned above: allweather tracks, electronic timing, lighter shoes, US being non-metric before 1976, and the fact that we're still taking about a statistically insignificant number of people who have run under 10.00.

As of writing only 59 guys in history have broken 10.00 for the hundred metres and only 16 have run sub 9.9.

[balzonia]

As of writing only 59 guys in history have broken 10.00 for the hundred metres and only 16 have run sub 9.9.

Interesting way to think about the events. To put this in Shot Putting terms only 63 guys in history have thrown over 70' (21.34m) outdoors. (2 more indoors)

And only 16 guys have thrown over 72'5" (22.09m)

What do the other events look like in those terms?

[AS]

Men's 200m:

37 sub 20s
13 sub 19.90s

Men's 400m:

55 sub 44.50s
9 sub 44s

Women's 100m:

61 sub 11s
10 sub 10.80s

Men's HJ:

43 2.37m or higher
7 2.40m or higher

[26mi235]

Marks in the 100m are strongly influenced by 1) wind; 2) altitude; and 3) the start and track. Since the data are available, the way to look at it is to take the 'basic' marks for the top and top 10 times for a year, and then note that back into the 70s you start to get thinner coverage of FAT and tracks are different. Also, even in the 80s careers were shorter, so the number of good times are reduced then (e.g., use the top 5 for 1970s, top 7 for 80s, top 9 for 90s and top 10 or so for the 200Xs.

[EPelle]

A question about 1980s careers being shorter. Many athletes had careers which overlapped between 80:s and 90:s (Smith, Lewis, Burrell, Christie, Imoh, Stewart). What defines, "even in the 80s careers were shorter"? Five to seven years?

Smith had a 100m career which spanned from 1980 to 1996. Lewis: 1980-1997; Burrell: 1988-1997; Christie: (1984 at least - 1999); Imoh: 1983-1993; Stewart: 1983-2001 (!); there are more.

[EPelle]

Not having my resource books here, I:ll have to make due with what I have online (Nick Buck:s compilation).

Top-10 athletes per year during the 80:s with tracks and performance

1980

??

1981

1 1 10.00 0.0 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 1 SWC Dallas TX 16May1981 188/80
2 2 10.04 1.0 Melvin Lattany USA 10Aug1959 1 Athens GA 11Apr1981 175/72
3 3 10.05 -0.8 James Sanford USA 27Dec1957 1 Pepsi Westwood CA 10May1981 178/75
4 9 10.10 -0.8 Stanley Floyd USA 23Jun1961 2 Pepsi Westwood CA 10May1981 178/74
5 10 10.11 1.8 Jeff Phillips USA 16May1957 1sf3 NCAA Baton Rouge LA 5Jun1981 188/91 PB
6 21 10.15 1.8 Ron Brown USA 31Mar1961 2sf1 NCAA Baton Rouge LA 5Jun1981 180/82
7 22 10.15 0.0 Colin Bradford JAM 30May1955 1 WPT Ciudad Bolívar 14Aug1981 188/80 PB
8 26 10.17 -0.9 Allan Wells GBR 3May1952 1 ECp Zagreb 15Aug1981 183/83
9 28 10.18 0.6 Rudy Levarity BAH 12Dec1958 1 College Station TX 25Apr1981 190/81 NR
10 29 10.18 0.0 Emmit King USA 24Mar1959 3 TB CI Knoxville TN 23May1981 175/78

1982

1 1 10.00 1.9 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 1r1 Cal R Modesto CA 15May1982 188/80
2 2 10.03A 1.9 Stanley Floyd USA 23Jun1961 1r1 NCAA Provo UT 5Jun1982 178/74 PB
3 3 10.05 1.7 Calvin Smith USA 8Jan1961 1 USOC SF Indianapolis IN 25Jul1982 178/69
4 10 10.10A 1.9 Willie Gault USA 5Sep1960 2r1 NCAA Provo UT 5Jun1982 187/82 PB
5 13 10.11A 1.9 Mike Miller USA 29Dec1959 3r1 NCAA Provo UT 5Jun1982 180/76 PB
6 18 10.13 0.3 Emmit King USA 24Mar1959 1 SEC Athens GA 15May1982 175/78
7 21 10.14A 1.6 James Butler USA 21Jun1960 1r2 NCAA Provo UT 5Jun1982 175/66 PB
8 24 10.14 1.43 Melvin Lattany USA 10Aug1959 1 GGala Roma (SO) 14Sep1982 175/72
9 25 10.15 1.9 Valentin Atanasov BUL 7May1961 1 Sofia 17Aug1982 185/76 PB
10 28 10.16 -2.4 Leandro Peñalver CUB 23May1961 1 CAC G La Habana 9Aug1982 175/71

