MICHAEL NORMAN 9.86!!!! (1.6)

TrackCoach wrote:

jabouko wrote:

YOOOO check his insta

Sorry, but I am not believing this, the first tip off is the other runners in that race who are not known for their raw speed, yet running incredible times. Btw, I am well aware that Norman ran the 100m in high school and has a fast 200 PR, but 9.86 is something I don't think Coleman could have done under those circumstances. The 100m requires adrenaline, more so than any other track event which is why the fastest 100m are always run in major competitions. It is difficult to time trail a fast 100m.

How is Ronnie Baker not known for his raw speed?

jabouko wrote:

YOOOO check his insta

Cratered mentally in Doha in his first major intl championship. Fast times are a great indicator of progress, but the mental game is the deciding factor when it comes to global medals.

He was injured

I was there. It happened.

Brian Williams wrote:

I was there. It happened.

nobody doubts that he ran the race...but what some people see as doubt is just the timing.

I doubt nothing, but timing errors happen. maybe we will see the finish photo with the timing system

orderly wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

Sorry, but I am not believing this, the first tip off is the other runners in that race who are not known for their raw speed, yet running incredible times. Btw, I am well aware that Norman ran the 100m in high school and has a fast 200 PR, but 9.86 is something I don't think Coleman could have done under those circumstances. The 100m requires adrenaline, more so than any other track event which is why the fastest 100m are always run in major competitions. It is difficult to time trail a fast 100m.

How is Ronnie Baker not known for his raw speed?

True. It's not like he's the fourth fastest all-time collegian at 60 meters or anything...

The video makes it look like it was more for 100 yards than 100 meters

Look at the markings on the sidelines of the football field. Judging by the markings for where the 'team area' is (these stop at the 25 yard lines of the football field) and where the start/finish line is of his run.

It's not the best angle for determining this, but you could certainly make a case for this.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I don’t believe it.

Nor do I believe Benjamin’s 10.03, without detailed info, and a repeat performance in a legit meet.

I don't either. Are we sure it wasn't 100 yards?

lb202 wrote:

Looks like 100m to me.

Yep.

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

The video makes it look like it was more for 100 yards than 100 meters

Look at the markings on the sidelines of the football field. Judging by the markings for where the 'team area' is (these stop at the 25 yard lines of the football field) and where the start/finish line is of his run.

It's not the best angle for determining this, but you could certainly make a case for this.

So you either think they are complete idiots who after years of high level track and field competition can't figure out what 100m is, or you think they intentionally lied to make their times look better.

Neither of those add up. I have no idea of the credibility of the timing used here, but certainly they didn't run 100y.

Even if they ran 95 meters Norman beat Baker by 0.37 seconds.

That’s not even a terrible time for Baker, 10.2, given the weird season. No reason he should be sharp. But that makes Norman’s run all the more eye popping. Why is he so sharp??

fjkmddddgj wrote:

Even if they ran 95 meters Norman beat Baker by 0.37 seconds.

That’s not even a terrible time for Baker, 10.2, given the weird season. No reason he should be sharp. But that makes Norman’s run all the more eye popping. Why is he so sharp??

No days off. He wants to be elite and probably has a lot to prove after not making the world final last year.

Please measure the distance on Google Maps and get back to us. Posters have done that for the Stanford track and another one on the East Coast.

Just recorded it via Dartfish.

From initial smoke to finish, he 100% broke 9.9.

Beep Beep wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

Sorry, but I am not believing this

What are you not believing? Get your watch and do as we've done for years... go off the gun and stop on the body dip. Re-watch and re-time over and over. He ran fast... period.

Obviously this is a situation where I would love to be wrong and I could be, but I have been around the block a few times and I am probably right on this one . A wind-aided 9.96 would have been noteworthy, but 9.86 from 400m runner in his first race of the year is a bridge too-far.

Open your mind to the possibility

These are elite talents

This is the future

Surprise! wrote:

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

The video makes it look like it was more for 100 yards than 100 meters

Look at the markings on the sidelines of the football field. Judging by the markings for where the 'team area' is (these stop at the 25 yard lines of the football field) and where the start/finish line is of his run.

It's not the best angle for determining this, but you could certainly make a case for this.

So you either think they are complete idiots who after years of high level track and field competition can't figure out what 100m is, or you think they intentionally lied to make their times look better.

Neither of those add up. I have no idea of the credibility of the timing used here, but certainly they didn't run 100y.

Remember the Noah Lyles race? 185 meters? They all thought he was at the 200m mark so, yeah, there's reason to be suspicious of these mickey mouse meets.

TrackCoach wrote:

Beep Beep wrote:

What are you not believing? Get your watch and do as we've done for years... go off the gun and stop on the body dip. Re-watch and re-time over and over. He ran fast... period.

Obviously this is a situation where I would love to be wrong and I could be, but I have been around the block a few times and I am probably right on this one . A wind-aided 9.96 would have been noteworthy, but 9.86 from 400m runner in his first race of the year is a bridge too-far.

Well it is wind aided. It was a +1.6 which last time I checked, while not being a gale force storm, is still wind aided and makes a difference irrespective of it being legal. Now we have that out of the way...

He ran 9.86 - look I am shocked too but someone else said this - do we really think these guys are so stupid to run either 100y or somehow f$#k with timing? I mean the other guys in this race are pretty well known too so there is zero chance this happened. I mean it's clearly 100m so if anything it's fishy it's timing but you think these guys had someone there who even knows how to mess with that intentionally?

The only thing I can think of is they may not have had the reaction time gun set up or working. It is possible then that Norman, who appears to have a Christian Coleman'esque start in this one just caught the start. That may be worth 1/10th of a second at the absolute max but more likely in the region of 5-6 hundredths if that was the case.

But again, that's pure conjecture. Either way he ran 100m in 9.86 seconds. Pretty straight forwards to me.