Olympic Dominance!

walshb

Guys,

of all the gold medal wins from the Olympic Games what 5 stand out as the most dominant displays to earn the gold medal?

My 5:

Flo Jo in the 100 metre final in Seoul. Off the charts how she pulled away and blew the field away

Usain Bolt winning the 100 metres final in Beijing. Like Flo Jo, once he got flowing and relaxed he blew them away.

Kevin Young's 400 metre hurdles win in 1992 smashing the 47 second barrier.

Bob Beamon's 1968 long jump win. Smashing the WR in the process by almost 2 feet.

Bolt/Johnson's 200 metre wins in 2008 and 1996 respectively.

YFlyer

Bekele last five laps in the 5000m in 2008.


Edit: will pick 4 more tomorrow

the_real_lamp

Kluft in 2004, she was streets ahead of the competition. A pity she didn't break the 7000 mark.

MrCreosote

My top 5:

Flo Jo in 1988- unbelievable!

Marion Jones 2000- incredible!

Rashid Ramzi 2008- amazing!

Kostas Kenteris 2000- from zero to hero!

Ben Johnson 1988- domination!

Jesus Wept

How many were clean.

Getonwithit

None of them!

Pisco Sour

the_real_lamp wrote: »

Kluft in 2004, she was streets ahead of the competition. A pity she didn't break the 7000 mark.

She broke it the year before in Paris.

Domer

Ed Moses. Gold in 76 and 84. Would have got gold in 80. Undefeated in 122 consecutive race between 1977 and 1987. Complete dominance over 400 hurdles, and CLEAN. (stats from wiki)

TFBubendorfer

Andy Carroll wrote: »

How many were clean.

That's his point ... :rolleyes:

walshb

Why do threads like these always go down the drugs road?

I selected 5 that were never positivley tested or sanctioned for doping offences at an Olympic games.

One could say about any gold medalist ever, were they clean?

BTW, the purpose of the thread was more to do with a one off win as opposed to a multiple gold medal winner like say Moses. Sheer dominance/wow factor in winning a gold medal. I know Moses was dominant in his wins.

the_real_lamp

Pisco Sour wrote: »

the_real_lamp wrote: »

Kluft in 2004, she was streets ahead of the competition. A pity she didn't break the 7000 mark.

She broke it the year before in Paris.

I meant it was a pity she didnt break 7000 in Athens.

MrCreosote

walshb wrote: »

Why do threads like these always go down the drugs road?

I selected 5 that were never positivley tested or sanctioned for doping offences at an Olympic games.

One could say about any gold medalist ever, were they clean?

I think it's good to put Flo-jo's "dominance" into the correct context but of course she never tested positive in the Olympics!

Back on topic, my favourite dominant performance was Cathy Freeman in 2000. Massive pressure, and she just smoked the opposition on the home straight.

walshb

MrCreosote wrote: »

I think it's good to put Flo-jo's "dominance" into the correct context but of course she never tested positive in the Olympics!

Back on topic, my favourite dominant performance was Cathy Freeman in 2000. Massive pressure, and she just smoked the opposition on the home straight.

Yes, Freeman's win was pretty dominant, and she certainly lived up to the hype that day. Of all the athletes who have competed at the games I don't recall any having the profile and interest and hype that she had for Sydney.

TFBubendorfer

walshb wrote: »

Why do threads like these always go down the drugs road?

It went down the drugs road the second you mentioned Flo Jo.

walshb

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

It went down the drugs road the second you mentioned Flo Jo.

Did she test positive for drugs in an Olympics?

Like I said, why stop at Flo Jo? One could ask "is any athlete clean that wins a gold medal."

Maybe to be real clear I should have said "Drugs or not, suspicion of drugs or not, what is the 5 most dominant gold medal displays in the Olympic Games?"

That way all atheletes whether they be clean or not could be included in the list.

gerard65

Carlos Lopez in the '84 LA marathon. He ripped the field apart over the last 5k.

trackfan

michael johnson 1996 - 400m and 200m was epic

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Did she test positive for drugs in an Olympics?