1983

1 1 9.93A 1.38 Calvin Smith USA 8Jan1961 1 USOC SF Colorado Springs CO 3Jul1983 178/69 PB
2 2 9.97 1.48 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 1r1 Cal R Modesto CA 14May1983 188/80
3 4 10.03 1.6 Melvin Lattany USA 10Aug1959 2 WK Zürich 24Aug1983 175/72
4 7 10.06 2.0 Leandro Peñalver CUB 23May1961 1 PamG Caracas 24Aug1983 175/71 PB
5 8 10.06 1.6 Ron Brown USA 31Mar1961 3 WK Zürich 24Aug1983 180/82 PB
6 9 10.06 1.6 Emmit King USA 24Mar1959 4 WK Zürich 24Aug1983 175/78
7 12 10.08 0.1 Darrell Green USA 15Feb1960 1 San Angelo TX 13Apr1983 178/77 PB
8 16 10.13 1.8 Stanley Floyd USA 23Jun1961 1 Houston TX 16Apr1983 178/74
9 19 10.14 2.0 Juan Núñez DOM 19Nov1959 2 PamG Caracas 24Aug1983 180/73 NR
10 23 10.15 1.6 Allan Wells GBR 3May1952 5 WK Zürich 24Aug1983 183/83

1984

1 1 9.96 0.06 Melvin Lattany USA 10Aug1959 1r1 Athens GA 5May1984 175/72 PB
2 2 9.99 1.26 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 1 Houston TX 6May1984 188/80
3 5 10.00 2.0 Marian Woronin POL 13Aug1956 1 Kusocinski Mem. Warszawa 9Jun1984 186/74 NR
4 10 10.09 1.4 Samuel Graddy USA 10Feb1964 1h2 SEC Baton Rouge LA 12May1984 178/70 PB
5 11 10.09 0.9 Harvey Glance USA 28Mar1957 2 WK Zürich 22Aug1984 173/67
6 12 10.11 Frank Emmelmann GDR 15Sep1961 1 Split 30Apr1984 185/76
7 14 10.11 0.0 Calvin Smith USA 8Jan1961 1 Walnut CA 25Jul1984 178/69
8 15 10.12 0.0 Ron Brown USA 31Mar1961 2 MtSAC R Walnut CA 29Apr1984 180/82
9 16 10.12 0.9 Ben Johnson CAN 30Dec1961 3 WK Zürich 22Aug1984 180/75
10 19 10.14 1.1 Osvaldo Lara CUB 13Jul1955 1r1 Fürth 9Jun1984 171/72

1985

1 1 9.98 1.52 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 1r1 Cal R Modesto CA 11May1985 188/80
2 2 10.00 -0.4 Ben Johnson CAN 30Dec1961 1 WCp Canberra 4Oct1985 180/75
3 5 10.05 1.8 Harvey Glance USA 28Mar1957 1r1 Fla R Tampa FL 30Mar1985 173/67
4 6 10.06 1.9 Frank Emmelmann GDR 15Sep1961 1 Est Berlin 22Sep1985 185/76 NR
5 7 10.08 1.6 Terry Scott USA 23Jun1964 1h3 NCAA Austin TX 30May1985 190/82 PB
6 9 10.10 0.2 Andrés Simón CUB 15Sep1961 1 Barrientos La Habana 30Mar1985 160/67
7 10 10.10 1.52 Darwin Cook USA 16Jul1962 2r1 Cal R Modesto CA 11May1985 179/75 PB
8 13 10.10 1.8 Calvin Smith USA 8Jan1961 1h1 WK/GP Zürich 21Aug1985 178/69
9 14 10.11 -0.1 Kirk Baptiste USA 20Jun1963 1 TAC Indianapolis IN 15Jun1985 185/78 PB
10 16 10.11 -0.4 Chidi Imoh NGR 27Aug1963 2 WCp Canberra 4Oct1985 188/77

