Donovan Bailey was pretty much the baddest ass ever in 1996.

wtfunny wrote:That said, I'm sure MJ runs a curve better than either Frankie or Ato; he certainly ran THAT curve better than they did. So I doubt it's fair to simply leap from that race to exactly what his split was worth. But it was clearly smoking.

no

you have no basis for that

the hardest/toughest curve to run in those days was oslo with an ~ 105/95 track compared to usual 116/84

frankie beat him solidly in 19.82 v 19.85 in run-up to games & after mj had run 19.66wr !

You'll all notice "Ventolin" is quoting formulas like "cost of curve coefficients" and ".22" additions etc. to establish himself as an expert.

Unfortunately he only seems to have scanned over those papers and has no real understanding of the science behind them. Almost exclusively these calculations apply to your standard 100m/200m runner. NOT a man who was the greatest 400m phenomenon ever.

Despite his poor wording "Jack frost" or whatever his handle is was right on the nail and "Ventolin" is comparing apples to oranges.

I also know "Ventolin" & he is considered a wee bit of a wack job in track circles around him...

Agree, he comes of as a bit of a looney with his stats.

Those are actual track and field calculators but his applications are way off and especially comparing athletes who specialize in different events.

That being said MJ would have been a hell of a lot faster than 10.09 in the hundy. Not saying he is olympic champion but would have been up there. But ventolin^3 logic is disgraceful.

Why does he keep saying "utter drivel". Does he fancy himself a british scientist? If I had to guess he is some grade 10 kid who just discovered math. How do you know him "Sprintboss"?

The most hilarious is where Vent takes fking wind readings as gospel as-if they transfer over anywhere close to accurate conversions.

Vent, FloJo ran 10.49 BASIC. That stat line alone should be the end of the discussion on the veracity of wind readings and conversions.

+1I love how ventolin fancies himself a math/physics guy but is so narrow sighted in his application of Mureika's mathematical models of track. If you actually read this guys research it is not only very theoretical but has to be adjusted immensely for even slightly different events / athletes. Maybe you should actually read his papers rather than blindly applying his coefficients?

Sprintboss wrote:

You'll all notice "Ventolin" is quoting formulas like "cost of curve coefficients" and ".22" additions etc. to establish himself as an expert.

Unfortunately he only seems to have scanned over those papers and has no real understanding of the science behind them. Almost exclusively these calculations apply to your standard 100m/200m runner. NOT a man who was the greatest 400m phenomenon ever.

Despite his poor wording "Jack frost" or whatever his handle is was right on the nail and "Ventolin" is comparing apples to oranges.

I also know "Ventolin" & he is considered a wee bit of a wack job in track circles around him...

Vent is the equivalent of some kid who has just learned about some basic principles of gravity (such as mass doesn't affect acceleration in a vacuum) and then assume it applies to all situations. I could see him standing on the empire state building with a bowling ball and feather and being astonished when the bowling ball hits the ground first.

Hey Vent let me ask you this little buddy.

If there are 2 200m specialists. 1 has the most incredible engine (V02 max, lactic tolerance etc) in the world and the other has ridiculous speed (i.e. has run 6.35 in a 60m) and both of them run a 200m in the exact same time can you take away .22 from their first 100s and that will be their 100m potential...?

Hahah you are ridiculous buddy, you just don't see it!

MJ had ridic speed endurance but not even close to the power / speed at the start.

It you ever saw him race a 100m you would know a 9.8 wasn't in the cards.

Plus I tend to agree with the above posters. The formula's ventolin^3 is quoting work for specific type of even specialist of which MJ was not.

He could have taken a crack at 10 but to say 9.75 is kind of dumb. Sorry OP

Thanks everyone,

Looks like it's time to give up ventolin. Read the above posts and maybe go take a logic course.

And don't throw any bowling balls off rooftops anytime soon!

Here is essentially what vent is trying to do:

Say in terms of speed and acceleration for the layperson, MJ was a boeing 747, DB was a lambo

Vent takes a quick glance at a guys theoretically research on top drag race speed potentials of bmw's based on their curve performance and trying to extrapolate this data and make a prediction on whether the boeing could beat the lambo in a certain distance.

It doesn't make sense and it's totally silly.

mightymouse69 wrote:

MJ had ridic speed endurance but not even close to the power / speed at the start.

