I agree with you on your strategy for Mo, Victor. I think that is Mo's only chance to win. Hard from the gun. And I also agree it is likely to be tight. Not sure who I would really bet on, but I wouldn't want to bet a lot, seems to me it could go either way. If Bolt races hard from the gun to drop Mo, then I like Mo to win. If Bolt follows Mo, then sprints at end, I like Bolt. I am pretty sure I'll like the race no matter what happens.
No offense, Moonlight, but I think you're missing the point. Of course, Rudisha or B Johnson win this race if they are in it. But either of those 2 get smoked by Bolt in a 100 or 200 or by Mo in a 5K or 10K. The whole point of it is that both Mo and Bolt are contesting a distance well out of their comfort zone - it's who is IN the race, not who is OUT of the race that makes it fun and compelling to anticipate and watch.
IAMTHEMASTERCOMMANDER wrote:
The best matchup would be Mo vs. Kirani at 600m
You would test positive on a drug test cause you are clearly smoking crack. Kirani stepping up to 600m would be nothing or him. 400m guys run the 600m indoors all the time and excel at it. It would be unfair for him to only step up 200m while having an amazing 1500m with Mo he is still at 5000/100000 guy in his training. They would need to meet around 900m.
Bolt vs Mo at 600m is good but 650m would be better.
Join an event wrote:
Bolt vs Mo at 600m is good but 650m would be better.
If anything 550m would make it a better race. Anything longer than 600m is too long for Bolt to be able to hang with Mo until the end.
The Insider wrote:
I respectfully disagree with you. We'd all run the 100 if we could, and we kept moving up until we found something we were good at.
No, terrible logic.
I never wanted to run the 100. I wanted to run the mile. I'm glad I had the ability to do it well.
People don't "move up" until they find the distance they are best at. They simply find the distance they are best at. That's it.
People don't find the shortest distance they are best at. They just find the distance they are best at, and then race it....
i kinda like running wrote:
I agree. Different people are more specialized for different distances, but if you have great 100m speed, that's the event you would compete in. Not the 5k. People only move up in distance because they can't compete at shorter distances. I'm glad there are lots of different events in track and field. I enjoy watching them all and I have great respect for elite distances runners, but when it comes right down to it, everybody wants to be Usain Bolt.
Speak for yourself.
I never wanted to be Usain Bolt. Apart from the fact that he is drugged to the gills, sprinting is boring. It is short. There is no pain. There is no mental battle. It is just run as fast as you can for a very short time. Boring.
Your logic is bad. I could say the reverse. That people keep moving down in distance until they find the event that they have the endurance for. People who have no endurance sprint.
See how stupid that sounds? Saying it the opposite way is just as stupid.
People find the event that they are best at. There is no "moving up" or "moving down". Not everyone starts out in the 100 wanting to be a sprinter. I would rather be Jim Ryun any day, thanks.
shyland wrote:
Tony Kornheiser is actually a pretty big track and field fan. He tries to insert some track topics every once and awhile.
Tony Kornheiser has also said, on air, that he felt cyclists deserved to be hit and run off the road by drivers, so basically anything he has to say is invalid. They're both idiots, and ESPN is the absolute worst.
The Insider wrote:
Dafuq wrote:Impressive overall but I disagree that all distance runners start as sprinters who couldn't cut it.
I respectfully disagree with you. We'd all run the 100 if we could, and we kept moving up until we found something we were good at.
I can tell you I certainly would not. I find distance running much more enjoyable than sprinting. Always have.
Not to mention the actual training to sprint faster has way to much standing around and rest for my taste.
I'm late to the parade here, who decided on 600m? That's completely assinine when 500m would be much more interesting.
I want to see a full stadium to watch Mary Cain and Bolt race each other over a distance that would give Cain a chance to beat him. What distance would that be? 800? 1,000?
I want to see Cain beat Bolt, please.
Hmm... my take is... everyone gets involved in sports for his or her own reasons, so no general statement, for example: "every distance runner is a failed sprinter" is going to summarize every single person who became a distance runner. That's silly.
However, if I was going to make a claim, it wouldn't be "every distance runner is a failed sprinter", but actually, that people gravitate toward what they excel at. I think kids tend to get introduced to sprints before distance running, so those who do well stick to sprinting, while those who don't do as well look to other events. However, if a kid destroys everyone in a gym class mile, then perhaps a love for distance running is born, regardless of sprinting ability.
Yes, no, maybe so?
never wanted to be a sprinter wrote:
The Insider wrote:I respectfully disagree with you. We'd all run the 100 if we could, and we kept moving up until we found something we were good at.
No, terrible logic.
I never wanted to run the 100. I wanted to run the mile. I'm glad I had the ability to do it well.
People don't "move up" until they find the distance they are best at. They simply find the distance they are best at. That's it.
People don't find the shortest distance they are best at. They just find the distance they are best at, and then race it....
I agree that people don't always start with shorter events and move up. I knew from my first few days of running on a team that I could beat tons of people with better speed if we raced longer distances. From the get go I pretty much wanted to race the longest distance possible because that is what I was comfortable with and good at. I and many other distance runners never had any ideas of being a sprinter especially since a lot of people's first introduction to the sport is cross country.
The Insider wrote:
Dafuq wrote:Impressive overall but I disagree that all distance runners start as sprinters who couldn't cut it.
I respectfully disagree with you. We'd all run the 100 if we could, and we kept moving up until we found something we were good at.
Just to push this a little further. We all do, what we do, because we couldn't cut it as XYZ athlete.
These PTI guys are on TV because they couldn't cut it as athletes anymore, etc. etc.
Kirani James vs. David Rudisha: 600 meters. That would also be exciting to watch
Viktor Reznov wrote:
I agree. I actually think it would be in Mo's favor to take as hard as he can from the gun, last thing he wants is Usain Bolt on his tail with less than 200 to go.
No way. Mo won't be ABLE to take it out harder than Bolt. Watch how a 400 or an 800 is run by a 400 runner: the start is all-out, the first 400 is fast, the last 100 is tying up and just trying to maintain speed. This is how Bolt will run the 600.
Usain vs. Mary Cain @ 800?
Haven't read anything on the race. Has it been established where this will be run? How large a viewing venue does it receive, internet, universal, espn, nbc?
What about mary wrote:
Usain vs. Mary Cain @ 800?
Has to be longer. I believe Bolt was around a 1:57 runner in high school, and I presume he could run quite a bit faster now if he trained for it for a little while. It has to be 1000+.
If this race is going to be on tv they're going to need an undercard. The whole thing will need to fill up a entire hour. Who do ya got?
IAMTHEMASTERCOMMANDER wrote:
The best matchup would be Mo vs. Kirani at 600m
Kirani would smoke Mo.