1986

1 1 9.95 0.75 Ben Johnson CAN 30Dec1961 1r1 GWG/GP Moskva 9Jul1986 180/75
2 2 10.00 1.0 Chidi Imoh NGR 27Aug1963 1r1 ISTAF/GP West Berlin 15Aug1986 188/77 PB
3 5 10.02 1.8 Robson Caetano da Silva BRA 4Sep1964 1 Ibero-Am G La Habana 27Sep1986 187/74 NR
4 7 10.04 1.8 Linford Christie GBR 2Apr1960 1 Madrid 4Jun1986 189/94
5 10 10.06 0.75 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 3r1 GWG/GP Moskva 9Jul1986 188/80
6 13 10.07 -0.1 Emmit King USA 24Mar1959 1 Sevilla 24May1986 175/78
7 16 10.08 0.1 Lorenzo Daniel USA 23Mar1966 1h2 SEC Knoxville TN 17May1986 183/77 PB
8 20 10.09 -0.5 Harvey Glance USA 28Mar1957 1r3 OD/GP Dresden 3Jul1986 173/67
9 21 10.09 1.3 Antoine Richard FRA 8Sep1960 1 NC Aix-les-Bains 9Aug1986 176/63 NR
10 23 10.10 1.8 Thomas Schröder GDR 23Aug1962 1 NC Jena 27Jun1986 177/76 PB

1987

1 1 9.83 0.95 Ben Johnson CAN 30Dec1961 1 WC Roma 30Aug1987 180/75 NR
2 2 9.93 0.95 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 2 WC Roma 30Aug1987 188/80
3 8 10.03 1.7 Linford Christie GBR 2Apr1960 1r1 BGP/GP Budapest 6Jul1987 189/94
4 10 10.04 1.8 Mark Witherspoon USA 3Sep1963 1 TAC San José CA 27Jun1987 193/83 PB
5 16 10.06 0.3 Andrés Simón CUB 15Sep1961 1 La Habana 1Aug1987 160/67 PB
6 19 10.07 0.5 Lee McRae USA 23Jan1966 1 WUG Zagreb 14Jul1987 176/71 PB
7 21 10.07 -1.2 Calvin Smith USA 8Jan1961 2 WK/GP Zürich 19Aug1987 178/69
8 23 10.08 0.95 Raymond Stewart JAM 18Mar1965 3 WC Roma 30Aug1987 178/73
9 24 10.09 1.5 Max Moriniére FRA 16Feb1964 1 Vénissieux-P. 3Jul1987 183/78 PB
10 27 10.09 0.3 Attila Kovács HUN 2Sep1960 1 NC Miskolc 20Aug1987 182/72 PB

1988

1 1 9.92 1.1 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 1 OG Seoul 24Sep1988 188/80
2 5 9.97 1.10 Calvin Smith USA 8Jan1961 2r3 WK/GP Zürich 17Aug1988 178/69
3 7 9.97 1.1 Linford Christie GBR 2Apr1960 2 OG Seoul 24Sep1988 189/94
4 8 9.98A 1.7 Ben Johnson CAN 30Dec1961 1r1 Sestriere 11Aug1988 180/75
5 12 10.03 0.4 Joe DeLoach USA 5Jun1967 1 NCAA Eugene OR 4Jun1988 182/76 PB
6 13 10.03 0.9 Dennis Mitchell USA 20Feb1966 1r2 Athletissi/GP Lausanne 24Jun1988 174/69
7 15 10.04 0.5 Emmit King USA 24Mar1959 1 TAC Tampa FL 17Jun1988 175/78 PB
8 16 10.04 1.10 Chidi Imoh NGR 27Aug1963 4r3 WK/GP Zürich 17Aug1988 188/77
9 20 10.06A 2.0 Johan Rossouw RSA 20Oct1965 1 Johannesburg 23Apr1988 176/73 PB
10 22 10.07 0.5 Brian Cooper USA 21Aug1965 2 TAC Tampa FL 17Jun1988 180/79 PB

1989

1 1 9.94 0.73 Leroy Burrell USA 21Feb1967 1 TAC Houston TX 16Jun1989 183/82
2 2 9.97 1.0 Raymond Stewart JAM 18Mar1965 1 SWC Waco TX 20May1989 178/73
3 3 10.02A 0.1 Frank Fredericks RSA 2Oct1967 1r1 Provo UT 27May1989 180/73 NR
4 6 10.03 0.73 Dennis Mitchell USA 20Feb1966 2 TAC Houston TX 16Jun1989 174/69
5 9 10.04 0.73 Andre Cason USA 20Jan1969 3 TAC Houston TX 16Jun1989 170/70
6 11 10.05 -0.1 Carl Lewis USA 1Jul1961 1 BNP Villeneuve d'Ascq 25Jun1989 188/80
7 12 10.05 1.2 Calvin Smith USA 8Jan1961 1 Bislett/GP Oslo 1Jul1989 178/69
8 14 10.07 2.0 Michael Marsh USA 4Aug1967 2 Gainesville FL 8Apr1989 178/68
9 20 10.10 0.5 Linford Christie GBR 2Apr1960 1 WCp Barcelona 8Sep1989 189/94
10 22 10.11 1.8 Sven Matthes GDR 23Aug1969 1 Rostock 22Jun1989 186/77 PB

