Greene was a 9.79/9.80 guy, NOT a 9.75 guy

Green is a better broadcaster than Michael Johnson, that's for sure. Johnson just sits woodenly in the studio occasionally making dumb comments, but Green goes out and about and interviews people on the street. In one segment he taught some guy how to do handoffs.

i don't get why people are trying to say he woulda ran a pr. He didn't finish the race, you have no idea what he would have run. Who cares if he was fast through 60 meters, he wasn't fast through 100m, and 100m was the race. Are we now assigning new pretend PR's to people based off like half-way splits in races?? The guy ran enough 100's in his life and never ran faster than 9.79, so he's a 9.79 runner. It was his primary event. It's not like we're saying he ran a 400 once and we are guessing at what he coulda ran if he ran it more. this thread is silly and silly. sillysilly.

sillysilly wrote:

i don't get why people are trying to say he woulda ran a pr. He didn't finish the race, you have no idea what he would have run. Who cares if he was fast through 60 meters, he wasn't fast through 100m, and 100m was the race. Are we now assigning new pretend PR's to people based off like half-way splits in races?? The guy ran enough 100's in his life and never ran faster than 9.79, so he's a 9.79 runner. It was his primary event. It's not like we're saying he ran a 400 once and we are guessing at what he coulda ran if he ran it more. this thread is silly and silly. sillysilly.

1) because he woulda ran a pr if he finished the race

2) anyone with a brain could figure out what he would have run using his splits

3) no one is assigning a new pr, just determining his potential and what he had the ability to run

hard to tell how much he slowed down, but he was clearly hurting for a good part of the race and could not push off at full strength. He was surely at least 9.75 w/out the injury there. And he is crazy muscular, indicating you know what in all likelihood in that era, though I always rooted for him.

I actually do feel as if V3 is missing, or ignoring, the point that several people are arguing.

Ventolin, I don't think anyone is arguing that in absence of injury that race would have been 9.6x, that's pretty clear.

What people are saying is that it doesn't matter as Mo's body was physically incapable of handling the race itself and/or the training. I.E. he could never run 9.6x because any time he tried he would get injured. THAT is the argument being presented.

Seems like a dumb argument though because how would someone have any idea whether it was a random one off injury, versus his body being unable to take the stress of going faster than 9.8??

the psychological barriers were different back then

jjjjjjj wrote:

hard to tell how much he slowed down, but he was clearly hurting for a good part of the race and could not push off at full strength. He was surely at least 9.75 w/out the injury there. And he is crazy muscular, indicating you know what in all likelihood in that era, though I always rooted for him.

You can tell by his splits (1.83, 2.83, 3.75, 4.64, 5.50, 6.33, 7.16, 8.02, 8.91, 9.82). the diference between the last 3 sohuld have been around .84, .84, and .85 which would equal to 9.69

LM wrote:

What people are saying is that it doesn't matter as Mo's body was physically incapable of handling the race itself and/or the training. I.E. he could never run 9.6x because any time he tried he would get injured. THAT is the argument being presented.

That is a dumb argument unless you believe that he never could have recovered. You don't simply get injured by running a fast time

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Lots of people claim that Greene was "faster" than his PR would indicate, and point to his run in Edmonton as evidence.

In Edmonton, he was well on his way to a sub-9.80 clocking, when he tore his ham.

ALL THIS PROVES is that his body could NOT handle the stress of performing any faster than 9.80

Greene had a great career, and had PLENTY of opportunities to prove himself. There is absolutely no way that Greene could have gone 9.75, ever, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T.

He TRIED, and he FAILED, MASSIVELY.

He was physically incapable of sprinting any faster than he actually did.

Well, since you emphasised a few words with upper case letters, I guess you must be right. You sound quite sure.

I am sure, and the point stands.

I don't care if you're talking "rounds", because plenty of 100m WR's and PR's have been set after "rounds".

Not to mention that Mo had TONS of one-off opportunities in which he failed to go sub-9.80

I didn't know this thread would have such legs.

Very quick to 38 posts, but even if it only gets to 100 posts, I'm sure it's really a 150-post thread.

I hear this crxp said all the time about Greene. Rubbish.

LM wrote:

What people are saying is that it doesn't matter as Mo's body was physically incapable of handling the race itself and/or the training. I.E. he could never run 9.6x because any time he tried he would get injured. THAT is the argument being presented.

