f*** off moron
you bring nothing to the table to interest me
f*** off moron
you bring nothing to the table to interest me
You are a pathetic, sad excuse for a human being.
What if Watts was too tired from blazing his second 100m to finish any faster than he did?
good point
there are no splits for this but final was given as
20.9/22.6
( mj as 21.22/21.96 )
the fastest 200 split ever listed is fred at 20.5 in his '76 run of 44.40 when he tried to run away from caballo but failed
i looked at watts race & using the 20.9 as "marker distance" to compare vids, it looks like he split 20.7 !
this is more remarkable as he had 0.35s rt - 0.2s too slow
morally, that 200 was = fastest split ever run at 20.5
in other terms :
- his 200 was actually ~ 5m up on mj in 43.18wr
- his 200 was morally ~ 7m up on mj in 43.18wr
it is not a surprise watts eased the last 200, but to run a high-43 off that split is virtually inconceivable - upto 7m faster than mj woud risk
it can be estimated what watt's moral :
20.5/23.0 for 43.5 off an expected 0.15s rt ( remember he also eased off at the finish ) woud be with instead of wild 2.5s differential, the usual 1.0s one, but at the moment this threas doesn't deserve it
ventolin^3 wrote:
f*** off moron
you bring nothing to the table to interest me
Darling, your table manners need some polishing. It is true that you make pronouncements as if you were infallible, and my guess is that this masks your profound insecurity. Let me see...if I'm correct, I expect to be classified as a moron or something synonymous.
you bring nothing to the table to interest me
f*** off
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I guess I just don't understand why the personal invective is necessary at all. Just stick to your analysis and debate that and it would make for better reading.
Ventolin is cognizant that his analysis is amateurish and lacking rigor. Thus he needs the personal invective as a bulwark to support his crippling insecurity. This is an easy observation to make. He is entertaining at times, but much in the manner of observing patients at a psychiatric facility...
jennifer cruz wrote:Ventolin is cognizant that his analysis is amateurish and lacking rigor. Thus he needs the personal invective as a bulwark to support his crippling insecurity. This is an easy observation to make. He is entertaining at times, but much in the manner of observing patients at a psychiatric facility...
from an imbecile who's so f***ing stoopid that even after given x amount of data, where x is significant, showing a -> b, moron still asks for x + dx
i've seen 100s of you low-level operators in my time
thankfully contact has never been anything beyond :
"analyse this piss fast & send the results to my office"
ventolin^3 wrote:
jennifer cruz wrote:Ventolin is cognizant that his analysis is amateurish and lacking rigor. Thus he needs the personal invective as a bulwark to support his crippling insecurity. This is an easy observation to make. He is entertaining at times, but much in the manner of observing patients at a psychiatric facility...from an imbecile who's so f***ing stoopid that even after given x amount of data, where x is significant, showing a -> b, moron still asks for x + dx
i've seen 100s of you low-level operators in my time
thankfully contact has never been anything beyond :
"analyse this piss fast & send the results to my office"
Q.E.D.
This last post is a perfect example:
there are no splits for this
OK, no splits.
i looked at watts race & using the 20.9 as "marker distance" to compare vids, it looks like he split 20.7 !
It "looks like".
This is supposition #1: You think it "looks like" something so therefore, it is. Or more alternately, you think you can accurately pull his 200 meter split from a video. Try to understand this crucial distinction: You might be even be right. I don't think so but I acknowledge the possibility. That does not change the fact that it is a supposition. Your insisting otherwise or calling me moron does transform it into fact.
this is more remarkable as he had 0.35s rt - 0.2s too slow
morally, that 200 was = fastest split ever run at 20.5
"Morally"? (There's a moral aspect to this now...?) You mean IF he didn't react that slowly. But of course, he did.
Supposition #2: We get to to magically apply an "if" and make his reaction time .15. That's like saying "IF he ran the other 300 meters 1.7 seconds faster". Yeah sure. If I get to apply "ifs" where ever I want them I can make several guys world record holders. I could give the world record back to Butch Reynolds.
Supposition #3. The remainder of his race would be completely unaffected by his faster start. Both physically AND mentally. For example, he would not at ALL be affected by seeing himself so much closer to Everett and Black in the early stages
in other terms :
- his 200 was actually ~ 5m up on mj in 43.18wr
No it was ACTUALLY where it was. That's what the word "actually" means, see? Because you don't get to take out reaction times and call it "actually". The word you are looking for is "fictionally". Or, to be more clear, "In my fantasy scenario"
And if we DO allow for this fiction, you've taken Watts down to a reaction time of .15 and left Johnson at the reaction time of .20.
Supposition #4 - Johnson could not react any faster than the .20 you claim for him. Watts gets an "if" to move down to .15 but Johnson does not.
(Incidentally, How do you know what Johnson's reaction time was in his WR. How do you know what Watts was in the 43.71. What was your source? This I am not specifically doubting but I want more than your word.)
it is not a surprise watts eased the last 200,
Supposition #5: Watts eased the last 200. Because it looked like that. This is a somewhat more reasonable supposition, but a supposition nonetheless.