Why did the 100m sprinters get faster in the 1980s? They raced against each other more, and the top sprinter typically had more top performances and victories; from 1983-1988, the number three performer in the world didn:t have the #3 performance. The faster #2 and #3 got, the faster #1 ran. Not difficult. Someone else take 90:s.

[kamikaze7]

Theres more countries trying to develop T&F athletes compared to the 60s and 70s. Its exciting to see people from countries you would otherwise never hear of competing. Guys like Martina Churandy and Kim Collins even Susantika Jayasinghe. IN America I get the feeling that participation rates in T&F are much higher than they were say in the 60s.

[the lagster]

Seems to me a big factor in the 100M improvement is that more athletes are staying with the sport longer and getting better coaching. Going back to the 60's doesn't lend to accurate analysis as most top runners were in their early or mid 20's tops, except for the Europeans.

[George P.]

What is responsible for the current leaps in ability in the 100 Meters?

Asafa Powell

[Kevin Richardson]

Looking at Epelle's numbers (thanks!), it seems that the number one times (negating Big Ben) inched down fairly gradually. The number 10 times were a bit erratic, but also showed a gradual decline.

I also agree with many of the reasons outlined, above. More countries providing more athletes, better tracks, better competition, more frequent competition, and longer careers. Seems logical to me.

[26mi235]

What is responsible for the current leaps in ability in the 100 Meters?

Asafa Powell

Until his one meet (Reiti?) last year he did not have a single mark in the top 5 corrected for wind and altitude. Now he has the top two.

[George P.]

What is responsible for the current leaps in ability in the 100 Meters?

Asafa Powell

Until his one meet (Reiti?) last year he did not have a single mark in the top 5 corrected for wind and altitude. Now he has the top two.

I know this annoys the stat-heads here, but ... when we talk about times, we first should consider legal times. Once that consideration is complete, we might -- as a sort of footnote to the discussion and as an amusement for some -- consider the "what if" world of "corrected" times.

The times that matter are legal times. That's what "legal" means.

[26mi235]

What is responsible for the current leaps in ability in the 100 Meters?

Asafa Powell

Until his one meet (Reiti?) last year he did not have a single mark in the top 5 corrected for wind and altitude. Now he has the top two.

I know this annoys the stat-heads here, but ... when we talk about times, we first should consider legal times. Once that consideration is complete, we might -- as a sort of footnote to the discussion and as an amusement for some -- consider the "what if" world of "corrected" times.

The times that matter are legal times. That's what "legal" means.

GIve me an honest answer to this queston

Runner A 9.79 2.0mps aiding wind

Runner B 9.80 -2.0mps aiding wind

Which is a better performance? Do you really think that they luck of getting a 2.0mps wind makes runner A's performance better?

Once you accede to the notion that a wind over 2.0 is too much aid you also accede to the notion that the wind helps and so either you take a nonsensical position that at 2.0 the wind goes from being too much help to being no help at all.

Now go to the original post, which was trying to figure out why the record had only improved a little bit over a longish period of time and why it has made jumps since. Part of the answer was that the starting point of his 'analysis' was the strongly altitude assisted WR of 9.95. The slow improvement in the record was due to the 'real' performance level not being worth 9.95 and thus the real improvement in that earlier decade was better than the unvarnished statistics would make one believe.

So, now you are essentially taking the position that the effects of altitude and wind play no role in that calculus. That is a position that I think is rather uninformed and something that I would need to take some time explaining to someone that does not have a deep understanding of track and field.

By the way, another reason that I believe in the adjusted times is that the adjusted times tell me that the difference in the quality of performance between Gay and AP is quite small and that is more in concert with the results we see when the two have raced for all the marbles.

[George P.]

GIve me an honest answer to this queston

For my honest answer, see my post above. The fastest runner is the one with the fastest legal time. The fastest runner of all time is the one with the fastest legal time of all time. We, here, sometimes refer to this runner as the GOAT.

Are you suggesting that someone other than the runner I've described should legitimately be considered the GOAT?

