The Idea That Gatlin Will Run 9.4X in Beijing Is A Complete Misnomer

You're Tobias, OP. To the question you're begging to have answered, it also seems unlikely to me that JG or anyone currently competing will ever run 9.4.

I heard his training has been in tents.

Your use of misnomer is a misnomer.

No way on god's green earth that Gatlin pops in the 9.4x region.. I dont even know why they settled on that number if they were just making up BS. It's just so far from credible that it doesnt work to psych out Bolt. But it does plant a seed in our minds. Come WC time, Gatlin runs a 9,6x that time feels more plausible. "Hey, it's a lot slower than what he claims to have run."

The fact that he will competing in the 2015 WC is suspicious enough.

You have a brane? wrote:

If Justin Gatlin runs 9.6X, I will stop posting on these boards and move to Kona. Pablo knows when he can look for me.

Well, drink some of their world famous coffee while you're over there. It's best served with a side of crow.

Your use of the word "ironic" is a misnomer.

Usain for the win!! wrote:

To the guy who keeps saying Gatlin will run 9.4X: Are we really supposed to believe that?

It's ironic there are such a plethora of people that think he will even run under 9.6X. That kind of outlandish prediction is just insubstantiated rumor and hearsay.

This begs the question of what Gatlin will really run come the end of the month. For all instensive purposes I allege he will run no faster than 9.8. You heard it here first!

This has to be grammar trolling, right? Please, let this be trolling.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

trying to use BIG words wrote:

Misnomer does not mean what you think it means

Shirley you're not serious? Did you really miss the point of his post, deerie?

Either way though, I could care less what you think.

Your welcome.

This works out well. I agree that misnomer probably isn't used correctly in this thread. But, we happen to have a GREAT example of proper use of the word in the lead story. Specifically, "Lauren Johnson wasn't very fast in HS, and now she's a WC qualifier !!!" But, that's a misnomer, because as we then learn in the story, she didn't run very seriously in HS. So, her great rise is a bit of a MISNOMER. Obviously, you can take the greatest talent of all time, and he/she they didn't apply themselves much in their sport earlier, they'd have some mediocre PRs to which to compare their future greatness. Does that mean much? Of course not. What's cool, of course, are folks who applied themselves pretty well, ran un-impressively, and then eventually got very fast. Brian Sell a decent example, perhaps?

I'm sure that it's a nice story (didn't read the whole thing) without setting up semi-BS story lines (misnomers) up front. Kind of annoying. Do better, LRC.

Old and New wrote:

speling and gramer wrote:

"your"?

You are new here, aren't you?

This purposefully, poorly grammeticized thread never would have not not gotten anywhere if weren't for the genius of the OP. Only one intimately familiar with the weirdo's who comprise this board, and burdened with the yoke of genius, could have begun such a

Genuis_Grammarian wrote:

This purposefully, poorly grammeticized thread never would have not not gotten anywhere if weren't for the genius of the OP. Only one intimately familiar with the weirdo's who comprise this board, and burdened with the yoke of genius, could have begun such a

oh hey their OP

Pffffft, for all intensive purposes, that is a misnomer!

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

trying to use BIG words wrote:

Misnomer does not mean what you think it means

Shirley you're not serious? Did you really miss the point of his post, deerie?

Either way though, I could care less what you think.

Your welcome.

You could care less? This means you care enough that there is room for you to care less. The implication is that you care a lot about what he thinks because you could actually afford to care much less.

Familiar with the weirdo's what ... ? There's a that/who error, too, although there seems to be a lot of people that/who don't care anymore.

RGrams wrote:

Jesus, it's all intents and purposes.

People are doing very poorly with eggcorns in this thread.

Intensive purposes

I could care less

Intents and purposes

I couldn't care less

One of these sets makes logical sense, the other does not.

re: "For all Intensive purposes"

When there are more people saying it one way than the other, the wrong way becomes the 'spoken' language. That's pretty much what American English is, it is our way of speaking the English language. While it is important to know how to say it correctly, especially in written form, but a messageboard is not English Comp class. Btw, when you learn the traditional school taught Castilian Spanish, when you are in Spain, people are always correcting you. Who am I to tell a native Spanish speaker how to speak their language. The purpose of language is to communicate, with that said, it is often best to say things in the way they are best understood.

Usain for the win!! wrote:

To the guy who keeps saying Gatlin will run 9.4X: Are we really supposed to believe that?

It's ironic there are such a plethora of people that think he will even run under 9.6X. That kind of outlandish prediction is just insubstantiated rumor and hearsay.

This begs the question of what Gatlin will really run come the end of the month. For all instensive purposes I allege he will run no faster than 9.8. You heard it here first!

OP, I'm awestruck by how badly you misused the English language, and by your arrogance while attempting (but failing) to use elevated language.

Failures:

1.) misuse of "misnomer" - A misnomer is an incorrect naming of something, or refers to the use of the incorrect name. Neither occurred in your sentence. The best word beginning with "mis-" that might apply to the 9.4x prediction would be "misguided." It might end up being a "mistake." However, it can never be a misnomer.

