RedRedJarvisRedwhine said:We in these parts call that paper the Argus Liar!HuskerFowler said:LincolnP said:Again, I am from South Dakota and follow track very closely. The above post about Nate Gerry holding the all time state record in the 100 meters is not correct. And not sure where you got that time from. He has a time in the top 10, but not the fastest ever. But he does have a year left, so maybe he will run a 10.39 next year (or faster). The fastest he has ever run in the 100 in 10.5. However, and don't ask me why this is done...I think it's stupid. Times in some races and the 100 being one of them are rounded up. So if he ran a 10.41 for instance, they would round it up to 10.5. So his 10.5 that he did run is likely somewhere in the 10.4? something.
But definitely not 10.39...because that would be the all time state record in South Dakota and he doesn't own that record.
Here is where i got my info, from a SD newspaper i believe, so not sure whats up either way hes fast, and i know the nebraska record is 10.5 because i looked it up.
http://www.arguslead...011/1002/SPORTSHe has since increased his size and speed (10.39 in the 100 meters and 21.31 in the 200) to become a three-star recruit, and he envisions rising further as part of the Husker football tradition
I saw that too. Never happened. Nate did get 2nd in the 100 meters at the state meet, but the weather was bad...rainy. Track was wet. Not exactly the best conditions to be ripping off great times.
As I said, Nate's fastest 100 time was 10.5, which means he ran somewhere between 10.41 and 10.5. Not the state record. Top ten, but maybe he will get the state record next year.