Lemaitre 9.92

Finally I have observed the race vid.

What an appalling start and initial pickup by Lemaitre. What the f*** is he doing when the gun fires? It's worse than ever before and it wasn't good then. All the same, he absolutely smokes the guy beside him - who was 1.5 m in front at 20m - once he gets rolling.

This was not his best race, and yes, he's going to run faster in the WC. His consistency, his strength and top-end, as well as his calm demeanor when he gets out slow and everyone is ahead of him....all this augurs well for strong performance in multi-round competitions and SB/PR delivery in the final. The analogy to Lewis is good. Unlike for example Powell who can be dismissed out of hand in this, and every other big final.

And can't you guys see that Bolt is NOT going to win this race this time? I anticipate a breakdown caused by his nagging injury and clearly incomplete recovery. Powell can't win, he never wins anything.

This means, Dix, Mullings, Lemaitre are in the frame.

9.85-9.88 to win the World Champs gold. Mzungu gold.

I'll be more confident once I see the prelims and semis but right now, Lemaitre is a real medal contender.

Good analysis. I think you have a better idea who will make the final than me!

A lot of runners don't run to their potential in big finals

Lemaitre looks like he is the sort of runner who will go through rounds well but you can't tell until the pressure is on. Sprinters usually only run to their best when leading a race as well so it's who can avoid tightening up when being headed.

I always remember our Roger Black going into the Olymics about 7th or 8th rankedbut coming away with Silver as he would always run to his full potential

Pity Gay is injured as Bolt was beatable this year

Rog gave a good account of himself in his major contests. PRs or SBs in the 86 EC, 91 WC, 92OG, 95WC and 96OG tournaments.

But the real master of this art was the Jedi LinFFFoooord C and the Yoda Ron Roddan. Ronnie's prep always ensured LC delivered superlative performance in the big finals. SBs in the FINAL of the 88OG, 89WCup, 90CG(windy), 91WC, 92 OG, 93WC, 94CG, 95WCup and in the semis of the 96OG, before his hothead DQ. Compared to so many talented choker sprinters, this is a truly exceptional record extending over almost a decade of global tournaments.

The Carl Lewis/Tellez combo was as good, and maybe Borzov/Petrovski, but there haven't been many other sprinters who could deliver this consistently when the pressure is so high.

Also I think that delivering in the 100 in this way is more challenging than doing so in the 400..in the 400, supreme physical condition can offset poor strategy/slow start. MJ wasn't a particularly good starter but it didn't ever cost him a major race. Not so in the 100, where margins are razor thin and even the world #1 must execute every phase with perfection to win.

Aksinin on Borzov: "When you line up next to him, you just know that you have no chance. Magnetism oozes from him, you feel in your bones that he will win."

That was Bolt in 08-09. But not now. Lemaitre and the others know he can be beaten.

For those who know, are the tracks (or tracks + shoes) REALLY faster than those Carl Lewis ran on, and if so by how much?

If he had a decent start he could have been well into the 9.8s.

Do you have proof that Mullings' 9.80 ((+1.3m/s), 9.86/9.87 corrected) in Eugene was "bogus"? People said the same about Bolt's 9.76 at the 08 Jamaican Invitational and even Carter's 9.78 in Rieti last year. I doubt these IAAF results are inaccurate at this level of athletics.

Do you have proof that Mullings' 9.80 ((+1.3m/s), 9.86/9.87 corrected) in Eugene was "bogus"? People said the same about Bolt's 9.76 at the 08 Jamaican Invitational and even Carter's 9.78 in Rieti last year. I doubt these IAAF results are inaccurate at this level of athletics.

Do you have proof that Mullings' 9.80 ((+1.3m/s), 9.86/9.87 corrected) in Eugene was "bogus"? People said the same about Bolt's 9.76 at the 08 Jamaican Invitational and even Carter's 9.78 in Rieti last year. I doubt these IAAF results are inaccurate at this level of athletics.

lol sorry about the triple post, my bad

you should have been disqualified from posting after the first false one

[quote]Rabid Wiener wrote:

[quote]sorry charlie wrote:

"Typical letsrun a-hole. He ran right with Bolt when they raced."

Is that the race run about a week ago where Bolt won and leMaitre was, I think, 5th?

"I think Rodgers' 9.85 from Eugene has to be thrown out, for obvious reasons".

The obvious reasons being what? That the times were fast?

Squid and Coach--

You guys are both right on about some guys not being able to perform to their highest level when it counts.

That is what puts Bolt into the picture--historically, he has delivered in the big meets, and at least part of that is psychological.