Like I said, why stop at Flo Jo? One could ask "is any athlete clean that wins a gold medal."

Maybe to be real clear I should have said "Drugs or not, suspicion of drugs or not, what is the 5 most dominant gold medal displays in the Olympic Games?"

That way all atheletes whether they be clean or not could be included in the list.

See the thing is, not everybody is as inviting towards cheats as you seem to be. And yes, there have been many cheats, but there's a difference between a blatant, "where did that come from" cheat, and a more subtle cheat.

Pisco Sour

Felix Sanchez is worth a mention. Unbeaten for ages culminating in gold in athens.

ecoli

Mod: Stay away from speculation of drugs its in breach of charter, either provide evidence or don't post, you guys know the charter by now.

Back on topic you could argue Viren's 1972 10,000m race. Tripped and fell losing 30m getting back up catching up with the lead pack within 200m and would then go on to set a world record.

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

See the thing is, not everybody is as inviting towards cheats as you seem to be. And yes, there have been many cheats, but there's a difference between a blatant, "where did that come from" cheat, and a more subtle cheat.

Inviting?

Not with you. As the charter says, if there is evidence, or a positive test, I am all for condemnation.

MrCreosote

First Flo-Jo and now Lasse Viren.

Curious choices.

Stojkovic

walshb wrote: »

Did she test positive for drugs in an Olympics?

By that rationale, Michelle Smith's as clean as a whistle.
Apart from a serious whiskey addiction of course.

walshb

Stojkovic wrote: »

By that rationale, Michelle Smith's as clean as a whistle.
Apart from a serious whiskey addiction of course.

And by that rationale too every medal winner is a potential cheat. ,<snip>, Michelle was sanctioned by FINA and the IOC.

Flo Jo and Michelle is not a fair comparison. Flo Jo is no different than any other gold medal winner in any games that never was sanctioned by the authorities. Yes, she sure was dominant and looked to be too far ahead of the rest, but as far as sanctioning goes, she is like any other medal winner that was never sanctioned.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

And by that rationale too every medal winner is a potential cheat.<snip>. Michelle was sanctioned by FINA and the IOC.

Flo Jo and Michelle is not a fair comparison. Flo Jo is no different than any other gold medal winner in any games that never was sanctioned by the authorities. Yes, she sure was dominant and looked to be too far ahead of the rest, but as far as sanctioning goes, she is like any other medal winner that was never sanctioned.

I'm going to obey the charter and not say anything specific about any particular athletes here, but you do realise that drug testing back in those days was a joke. In fact they didnt bring in out of competition testing until after the Seoul games, by which time the athlete in question had retired. So you cant use the "never tested positive" as an argument for an athlete from the 70s and 80s being clean. Lots of East German "women" never tested positive. That doesn't prove anything!

Testing these days is about 1000 times better than back then. If you don't believe me then look at the times run back in the 70s and 80s by women and compare them to the class of today.

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I'm going to obey the charter and not say anything specific about any particular athletes here, but you do realise that drug testing back in those days was a joke. In fact they didnt bring in out of competition testing until after the Seoul games, by which time the athlete in question had retired. So you cant use the "never tested positive" as an argument for an athlete from the 70s and 80s being clean. Lots of East German "women" never tested positive. That doesn't prove anything!

Testing these days is about 1000 times better than back then. If you don't believe me then look at the times run back in the 70s and 80s by women and compare them to the class of today.

I am well aware of the testing procedure in 1988 and 1989 (when Flo-Jo retired)

But, does that mean that any athlete pre 1988 is also under major suspicion? Zatopek? Beamon? Nurme etc.

For example I selected Beamon from 1968 as a major medal dominant winner. He is no different than the selection of Flo Jo in 1988, no different.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

I am well aware of the testing procedure in 1988 and 1989 (when Flo-Jo retired)

But, does that mean that any athlete pre 1988 is also under major suspicion? Zatopek? Beamon? Nurme etc et al

I selected Beamon from 1968 as a major medal dominant winner. He is no different than the selection of Flo Jo in 1988, no different.