[26mi235]

GIve me an honest answer to this queston

For my honest answer, see my post above. The fastest runner is the one with the fastest legal time. The fastest runner of all time is the one with the fastest legal time of all time. We, here, sometimes refer to this runner as the GOAT.

Are you suggesting that someone other than the runner I've described should legitimately be considered the GOAT?

GOAT [Greatest Of All Time] is most assuredly NOT the runner with the fastest legal time in the event. If you go back a few years would you ascribe that description to Montgomery? GOAT is WAY beyond a simple comparison of apples-and-oranges marks. There are very credible observers that do not think that MJ is the 200m GOAT and he has a lot more than a single fast time (Smith being the preferred choice of, I think, gh).

The only thing that mark A has on mark B is that it is a lower number and thus an indication that the runner got there in less time from the beginning of the timing device to the stopping of the timing. I will not even agree that it is faster, as I can readily think of a situation where they have non-equal starting due to placement of the gun relative to the lanes which leads to a difference in when the impulse of the gun reaches the athlete and where an athlete that receive a later signal ran a faster race and still did not quite catch a runner that, by an unfair positional advantage relative to the gun had a better mark.

Along similar lines, if someone sets a Discus WR in a wind-tunnel, I may think that mark not really the best one, and there is almost universal disdain for attempting to set sprint (and LJ etc) marks at high altitude. (Note that in cycling, the governing body now recognizes the Hour Record in a manner that requires low altitude and a standard bicycle design, a la Eddy Merckx, with other conditions garnering the lesser title of World Best.)

[George P.]

GOAT [Greatest Of All Time] is most assuredly NOT the runner with the fastest legal time ...

I blundered by introducing the notion of the GOAT. It's an unofficial, informal designation, and I was trying to establish my argument, such as it was, on the basis of a formal understanding. To me, the GOAT is the one who's run the fastest legal time -- but I conceeded that others might have something else in mind when they use the appellation.

As for all your smoke-and-mirrors about Runner A and Mark B, I'm simply not interested.

[gh]

I say GOAT, you say FOAT.... why don't we call the whole thing off?

[26mi235]

As for all your smoke-and-mirrors about Runner A and Mark B, I'm simply not interested.

I understand the difference between the fastest time and the best performance and I do not pass the best performance off as the fastest time or the record unless it is that also (and it can often be, although the 100m is the event with greatest scope for other factors playing a big enough role that they affect the relative rankings for performances).

I do think it is disingenuous to look only at the WR regardless of circumstances and characterize it as the best performance and Montgomery's WR illustrates the issues quite well, as does the 9.95 WR from Mexico City, which started off the OP's 'question'. Note that altitude records are 'official' WRs but they are still 'looked down on' in terms of performances. Ask Maris if having an asterisk did not matter (i.e., an "a").

[I will now ceasing messages here as I am pushing the boundaries of what is reasonable for posting again and again...]

[RMc]

The more interesting trace would be to show the annual bests since 1976, the tenth best performer and the average of the top 10 or 50. That would provide a much better measure.

Only if the depth was consistent. Careers are longer now, more countries are likely to throw up a few entrants, more meets have elctronic timing etc...

vs. comparison to the WR progression which is even MORE idiosyncratic? And we can account for those factors if we really want to be rigorous, e.g., we can count the # of nations represented in the top 50 each year, and the average length of a career spent in the top 50 as a proxy for career length.

[RMc]

Not having my resource books here, I:ll have to make due with what I have online (Nick Buck:s compilation).

Top-10 athletes per year during the 80:s with tracks and performance

Note that the 10th performer improved about a 0.01/yr consistently from 81 to 88 (89 being the last non championship year). Interesting trend.

[RMc]

GIve me an honest answer to this queston

For my honest answer, see my post above. The fastest runner is the one with the fastest legal time. The fastest runner of all time is the one with the fastest legal time of all time. We, here, sometimes refer to this runner as the GOAT.

Are you suggesting that someone other than the runner I've described should legitimately be considered the GOAT?

The GOAT most definitely does not have the fastest legal time. Think of Ron Clarke--surely the greatest time trialer of all time (GTTOAT), but never a champion in a major, even the Commonwealth. The GOAT is the greatest COMPETITOR. The LJ GOAT is obviously Carl Lewis--but he NEVER held the LJ WR, and it took a WR to beat him the only time he lost in a major. The 100 is full of fluke WR holders over the years. Surely no one would rate Leroy Burrell over Lewis, ever. And Powell still hasn't proven himself.