Amen, he was the best that year, and everything else is speculation.
Good point about the media's difference in reaction to Olga Korbut. I remember the general media being condescending towards Borzov's accomplishments in just the manner Frank Litsky of the NYT described. It's not surprising that the NYT would mock American patriotism since they were, and still are the leading American Jewish Marxist owned propaganda organ.
But truth be known Litsky was right that most Americans (majority were still patriot) were reflexively dismissing Borzov as a robotic caricature of the Cold War--not because of some anti-white love of the rioting blacks of that time. Most Whites had not yet become the self-hating cucks we see today. The NON belt-way/north-eastern media still largely catered to patriotic American sensibilities. The adoring contradiction that the media had for Korbut was because she was such a contrast to the anti-Soviet image of what Russian women were portrayed as. If you didn't live then you wouldn't remember how almost every media depiction of a Russian woman was of a ugly fat peasant. It was as if-- a revelation--and she also turned female gymnastics into something more than an athletic event--an artful display like the Bolshoi Ballet.
I also like your point about the lane 1 complaint in the 200. Ordinarily a runner would prefer to not run in that lane due to it being a tighter curve, but if there ever was a runner who was great at running that lane, Larry Black would be in that conversation. I've noticed that there have been commenters in today's age who don't know the history of the rules who ask why he was placed in that lane in the QF, SF, and Final when he had won all his prior heats. Back then they didn't award runners preferred lanes on the basis of their (placing/time) in the prior heat. A random draw was used, that in this case led to the unusual odds of Larry landing in lane 1 in the last 3 races. The sport eventually got around, no doubt due to the athletes complaining, to the more fair, equitable system of lane reward based on the previous heat performance.
The reaction from the team coach Wright is understandable when you consider how stupid he looked after the 100 scheduling error. Poor Stan took the heat even though subsequently he was exonerated:
"Wright, who died in 1998, initially took the blame for the scheduling confusion. But in a report to the United States Olympic Committee, George Wilson, the manager of the Olympic track team, later took responsibility, saying the schedule had been changed only 48 hours before the event and that, distracted, he had forgotten to tell Wright."
Larrys reaction to his loss was pure classless *****. He was the sore loser.
The 19.99? is explainable in that the times are rounded up to the next hundredth when the thousandths are greater than 0. As an example Marian Woronin's 10.00 was actually 9.992 so technically he was the first white man to run a sub 10, but dem's da rules.
By the way the 9.9 that Robert Taylor ran at the 72 Oly. trials was a wind-aided time in the Quarter-finals. In the final he was timed at (10.0). He was very close to Hart & Robinson but as you know the whole art of hand timing was a subjective exercise that was gladly disposed of eventually. I mentioned earlier in this thread that he also had a better head to head that yr. against Hart, and I believe also Robinson, that was part of the reason Track & Field News ranked him #2 that year in the 100.
Speaking of Borzov's 20.00(20.07 adjusted) his time would have been the 2nd fastest adjusted time to that date as Quarrie's 19.86(20.02 adjusted) would have been the fastest and Tommie Smith's 19.83(20.09) being 3rd fastest.
It's a shame Borzov didn't concentrate more on the 200 as I think he was actually better at that distance. Well the 100 was the glamour event and he never again trained to the shape he was in 72, so just more speculation.
Nice article:
https://in.rbth.com/articles/2012/08/09/borzovs_burst_remembering_the_soviet_express_16903
One little error I noted in the article was when they mentioned the technique of the sprinters training with a paper (cardboard) tube in their mouths as they practice sprinted. The writer said when they left an imprint, that was when they were considered sprinters. Actually it was the opposite as relaxing while running would be indicated by not clenching the jaw, therefore not leaving the teeth imprint on the tube. I'm sure the writer understood it but his editor clearly didn't by not fixing the error. I've read in Borzov's own words about that technique. That technique is so cool when you think about it. "Young grasshopper, you kung fu master when you snatch pebble out of my hand."