You look at things very black and white. There are reasons to suspect some champions over others. Factors such as career progression, sudden body change also have to be considered. The guys you named aren't suspicious because they didn't just jump out of nowhere and then jump again back to nowhere. They performed at a high level for a significant period of time.

Look at Fani Halkia. She was the most obvious case of doping I have ever seen. I cant imagine anybody outside of Greece thought she was clean at the time. Went from 56 to 52 in one year. Yes she got caught eventually 3 years later, but suppose she retired after Athens, then you'd be harping on again about that "never tested positive" nonsense.

Are you Jimmy Magee by any chance?

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

You look at things very black and white. There are reasons to suspect some champions over others. Factors such as career progression, sudden body change also have to be considered. The guys you named aren't suspicious because they didn't just jump out of nowhere and then jump again back to nowhere. They performed at a high level for a significant period of time.

Look at Fani Halkia. She was the most obvious case of doping I have ever seen. I cant imagine anybody outside of Greece thought she was clean at the time. Went from 56 to 52 in one year. Yes she got caught eventually 3 years later, but suppose she retired after Athens, then you'd be harping on again about that "never tested positive" nonsense.

Are you Jimmy Magee by any chance?

<Snip> I am well aware that her times and progression and performances were well ahead of other athletes thru the years, but one could look at some other athletes pre 1988 who also had major dominance and improvements. Why pick on her alone?

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Why pick on her alone?

Because you didn't mention these others in your original post. If you give praise to controversial characters then expect to be challenged.

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Because you didn't mention these others in your original post. If you give praise to controversial characters then expect to be challenged.

Post 1 I mentioned Bob Beamon. His improvement and record break in 1968 is considered by many to be the biggest improvement and most dominant break in sports history. He was pre 1988. See what I mean? One could question other athletes from pre 1988. It's tiresome. All I was looking for when I posted the thread was some lists. I didn't expect it to go down the drugs route. None in my list ever tested positive for drugs.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Post 1 I mentioned Bob Beamon. His improvement and record break in 1968 is considered by many to be the biggest improvement and most dominant break in sports history. He was pre 1988. See what I mean? One could question other athletes from pre 1988. It's tiresome. All I was looking for when I posted the thread was some lists. I didn't expect it to go down the drugs route. None in my list ever tested positive for drugs.

Lance, that is a silly comparison. Bob Beamon's jump was at altitude!

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Lance, that is a silly comparison. Bob Beamon's jump was at altitude!

And? If so, how come the other top jumpers didn't come close? They too were jumping the day Bob jumped, no? Like Flo Jo her opponents competed on the same track and day as her. Seeing as you mention silly, then I think it's fairly silly to say what you did. Bob was one of several men competing at altitude in 1968. How come the other men didn't come close to that kind of display on this day? I think his jump was probably 70 centimetres or so ahead of the second best jump.

Your train of thought makes little sense. Diss and criticise one athlete for a dominance, and make excuses for another. Like it or not, Bob's dominanace in 1968 was as huge as Flo Jo's in 1988.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

And? If so, how come the other top jumpers didn't come close? They too were jumping the day Bob jumped, no? Like Flo Jo her opponents competed on the same track and day as her. Seeing as you mention silly, then I think it's fairly silly to say what you did. Bob was one of several men competing at altitude in 1968. How come the other men didn't come close to that kind of display on this day? I think his jump was probably 70 centimetres or so ahead of the second best jump.

Your train of thought makes little sense. Diss and criticise one athlete for a dominance, and make excuses for another. Like it or not, Bob's dominanace in 1968 was as huge as Flo Jo's in 1988.