2.) misuse of "ironic" - There's nothing ironic about it at all. It may be difficult to believe, but that doesn't make it ironic.

3.) misuse of "plethora" - If you truly knew the word, you'd know it's singular, not plural, and, as a result, you wouldn't have used "are" 3 words prior.

4.) misuse of "prediction" - "Prediction" is a noun that can have discrete quantities, unlike, say, "water." So your sentence should read, "an outlandish prediction...."

5.) misuse of "outlandish" - "outlandish prediction" is intended to be a superlative construct, so qualifying it by saying, "That kind of" makes no sense. Instead, you simply mean to refer to an outlandish prediction such as that, which can be efficiently accomplished by writing, "Such an outlandish prediction...."

6.) misspelling of "unsubstantiated" - "insubstantiated" is not a word.

7.) misuse of "unsubstantiated" - A prediction is already unsubstantiated, because the action predicted hasn't happened yet. So "unsubstantiated" is redundant.

8.) misuse of "rumor" and "hearsay" - These words refer to talk of an action that has happened or may have happened, whereas a prediction refers to an action that hasn't happened, so temporally you're in the wrong to use them here.

* It should be evident by now that your entire "outlandish" sentence was bad. You should have simply said, "Such a prediction is outlandish."

9.) misuse of the phrase "begs the question" - Just because you now wonder what the result will be, doesn't mean that the question has been begged semantically. If anything, the fact that a prediction has been made has already answered a begged question that may have existed. I know what you were trying to do. You were trying to disprove the validity of the 9.4x prediction, and, by virtue of its impossibility, state that a vacuum now exists where the previous prediction had existed; so therefore we must now fill it, begging the re-asking of the question, "What will he run?" Unfortunately, you did such a poor job of challenging that prediction that no further question could be begged.

10.) misuse of "intensive" - The phrase you're looking for is, "intents and purposes."

11.) misuse of "intents and purposes" - Now that I've established that this is what you meant to write, I'll treat the fact that you shouldn't have written it anything of the sort. The phrase "intents and purposes" is used with real or semantic dependency or causality, in a situation where something is behaving as the true form of something else, without actually being that something else. Example: For all intents and purposes, Asbel Kiprop's 2015 Monaco run should be considered the world record because it's the fastest clean time. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that sentence, but it's a sentence that one might see on this site, and it's proper use of "intents and purposes." So, in my example sentence, Kiprop's time behaves as the true world record time without officially being it, and determination of the world record depends on cleanliness. Unfortunately, nothing depends on your 9.8x prediction, nor does your prediction depend on anything, nor does it cause anything to happen. More importantly, your prediction is in no way behaving as the 'real' or 'true' prediction; it's simply another prediction.

12.) misuse of "allege" - Once again, you used a word that refers to actions that have happened or may have happened, but either way are in the past. However, since you're speaking of your prediction, you can't use allege here. You mean to say that you predict that he will run 9.8x

Usain for the win!! wrote:

To the guy who keeps saying Gatlin will run 9.4X: Are we really supposed to believe that?

It's ironic there are such a plethora of people that think he will even run under 9.6X. That kind of outlandish prediction is just insubstantiated rumor and hearsay.

This begs the question of what Gatlin will really run come the end of the month. For all instensive purposes I allege he will run no faster than 9.8. You heard it here first!

I have not heard anyone say Gatlin is going to run 9.4. Bolt's 9.58 is perhaps the strongest mark in track & field and to think someone is going better that mark by nearly 2 10ths of a second is crazy. A realistic goal for Gatlin is winning and/or perhaps breaking the American of 9.69.

9.65 is totally realistic for Gatlin and so is a slight dip under 9.58 with a nice tailwind. Remember bolt's record was with a +1.3 wind i think, and equates to an adjusted 9.63. So with a good wind and of course the adrenaline of the moment, it is highly likely that Gatlin will go mid 9.6 to New WR range.

I don't think Bolt will be in record shape, but his talent well at this point is deeper than Gatlins' and it's just a matter of getting the body there again since he mentally/muscularly remembers it.

Yes.

for many reasons.

1) He is going to run 9.4x in how many steps? 40? Impossible.

2) The weather for the 100m final, as today, is questionable. Like Moscow WC's in 2013. 9.6X high in these conditions...it would be a lock for the gold medal.

3) Bolt showed a 9.5x shape in Beijing 2008 (showboating the last 15 meters). One year after that he ran 9.58 leaning at the tape. When Gatlin showed a 9.5X ability? Never. In fact, many people doubt about Gatlin's chances to beat 9.66. Let alone 9.4X

4) WADA is going to test Gatlin at least twice in Beijing (not only urine, but blood). They take many blood, So probably he's going to be very weak before the final of the 100m

I think It's safe to say that Gatlin could be in 9.6X shape for the final, with good weather.

OP here. To all the jerks who missed the point of my post and decided instead that it would be more fun to nitpick my grammar: Maybe we didn't all didn't go to Harvard.

Anyways, my point remains: These crazy predictions about Gatlin are completely incongruent and need to stop. Again, he'll only run 9.8X and I expect Usain will win.