That is a dumb argument unless you believe that he never could have recovered. You don't simply get injured by running a fast time[/quote]

Nonetheless...that seems to be what the people in this thread arguing against V3 are saying.

Not exactly.

The argument in a nutshell is that "he never demonstrated that he could run sub-9.79/9.80 because to the extent that he ever tried, he failed, always due to physical inability"

Without any actual demonstration of the capability, the capability remains a mere suggestion that is contradicted by substantial factual evidence including a very long career, a great many opportunities, and physical failure before all of the requisite parts of such a performance could be delivered in succession.

The argument has absolutely nothing to do with "recovery".

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I am sure, and the point stands.

I don't care if you're talking "rounds", because plenty of 100m WR's and PR's have been set after "rounds".

And what relevance does that have to my argument? none...

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Not to mention that Mo had TONS of one-off opportunities in which he failed to go sub-9.80

Clearly he was at peak during the championships... doesn't matter about those one-offs

Skyart: "And what relevance does that have to my argument?"

This is what you said, in part:

"The fact is if he had not been injured he would have ran 9.70 or faster"

Skyart, THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT.

Please think about this, I mean REALLY think about this, before you post again. Dissect your own statement. Think about factual predicates.

Try to respond to my statement of the argument meaningfully--that is, show logical flaws in its structure, flaws in its reasoning, or challenge the facts--either disprove my facts or add others, while offering proof therefor to the extent that it is required.

So, there's still too much snow in Minnesota to train, so you decided to watch Ventolin git visibly upset??

If you look at the splits for Edmonton carefully:

(1) Mo got to 50 in the exact same time as Bolt in 2008 (9.69).

(2) Mo did not run a faster maxV (0.83). He just got there quicker than before (almost all of the gain happened in the first 40. He tied the fastest ever time for split for 10-20 (1.00).

(3) If Mo had continued with the same splits for 70-100 as in his 9.79 WR (no injury), he would have run 9.72. But those splits were run off John Smith race modeling, which means hold back slightly at the start and save something for the finish. Holding back nothing at the start makes it unlikely he would have duplicated those splits. It seems likely that he would have finished faster than 9.79, but probably not 9.72. Certainly not 9.66--there is NO evidence in anything Mo ever ran to support that.

(4) He perhaps accelerated faster than ANYBODY's body can tolerate. Mo came into the meet with a sore or injured knee. He ran the Edmonton final with a strap. He was never the same again after this race and was never again able to start like he did before. 2.83 for the first 20 is faster than Bolt/9.69, faster than Bolt/9.58, faster than Ben/9.79, perhaps faster than anyone ever, and this MAY have ruptured that tendon that basically forced him to retire (separate from the hamstring, but maybe a contributing factor to the hamstring). Also let's not forget that there were 3 false starts (it is conceivable that the injury would have even happened with today's no false start rule). But Greene apparently didn't feel anything from the early acceleration. He felt something 20-30m from the finish, then his ham closer to the finish. But he wasn't 100% coming into the race. Hamstrings normally fail when they can't handle the force put out by the quads, but he did not run a faster MaxV than he did before, so if he got through the first 50 without breaking, he should have been able to run faster than 9.79....if he only was healthy going in.

(5) One year earlier, both Michael Johnson and Mo Greene both DNF the OT 200m final and did not run the event in Sydney. The reason was likely dehydration due to creatine supplementation (and the heat on the track in Sacramento). This may have been a contributing factor in Edmonton, not the same heat, but particularly when those false starts are taken into account.

d!

In addition to it not being warm here, I have torn my R rotator cuff, doing too many too-deep dips with heavy weight. I did accelerations after that which went well, but OMG I haven't been able to sleep for 2 nights because of the pain. Will have to take some time off, will be hard because tomorrow a warm front is coming through and it will be 90 degrees outside.

Look, Mo DIDN'T go sub-9.80 in Edmonton. Period. He was on his way, he likely made it to 85m at sub-9.80 pace, but he didn't make it to 100m. Why not? Because his body couldn't sustain for 100m the necessary output, that's why. Why not? Because on that occasion, he lacked the physical capability. How do I know that? Because his absolute physical capability on that occasion was, in fact, demonstrated on the track. 9.82

On no occasion did he ever demonstrate the physical capability to actually go sub-9.79/9.80

UNLESS you want to argue wind.

