MICHAEL NORMAN 9.86!!!! (1.6)

No athlete has yet demonstrated the ability to believably go faster than mid-9.8 with a bit of wind, without at some point in their career using PED’s, unless you believe that Dolt at 9.5 was clean.

A few did not have decent wind.

The fastest guys in the 9.8’s have been Bailey, Surin, Bromell, Thompson, Burrell, Lewis, Boldon, etc. You may believe some or all of those names to have used, but whatever.

Norman’s 9.86 is IMO no evidence of use—if accurate, it is among the all-time best, and I would dearly like to see him dedicate to the 100m, in order to repeat it. It looks like all the 9.7 junk has been cleaned out, and that we are now left with 9.8’s, making anyone 9.8’s competitive for the win—which IMO would be great, a real advance over the days of the absurd. That a guy like Norman or Lyles could win with a 9.8 is, IMO, only right.

I said possible, as in not impossible.

We will see.

Quick take:

Which performance is better:

9.90 in Doha with a +0.6 measured tail wind for bronze by De Grasse last year.

9.86 in Fort Worth with a +1.6 measured tail wind by Norman recently.

It's De Grasse's. That's with rounds and it's an indoor stadium, so I guess that's air-conditioning wind lol?

When I go through the all-time list, I find that in principle I tend to agree with your outlook. But....it's so much heresy. I've gotten back on the "basic" band wagon lately because adjusting for wind tends to deflate a lot of results without even getting into the drugs questions. For example, Montgomery goes 9.78 for a world record. He did it with a +2.0. That's essentially just a slight dip under a 9.90 basic, for gods sake. Most of the guys like Surin, Bailey, and Burrell from eras before Montgomery were CLEARLY better than that...but there was Montgomery with a WR next to his name. Silly.

Then, of course, he got popped, too.

I dunno what the limits are, and trying to analyze it seems fairly futile with all the innuendo and fandom out there. I don't think it's worth arguing over the matter when people can't even contextualize what running 9.86 with a MEASURED +1.6 even means. It makes him a mid 9.9 guy. Which IS great....but doesn't match a lot of the hype from the fan boys.

Look at Lyles, Geezer. His 9.86 from last year puts him at about 9.90 basic. Which is legit. You would be contented if he runs 9.85 in a champ final and say "well there's a clean guy". Now he runs a final with a +1.9 and he drops .02 from his 9.90 basic result from last year. That means he runs the final in 9.78. But he's the same as the 9.85, or even SLOWER, that you would have felt safe with.

I guess people have been tired of the "basic" argument for a while, but that's no cause to COMPLETELY throw out it's use for contextualizing things, you know?

9.90 basic is clearly among the best all-time, as would be 9.88 basic.

I have never said that a clean wind-legal 9.80-or-better is humanly impossible. What I have said is that nobody has yet demonstrated the ability.

If Lyles or anybody goes that fast, they will be under serious, and justified, suspicion, because they will potentially be the first.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

It's De Grasse's. That's with rounds and it's an indoor stadium, so I guess that's air-conditioning wind lol?

Well, you're answering how I WOULD answer, so I agree. But obviously I can see people coming back with rebuttals of various kinds. I just also wanted to make the point that a 9.94 basic 100m dash does not immediately and inherently mean you're gonna get a medal.

Look, I can totally see an argument that a 400 guy who doesn't really train for 100s (though we don't know the subtle details of Normans current training) who can then go out and run a 9.94 basic in what may very well be a glorified time trial could be INDICATIVE of a guy who has the potential as a 100m medal threat. I think that's a more than fair argument and stance.

But in a vaccum, the 9.86 result is not hard evidence of him being able to walk into LAST YEARS global final and medal, let alone the last decades worth of finals.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

9.90 basic is clearly among the best all-time, as would be 9.88 basic.

I have never said that a clean wind-legal 9.80-or-better is humanly impossible. What I have said is that nobody has yet demonstrated the ability.

If Lyles or anybody goes that fast, they will be under serious, and justified, suspicion, because they will potentially be the first.

Divine Oduduru essentially went 9.90 basic in the NCAA final last year. Is he already eligible to be placed into the "best all time" discussions?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

JumpsDoctor wrote:

Well, I wouldn't say it is "proof," but I would say it is certainly strong evidence when you consider it in the context of his entire career, as I've said.