I dont know why I bother but anyway here we go! Beamon was far ahead of the others, hence the winning margin. He was a class apart. However to say that the altitude didn't help the others is ludicrous. The top 4 in Mexico City bettered the previous Olympic record of 8.12m. The top 6 went over 8 metres in 1968, compared to 2 in 1964 and 0 in 1960, and 4 in 1972. What's my point in all of this? Well the altitude clearly made a huge difference. How much of a difference is debatable, but at sea-level that 8.90 would probably equate to an 8.50 or something, which is outstanding and earth shattering for the time, but certainly nothing which would be seen as out of reach to today's athletes. Compare that to Flojo's non-altitude enhanced records which will still be in existence in about 40-50 years time! It is a flawed comparison!

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I dont know why I bother but anyway here we go! Beamon was far ahead of the others, hence the winning margin. He was a class apart. However to say that the altitude didn't help the others is ludicrous. !

Where did I say that altitude did not help the others?

Simple: You are making excuses for Bob's dominace that day. Other men competed too and they didn't come close to that leap.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Where did I say that altitude did not help the others?

Simple: You are making excuses for Bob's dominace that day. Other men competed too and they didn't come close to that leap.

This has got nothing to do with dominance. Don't know why you keep using this word. This is to do with times/distances that are completely out of reach to today's athletes. Beamon's jump adjusted for altitude is perfectly achievable by today's athletes. Flo-jos times are fully impossible!

I don't care about dominance against ones peers. This has got nothing to do with that.

ecoli

Pisco Sour wrote: »

This has got nothing to do with dominance. Don't know why you keep using this word. This is to do with times/distances that are completely out of reach to today's athletes. Beamon's jump adjusted for altitude is perfectly achievable by today's athletes. Flo-jos times are fully impossible!

I don't care about dominance against ones peers. This has got nothing to do with that.

Check the thread title

Pisco Sour

ecoli wrote: »

Check the thread title

Haha, I meant more so for the purposes of the side-discussion we've been having.

ecoli

My 2c on the matter.

I think walshb makes a good point. We tend to pick and choose how much we scrutinize people regarding doping.

Look at Bob Hayes winning the 1964 Olympics running 10.05 on a cinder track while the next best was 10.2x

Carl Lewis until recent revelations was one many were convinced was clean.

There are examples of sheer and utter dominance in sport which people see as chemically enhanced and others which are viewed as super human feats without asking the same set of questions

I think personality tends to win alot of people over and you need to put everyone under the same scrutiny and not pick and choose.

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

This has got nothing to do with dominance. Don't know why you keep using this word. This is to do with times/distances that are completely out of reach to today's athletes. Beamon's jump adjusted for altitude is perfectly achievable by today's athletes. Flo-jos times are fully impossible!

I don't care about dominance against ones peers. This has got nothing to do with that.

Fair point, and one I can understand and get behind.

Anyway, as I said earlier I should have made the thread title more specific and maybe included an add on: Regardless of positive tests, bans, real real suspicion of doping, what are your top 5 most dominant gold medal choices?

I probably would still go with the 5 I selected.

prettyboy81

Linford Christie, Barcelona

Michael Phelps, Beijing

Usain Bolt, Beijing

Jamaican 4 x 100 relay team, Beijing

Michelle Smith, Atlanta

pc11

prettyboy81 wrote: »

Linford Christie, Barcelona

Michael Phelps, Beijing

Usain Bolt, Beijing

Jamaican 4 x 100 relay team, Beijing

Michelle Smith, Atlanta

Christie was not that dominant! And, aren't we talking about T&F?

Rewatching Beijing 5000m final this evening, I'd forgotten how dominant Bekele was that day, absolutely wonderful. Historically, Herb Elliott in 1960 1500m was head and shoulders above the world. Michael Johnson's 200 in 1996 is up there too.

Pisco Sour

ecoli wrote: »

My 2c on the matter.

I think walshb makes a good point. We tend to pick and choose how much we scrutinize people regarding doping.

Look at Bob Hayes winning the 1964 Olympics running 10.05 on a cinder track while the next best was 10.2x

Carl Lewis until recent revelations was one many were convinced was clean.