The only thing that is "clear" is that had he had a significant tailwind instead of a headwind in Edmonton, he would have gone sub-9.80 in that very race.

But, he didn't. And he had plenty of races over his career that came along with decent tailwind.

how many races did he have any 9.6 guys to chase? or 9.7 guys? so how can you say that he could not have run faster with people to chase? you run as fast as you need to win at that level and then when better people come around, you find that your former max was better. but this argument is much less speculative than that. he was on pace through most of the race to run high 9.6 or low 9.7 and got injured, and he came into the race injured. let's say that he had wrapped the hamstring before the race. it might have held to the finish.

Thank-you for agreeing that at no time during his long and stellar career did he actually demonstrate that he was physically capable of going faster than 9.79/9.80

"could have", "might have", but in the end, DID NOT.

The only reasonable argument is that of wind.

9.79 (+0.1) in Athens "would have been" 9.70 w/max wind

9.80 (+0.2) in Seville "would have been" 9.72 w/max wind

9.82 (-0.2) in Edmonton "would have been" 9.73 w/max wind

9.85 (+0.8) in Rome "would have been" 9.80 w/max wind

9.86 (+0.2) in Athens "would have been" 9.78 w/max wind

9.86 (-0.2) in Berlin "would have been" 9.76 w/max wind

9.87 (+0.6) in Stockholm

9.87 (-0.3) in Sydney "would have been" 9.76 w/max wind

9.87 (+0.6) in Athens

9.89 (+0.9) in Rome

9.90 (+0.2) in Indy

9.90 (+1.0) in Lausanne

9.90 (+1.3) in Athens

9.90 (+0.5) in Athens

9.90 (+0.3) in Stockholm

9.90 (+0.3) in Eugene

9.90 (+1.1) in Lausanne

9.91 (-0.2) in Seville

9.91 (-0.4) in Osaka

9.91 (-0.3) in Athens

9.90 ( 0.0) in Sacramento

9.92 (+0.2) in Brussels

9.92 (-0.3) in Lausanne

etc.

So, w/max wind in his actual delivered performances, he "would have had" 2 around 9.79, 2 at 9.76, 2 around 9.72, and one around 9.70

I exclude his 2 around 9.79, because those do not tend to disprove my initial proposition.

So we are left with 2 around 9.76, 2 around 9.72, and 1 around 9.70, for a total of 5 possibilities during which he realistically would have demonstrated this capability, BUT FOR not having a max wind reading.

In fact, of those 5 chances, only 2 were run with a tailwind, averaging a meager +0.15 The other three were all run into headwinds averaging about -0.20

The average wind of his 5 opportunities was about 0.0, so the times he actually put up are absolutely indicative of his "basic" ability, which topped out at 9.79/9.80

Too bad he didn't get better winds for his top performances.

jjjjjj: "how many races did he have any 9.6 guys to chase? or 9.7 guys?"

Zero.

"so how can you say that he could not have run faster with people to chase?"

I'm not saying that at all--I'm saying that he never once, during a long and stellar career, demonstrated that he had the capability to go sub-9.79/9.80--a proposition that you have yet to refute.

It is I who have provided the wind argument.

The only other possible argument would be to show a race where he massively let up, yet still put up a fast enough time to indicate that if he hadn't let up, he would have gone faster than 9.79/9.80, like Bolt in Beijing.

It was obvious that on that day and in that race in Beijing, Bolt had the physical capability to go faster than 9.69--which was eventually evidenced in his 9.58 and 9.63

To my knowledge, Greene's career had no such event, but I could easily be wrong on that. If I'm wrong, find it and show me, and make an argument!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Skyart: "And what relevance does that have to my argument?"

This is what you said, in part:

"The fact is if he had not been injured he would have ran 9.70 or faster"

Skyart, THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT.

Please think about this, I mean REALLY think about this, before you post again. Dissect your own statement. Think about factual predicates.

Try to respond to my statement of the argument meaningfully--that is, show logical flaws in its structure, flaws in its reasoning, or challenge the facts--either disprove my facts or add others, while offering proof therefor to the extent that it is required.

Um what? still has no relevance because rounds do not affect top athletes very much who don't have to run 100% to make finals, on the other hand ANY impact will have an effect on a knee injury. I do not just talk out my backside like you think. And also what you quoted me saying has no relevance to what I said about rounds...