But I think that Bolt has cracked psychologically this year. I just KNEW he would come out with some injury scenario before World's, and he has just recently complained about his back again.

Also, I think guys who don't rely so much on their first 50m tend to do better when running rounds, even if they can lead after 50m. Ham injuries are a major factor, and in my experience tend to happen in the mid-to-second half of a race. The better a sprinter is at relaxing at top speed, the faster they will go, and the better they will survive the rounds. It is that massive output of energy in the early part of the race that can sap a runner, both in that particular race and throughout the rounds, and the only people who can conserve energy at the start and still win are those who are best at top speed.

Yes, Powell seems to be the anti-Christie, but I can't help but think that this will be his year, especially since it's not the Olympics, where he will likely flame again. Nobody outside the track world really cares about the World's.

any time run with a +2.0 kind of has an asteriks by it in my mind... if it was 9.82, then I would be impressed

Mullings best times this year, corrected, are:

9.80 (+1.3) = 9.86

9.89 (+2.0) = 9.98

9.90 (+2.0) = 9.99

9.93 (+1.4) = 10.00

9.96 (+0.6) = 9.99

9.97 (-0.2) = 9.95

9.98 (+0.6) = 10.01

The average, excluding his best time, is 9.99--fantastic to be sure, but a long way from 9.86 The difference is a huge 0.13s

Although both his 9.99 average and his 9.86 would fit precisely my fantasy profile of a top 100m guy, for statistical purposes, I think the top time should be thrown out of any predictive effort, even if it was a legitimate time. The bottom time is often thrown out as well, but in Mullings's case it wouldn't make any difference--and plus, it isn't his actual bottom time of the year--the worst are already chopped off this list.

It certainly COULD have been one of the few-and-far-between standout performances of Mullings' career, performances which happen only rarely--BUT the fact that not only 1 athlete, but 2 athletes produced a standout performance in the same meet makes it suspect:

Rodgers' best performances this year:

9.85 (+1.3) = 9.91

9.95 (+1.3) = 10.01

9.96 (+1.1) = 10.01

9.96 (+1.0) = 10.01

9.99 (+1.3) = 10.05

10.01 (+0.3) = 10.02

10.03 (+0.3) = 10.04

10.03 (+1.4) = 10.10

10.07 (-0.7) = 10.02

10.09 (+0.6) = 10.12

Again excluding his time from Eugene, his average is 10.04, --a far cry from 9.91 The huge difference is 0.13s--EXACTLY THE SAME DIFFERENCE AS FOR MULLINGS.

The Eugene times are standouts in the entire careers of both these guys. Only slightly less convincing is the performance of Patton, a standout this year:

9.94 (+1.3) = 10.01

10.07 (+0.6) = 10.10

10.08 (+1.9) = 10.17

10.09 (+1.3) = 10.15

Remember, these are Patton's BEST 4 times this year. His average excluding Eugene is 10.14, which is well above 10.01

MOST INTERESTINGLY HIS ADVANTAGE IN EUGENE WAS 0.13 SECONDS, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ADVANTAGE EXPERIENCE BY BOTH MULLINGS AND RODGERS.

I know there are counter-examples that also ran in Eugene, and that the early race was a final, whereas some of the other times used are from the US nationals, where rounds were run

BUT if you exclude times from nationals, both Rodgers' Patton's Eugene advantages actually INCREASE, as some of their best times of the season were run at that nationals meet. The exact coincidence in the 0.13 Eugene advantage disappears, but the ACTUAL advantage increases even further.

As for the counter-examples, such as Gatlin, that could be dismissed as being due to improvement throughout the season, as the Eugene meet was in April, and it is natural to expect better times later in the year. The same logic is difficult to use in reverse in the case of Mullings and Rodgers (peaked too early), because their Eugene performances were LIFETIME standouts, not just standouts this season.

I could go on, but I run out of time...

The 0.13s Eugene Advantage is why those times should be thrown out as bogus.

Similarly, I think that Bledman's time from Clermont should be thrown out.

Anybody who looks closely at what is going on knows the merit behind this thinking, even Bolt's camp.

I'm not alleging anything nefarious such as competition between Nike and Adidas, or intentional malfeasance, although that may certainly exist. At the very least, I'm alleging unintentional incompetence.

What I DO know, as do others, is that those times should be excluded in any analysis of the overall season.

BAM!

Nice post wheezer, you must have a lot of time on your hands. Always good to see TheNewUncleB punk'd

Powell is the Antichristie, nice one

bump

Phastman--

Have you no critique of this proof?

Do you accept it?

When you asked if I had proof, maybe I should have just answered "yes" instead of showing the work.