Try to understand now kid because at some point I feel someone truly needs to reach you: Nobody is saying that any one of your suppositions is specifically "wrong". Yes it's plausible that he could have reacted faster. Yes it plausible that he truly was easing up and he could have run a much faster second 200. Yes it's plausible that the rest of his race would have been unaffected by a faster reaction. But none of that changes the fact that you have put together a series of suppositions here. You've fictionally built the perfect race for Watts here. That's all. That's what speculation IS.
jennifer cruz wrote:Q.E.D.
moron
no qed
just your f***wit inability to offer anything on this thread
ventolin^3 wrote:
jennifer cruz wrote:Q.E.D.moron
no qed
just your f***wit inability to offer anything on this thread
Q.E.D.
Jennifer Cruz 4 Ventolin 0
Thinker wrote:This last post is a perfect example
it's a perfect example of reasonable analysis
OK, no splits
because moron not every 400 race has splits taken
i suspected for years someone ran close to fred's 20.5wr & this is one
It "looks like".
This is supposition #1: You think it "looks like" something so therefore, it is. Or more alternately, you think you can accurately pull his 200 meter split from a video. Try to understand this crucial distinction: You might be even be right. I don't think so but I acknowledge the possibility. That does not change the fact that it is a supposition. Your insisting otherwise or calling me moron does transform it into fact
idiot
i have looked at 100s of vids in my time & taken splits
if you are too f***ing stoopid to do so, that's your handicap
"Morally"? (There's a moral aspect to this now...?) You mean IF he didn't react that slowly. But of course, he did
moron
no sprinter reacts 0.35s unless a disastrous failure occured - speaker failure possible
Supposition #2: We get to to magically apply an "if" and make his reaction time .15
idiot
0.15 - 0.20 is standard 400 rt
you clearly have no f***ing clue about the subject
That's like saying "IF he ran the other 300 meters 1.7 seconds faster"
no
that is utter drivel
you are a f***ing idiot
Yeah sure. If I get to apply "ifs" where ever I want them I can make several guys world record holders. I could give the world record back to Butch Reynolds
no
i have never heard of anything but a normal rt for him
& who the f*** do you propose are other wr holders idiot ??
Supposition #3. The remainder of his race would be completely unaffected by his faster start. Both physically AND mentally. For example, he would not at ALL be affected by seeing himself so much closer to Everett and Black in the early stages
f***ing idiot
he had already run 43.97 in trials
black had never run faster than 44.57 anyways
he'd expect to crush black
as for danny, he was a speed guy - you had to keep close to him or give up 5m into stretch-drive
No it was ACTUALLY where it was. That's what the word "actually" means, see? Because you don't get to take out reaction times and call it "actually". The word you are looking for is "fictionally". Or, to be more clear, "In my fantasy scenario"
you are a complete f***ing idiot
i didn't mention "superimposed" as i assumed anyone who "knows" sprinting takes that for granted
& the 5m superimposition is with his actual race - learn to read the numbers moron
you haven't a f***ing clue about sprinting
And if we DO allow for this fiction, you've taken Watts down to a reaction time of .15 and left Johnson at the reaction time of .20
no
mj had a 0.10 - 0.20rt for it
i've never hear mention of anything outside
Supposition #4 - Johnson could not react any faster than the .20 you claim for him. Watts gets an "if" to move down to .15 but Johnson does not
read above
(Incidentally, How do you know what Johnson's reaction time was in his WR. How do you know what Watts was in the 43.71. What was your source? This I am not specifically doubting but I want more than your word.)
read guy on page 2/3 of this topic - he reminds us of 0.35s
mj's rt has never been mentioned as outside usual 0.10 - 0.20 in 100s of threads about him
Supposition #5: Watts eased the last 200. Because it looked like that. This is a somewhat more reasonable supposition, but a supposition nonetheless
f***ing idiot
20.7/23.0
means he considerably slowed
you don't have a f***ing clue
Try to understand now kid because at some point I feel someone truly needs to reach you
you are a f***ing idiot
attend a few years of remedial kindergarden before daring to atttempt bipedalism
Nobody is saying that any one of your suppositions is specifically "wrong". Yes it's plausible that he could have reacted faster. Yes it plausible that he truly was easing up and he could have run a much faster second 200. Yes it's plausible that the rest of his race would have been unaffected by a faster reaction. But none of that changes the fact that you have put together a series of suppositions here. You've fictionally built the perfect race for Watts here. That's all. That's what speculation IS.
complete f***ing moron
all that was asked was a quicker rt, more temperate 200 & latter 200 will take care of itself
you are an imbecile with no clue whatsoever about sprinting
jennifer cruz wrote:Q.E.D.
moron
impress me
if a guy runs 3'50 off 60/60/60/50, estimate what he couda run at even pace
now piss-ant, show me what science you got
put up or shut the f*** up
ventolin, people really aren't that interested in what athletes "coulda" done becuase there are are so many if's...we're mainly intereted in what athletes did do
ventolin^3 wrote:
jennifer cruz wrote:Q.E.D.moron
impress me
if a guy runs 3'50 off 60/60/60/50, estimate what he couda run at even pace
now piss-ant, show me what science you got
put up or shut the f*** up
What, you don't know the answer? 3:47.2...please...how rudimentary...
jennifer cruz wrote:What, you don't know the answer? 3:47.2...please...how rudimentary...
f***ing idiot
try in region of 6s faster
you offer me nothing
f*** off moron
hahah its funny when he says "you offer me nothing"...no one cares what they offer you or what your opinion is of us