All I could think watching Warnier run that 400 was 'Man, I'm sure that guy could smoke an 8.'
He could jog a 49 but unlike other 400 runners, he is on the skinny side and could cruise a 53.
Somebody tell him to move up after 2008!!
All I could think watching Warnier run that 400 was 'Man, I'm sure that guy could smoke an 8.'
He could jog a 49 but unlike other 400 runners, he is on the skinny side and could cruise a 53.
Somebody tell him to move up after 2008!!
kksdnc wrote:
Wow, Harry Reynolds' 43.29 was really ahead of its time.
And his second best time isn't even in the top 20.
Beamon-esque.
Just in case some cyclops from outer space has erased your long term memory, here's a refresher course:
(1) His name is Butch Reynolds.
(2) He served a drug suspension from 1990 to 1992.
Jason
male nymph wrote:
he has never lost a race he has finished. So to me he is unbeaten. he never even got out of the blocks a week ago, and last year at the world cup he pulled up and dnf'd
To me I consider that a unbeaten record. Injuries do happe, you can't help that. but as long as you dont pull up at like 200 or further he is fine by me.
Well, what do you mean by "never" ? He certainly has lost a 400 in his life (hs, college), but do you mean as a pro? If so, he may indeed by "undefeated" (under your definition of only counting races finished) as a pro, but I don't know about that for sure.
(but "he has never lost a race" is untrue on many levels).
male nymph wrote:
he has never lost a race he has finished. So to me he is unbeaten. he never even got out of the blocks a week ago, and last year at the world cup he pulled up and dnf'd
To me I consider that a unbeaten record. Injuries do happe, you can't help that. but as long as you dont pull up at like 200 or further he is fine by me.
actually he lost to darrold williamson in an early season 400 some time back, maybe 2004 or 2005? they ran 44.5 or so i believe, but williamson technically beat him.
What I find interesting about this race is the point at which he opens up a gap on the field. With all the 200s he's been running you would think he would be far ahead at 250m-300m and then holding on down the homestretch. But instead, he's a stride or two ahead at 300m, and then really puts a gap between himself and the field in the final 50m.
Granted, he ran the first 200 in under 21, so he still ran positive splits. But it was interesting to me the way he really left the rest of the runners in the final meters.
It was just on Espn news before bonds home run...kinda cool.
male nymph wrote:
he has never lost a race he has finished. So to me he is unbeaten.
I understand your point, but completely disagree. We have races to determine who (legally) gets to the finish line first. Everyone else in the race, whether he finishes or not (and regardless of *why* he doesn't finish), has been beaten by the winner.
In my first 50k, I was DFL the entire way. I still beat 60% of the field, because I got to the finish before they did (they never got there). We raced, they lost.
just saw it as number 9 on the "top 10 plays of the day" for sport center. Its awesome to see track getting some coverage
i kinda like running wrote:
it was interesting to me the way he really left the rest of the runners in the final meters.
kind of like every 400m i've ever seen him run.
he certainly doesn't have MJ's 200m speed (who does?) but his closing strength is unreal.
MAYEROFF wrote:
Just in case some cyclops from outer space has erased your long term memory, here's a refresher course:
(1) His name is Butch Reynolds.
(2) He served a drug suspension from 1990 to 1992.
Jason
Just in case the Syphillis has progressed to stage 3 or 4 and your brain is rotting, Butch's actual first name is Harry. And the "drug suspension" is about as dubious as they come. Even you should know that.
Wariner's run was #8 on ESPN Sportcenter's top plays.
pretty cool, they showed that last straight and mentioned he was going to get a diamond for the SR.
Mandingo wrote:
All I could think watching Warnier run that 400 was 'Man, I'm sure that guy could smoke an 8.'
He could jog a 49 but unlike other 400 runners, he is on the skinny side and could cruise a 53.
Somebody tell him to move up after 2008!!
yes because this whole 400 meters thing isn't working out too well for him.
Odd this. Finishes a 400 in the third quickest time EVER, and not out of breath, no lactic and when he comes to the UK, he bails out.
Very odd.....