There are examples of sheer and utter dominance in sport which people see as chemically enhanced and others which are viewed as super human feats without asking the same set of questions

I think personality tends to win alot of people over and you need to put everyone under the same scrutiny and not pick and choose.

Can't agree. There's a difference between the likes of say Paula Radcliffe or Sonia O'Sullivan, whose careers build steadily, reach a peak of dominance for a few years, and then slowly decline than somebody like Flo Jo who was pretty decent for a long time, then in her late 20s comes out in 1988 looking completely different, sounding completely different, and running times that not even convicted dopers such as Marion Jones have been able to get near since. Oh and then she immediately retired. And also died of a heart attack. Some people naturally will come in for greater questioning and rightly so. We surely can't be as naieve as this thread seems to be suggesting!

Pisco Sour

Derartu Tulu in Barca and Sydney has to be up there. Especially the latter. She took 5 seconds out of Wami and Ribeiro in the last 400m, and 9 seconds out of Radcliffe. What an athlete.

ecoli

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Can't agree. There's a difference between the likes of say Paula Radcliffe or Sonia O'Sullivan, whose careers build steadily, reach a peak of dominance for a few years, and then slowly decline than somebody like Flo Jo who was pretty decent for a long time, then in her late 20s comes out in 1988 looking completely different, sounding completely different, and running times that not even convicted dopers such as Marion Jones have been able to get near since. Oh and then she immediately retired. And also died of a heart attack. Some people naturally will come in for greater questioning and rightly so. We surely can't be as naieve as this thread seems to be suggesting!

Not suggesting naivety. but there is a flaw that piece. Radcliffe's times are comparable to Flo Jo in terms of no one getting in the same ball park. Again yes the background is different and I think its only through that scrutiny that can you can come to these conclusions that is the point I am trying to make

My point would be less of a pick and chose.

Personal opinion aside here I was just looking at this from an objective standpoint in terms of the scrutiny in which we look at some compared to others

Pisco Sour

ecoli wrote: »

Not suggesting naivety. but there is a flaw that piece. Radcliffe's times are comparable to Flo Jo in terms of no one getting in the same ball park.

My point would be less of a pick and chose.

Personal opinion aside here I was just looking at this from an objective standpoint in terms of the scrutiny in which we look at some compared to others

If Flojo had the progression of Radcliffe, the championship consistency of Radcliffe, and a lack of sudden physical transformation then I would agree with you.

M cebee

yes radcliffes wr is way out there
comparatively

Pherekydes

Pisco Sour wrote: »

If Flojo had the progression of Radcliffe, the championship consistency of Radcliffe, and a lack of sudden physical transformation then I would agree with you.

How many championship medals did Flo-Jo win before 1988?

Pisco Sour

Pherekydes wrote: »

How many championship medals did Flo-Jo win before 1988?

She had 2 major silver medals over 200m (1984 and 1987), but in times not even close to her 1988 form. Neither of those performances would have suggested she could drop 2/3rds of a second the following season.

TFBubendorfer

With all the lists of dominant Olympic performances, and Bejing featuring so heavily, I am surprised nobody has yet mentioned Sami Wanjiru's Bejing marathon victory.

He completely controlled the entire race from start to finish, everyone else was just hanging on desperately, until they dropped off, one by one.

Plenty of experts regard his run there as the best marathon performance ever.

walshb

Pisco Sour wrote: »

She had 2 major silver medals over 200m (1984 and 1987), but in times not even close to her 1988 form. Neither of those performances would have suggested she could drop 2/3rds of a second the following season.

Well, Ben Johnson competed in 1988 and he was caught and tested positive. I assume Flo Jo underwent the same tests in Seoul. She did not test positive.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Well, Ben Johnson competed in 1988 and he was caught and tested positive. I assume Flo Jo underwent the same tests in Seoul. She did not test positive.

Jaysus!! All that proves is that Ben Johnson was stupid. 5 of the 8 in that race have tested positive since. Johnson was the dumbest cheat that day, that's all!