Given the time, the fact that he hasn’t dedicated to the 100, the time during the season, the level of the meet, the smoke from the gun, the times put up by other athletes, a 400 hurdler going almost 10-flat, etc, it is IMO some evidence, but not strong evidence. His best 200 is much better evidence.

That "400 hurdler" is a sub-20 second 200m runner who splits 43 point on 4x4s and nearly was a sub-21 second performer in the indoor 200m in high school (21.09), even though he is 6' 3. If you think it's common for someone that tall to run that fast at the Armory while that young, you're mistaken.

Additionally, when Benjamin ran that 19.99, it was in a Diamond League race with a headwind, after he and Norman had run an entire year of NCAA track. He ran another 200 that was nearly below 20 flat in the same year after the fact to back it up. Sub-20 ability in the 200 from an athlete who NEVER runs it is absolutely, 100% enough evidence to refute your concerns about Benjamin's time somehow reflecting that the timing was illegitimate. All your other reasons are just arbitrary. That is you imposing your hyper-skeptical perspective on the situation. Luckily for Norman, your opinion cannot alter the results of FAT timing.

Yes, IMO any 9.90 basic is among the best clean times ever.

That does not make Oduduru one of the best 100m athletes of all-time.

Doc, a difference between you and I is that you speak in absolutes, with a certitude that derives from the prejudice of belief—a prejudice I neither have, nor need.

I am content to wait.

nah, you're just content to troll. when called out and shytted on with actual arguments, you incorporate them as if you always said so, like my obvious argument about his 19.7. so instead of an absolute 'no' now it's just 'content to wait'. also, in another thread, you're back to 'lemaitre is the (joint) fastest clen man ever'. dolt

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Doc, a difference between you and I is that you speak in absolutes, with a certitude that derives from the prejudice of belief—a prejudice I neither have, nor need.

I am content to wait.

Bizzare self-righteous post. Norman's 9.86 doesn't have to wait for you it happened and is now part of track and field fact.

Whether you believe something or not is inconsequential.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Doc, a difference between you and I is that you speak in absolutes, with a certitude that derives from the prejudice of belief—a prejudice I neither have, nor need.

I am content to wait.

I do see some thing as absolutely the case. Not everything in life is black and white to me, but this issue is very straightforward. I am not an anti-skeptic, but I have never had a reason to doubt the supreme capability of either of these young men.

I’ve always liked this first 100 from Norman. Yeah yeah it was in the rounds but he was also only a high school senior at the time. Pretty darn fast.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E1Fio_c4p7s

ex-runner wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Doc, a difference between you and I is that you speak in absolutes, with a certitude that derives from the prejudice of belief—a prejudice I neither have, nor need.

I am content to wait.

Bizzare self-righteous post. Norman's 9.86 doesn't have to wait for you it happened and is now part of track and field fact.

Whether you believe something or not is inconsequential.

+1

Sprintguy, you are only getting the treatment you have given others for years.

You are no authority and you have zero evidence that Norman didn't run a legit 9.86

So shut up unless you can prove something.

I've seen a YouTube video of Noah Lyles training in the gym and his legs appear quite thin and spindly. This is probably an over simplification but it is difficult to see how he can ever generate the power and explosiveness to match Michael Norman over the first 50-60m. Therefore, Norman will always have the advantage over the 100m. If Norman is able to develop his top-end speed then he may exceed Lyles' capabilities in the 200m as well (if he hasn't already)

I've seen a YouTube video of Noah Lyles training in the gym and his legs appear quite thin and spindly. This is probably an over simplification but it is difficult to see how he can ever generate the power and explosiveness to match Michael Norman over the first 50-60m. Therefore, Norman will always have the advantage over the 100m. If Norman is able to develop his top-end speed then he may exceed Lyles' capabilities in the 200m as well (if he hasn't already)

I've seen a YouTube video of Noah Lyles training in the gym and his legs appear quite thin and spindly. This is probably an over simplification but it is difficult to see how he can ever generate the power and explosiveness to match Michael Norman over the first 50-60m. Therefore, Norman will always have the advantage over the 100m. If Norman is able to develop his top-end speed then he may exceed Lyles' capabilities in the 200m as well (if he hasn't already)