That is seriously the best post you could come up with? (Yes is is quite obvious that Wariner is juicing look at his bulging muscles). O.K. on the serious side running all those 200's early in the season is really paying off, working on speed for a 400 runner makes a fast early pace easier to handle leaving more for Jeremy's big finish than ever before. I do think that the 400 record could be in jeapordy in the next couple of years.
he lost to tim benjamin at crystal palace a couple of years ago. and he finished the racre and wasn't injured. if only tim could get within a second of him now!
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
male nymph wrote:he has never lost a race he has finished. So to me he is unbeaten. he never even got out of the blocks a week ago, and last year at the world cup he pulled up and dnf'd
To me I consider that a unbeaten record. Injuries do happe, you can't help that. but as long as you dont pull up at like 200 or further he is fine by me.
Well, what do you mean by "never" ? He certainly has lost a 400 in his life (hs, college), but do you mean as a pro? If so, he may indeed by "undefeated" (under your definition of only counting races finished) as a pro, but I don't know about that for sure.
(but "he has never lost a race" is untrue on many levels).
sebastianmte wrote:
Odd this. Finishes a 400 in the third quickest time EVER, and not out of breath, no lactic and when he comes to the UK, he bails out.
Very odd.....
what's odd? what's lactic? what was in the UK? someone educate me
sebastianmte wrote:
Odd this. Finishes a 400 in the third quickest time EVER, and not out of breath, no lactic and when he comes to the UK, he bails out.
Very odd.....
There's a lot more to it than that.
Keep in mind, that it was cool and rainy and they held the 400m runners on the track, in their blocks, with no warmups, for several minutes before the race went off due to a malfunction with the timing equipment.
Wariner then stumbled out of the blocks.
In that weather, he could have easily pulled a muscle trying to make up for the stumble. He's smart enough to know Osaka is more important than a rinky-dink matchup in the UK.
Finally, this was the race with Oscar Pistouris (sp?) the amputee runner. There was a theory that JW didn't want to be part of this type of race.
I am also wondering whether Jeremy can run a fast 800m. I have noticed over the years that it's not necessarily the skinny guys who have more endurance that the heavier guys.It's hard to predict 800m ability and 800m is more about aerobic endurance that speed endurance. There hasn't been anybody capable of doing a decent 400m/800m double in recent years. People thought Iwan Thomas had great endurance, yet he was easily beaten over 600m in South Africa when he was in the form of his life.I believe Wariner is a pure sprinter with excellent speed endurance and great form and energy distribution. We have no way of knowing that he'll be great over 800m as well. As he has got such great 200m speed (20.35e already this season and can run faster), I think it's safe to assume that he won't have enough endurance to do a world class 800m.I believe that if Jeremy could get stronger and bulk up a bit, he could do great things over 200m possibly and that is a more realistic change of event that an 800m
Mandingo wrote:
All I could think watching Warnier run that 400 was 'Man, I'm sure that guy could smoke an 8.'
He could jog a 49 but unlike other 400 runners, he is on the skinny side and could cruise a 53.
Somebody tell him to move up after 2008!!
I am also wondering whether Jeremy can run a fast 800m. I have noticed over the years that it's not necessarily the skinny guys who have more endurance that the heavier guys.It's hard to predict 800m ability and 800m is more about aerobic endurance that speed endurance. There hasn't been anybody capable of doing a decent 400m/800m double in recent years. People thought Iwan Thomas had great endurance, yet he was easily beaten over 600m in South Africa when he was in the form of his life.I believe Wariner is a pure sprinter with excellent speed endurance and great form and energy distribution. We have no way of knowing that he'll be great over 800m as well. As he has got such great 200m speed (20.35e already this season and can run faster), I think it's safe to assume that he won't have enough endurance to do a world class 800m.I believe that if Jeremy could get stronger and bulk up a bit, he could do great things over 200m possibly and that is a more realistic change of event that an 800m
Mandingo wrote:
All I could think watching Warnier run that 400 was 'Man, I'm sure that guy could smoke an 8.'
He could jog a 49 but unlike other 400 runners, he is on the skinny side and could cruise a 53.
Somebody tell him to move up after 2008!!
Odd this. Finishes a 400 in the third quickest time EVER, and not out of breath, no lactic and when he comes to the UK, he bails out.
Very odd.....
----------------------------------------------
That is actually not the 3rd quickest time EVER. its like the 5th or 6th but he just happended to be the the third person because MJ had like almost all the other perfomances.