It you ever saw him race a 100m you would know a 9.8 wasn't in the cards.

Plus I tend to agree with the above posters. The formula's ventolin^3 is quoting work for specific type of even specialist of which MJ was not.

He could have taken a crack at 10 but to say 9.75 is kind of dumb. Sorry OP

Be fair (yes, even when we're talking about Vent, try to be fair).

If you ever saw MJ run a 200m race before 96, there's no way in the world you, or anyone else, wouldn't imagine 19.32 was in the cards either.

We know we can dismiss his 100m pb .... his 100m split in the 200m was 4/100th sec off that.

The bottom line is he split 10.12 running the curve for the first half of a 200m. Regardless who's mathematical formula we want to take, that's a helluva fast straight, flat 100m potential.

In the 200m, MJ blew by the silver and bronze medallists of the world's fastest ever 100m final (up to that time) by 80m. The idea that he wouldn't have been a factor in, or even made, that final is absolutely absurd.

Dude it isn't absurd at all!

Frankie and Ato had WAYYYYYYYYYYYY less lactic tolerance and speed endurance than MJ therefore had to conserve on the curve a ton more. That is why he "blew by them" not because he is a faster 100m runner.

jesus you and ventolin just don't get it eh?

I know Ato said he was going all out but go watch this guys training videos and compare this race to his other 200m races. His whole training philosophy is to run conservatively on the curve!

Of course MJ could have beaten 10.09 in a flat 100m had he focused on it but he wouldn't have gone much faster. MAYBE 9.95-10.0 range.

He simply does not have the 60m speed. Put that in your calculations vent!

I am stunned at how people think that running a faster first 100 of a 200 somehow means you have a faster 100 on the straight in a 100m race. If you run much slower over 200m, you are going to have to be going at a slower speed unless you want to be absolutely toasted at 150m and zombie walk to the finish line.

Do you think Ben Johnson, a real 9.7mid guy that never ran anything sub 20 in the 200, would have run 10.1 on the curve in a 200m race?

Ato's own commentary both before AND after the race disagrees with you.

DB's 60m speed wasn't so hot either, and he broke the 100m WR. The WR of Carl Lewis, another guy who rarely ran a hot 60m.

What was MJ's 200m PB when he ran 10.09? You think he suddenly took half a second off his 200m time with only a 0.1 - 0.15 drop in his 100m time? I don't.

Nobody runs 19.32 off a 10flat 100m potential.

ventolin^3 wrote:

no

it is quite clear historically that frankie had peaked about 3/52 too soon

if he was worth 9.8-low flat-out into a wind in lausanne & coud only run 9.89 with a +0.7 in atlanta, it is clear he had shot his 100m bolt in atlanta 100m

instead of "could only run 9.89", you meant "did only run 9.89" .... You're assuming that every race anyone runs is their perfect race at the time .. which is bizarre, because you're also the person who continually talks about what XYZ might do in a "perfect race".

the maths/physics says 10.16 for frankie was suicidal

And real life says he ran the fastest 200m of his life; and came 2nd in the fastest 200m race ever (at that time). That's not suicide.

the formula gives that as 19.37 pace

So, maybe the "formula" ......

trlololololol wrote:

I am stunned at how people think that running a faster first 100 of a 200 somehow means you have a faster 100 on the straight in a 100m race. If you run much slower over 200m, you are going to have to be going at a slower speed unless you want to be absolutely toasted at 150m and zombie walk to the finish line.

Do you think Ben Johnson, a real 9.7mid guy that never ran anything sub 20 in the 200, would have run 10.1 on the curve in a 200m race?

Watch that race again and tell me MJ wouldn't have been competitive over 100m. Would he have won? I don't know. But the idea that he wouldn't flatly have made the final is downright silly.

Wow you are ignorant.DB's 60 speed wasn't so hot eh? Look who co-holds the 50m WR with maurice greene. Just because he conserved energy in the first half of a 100m race doesn't mean he didn't have great 60m speed. this is a concept you and vent totally don't get.Also just because Ato says he was going full out and gives praise to MJ doesn't mean he does. Ato is great at interviews."nobody runs 19.32 off of a 10 flat 100m potential" ...except maybe the greatest 400m man of all time!

wtfunny wrote:

Ato's own commentary both before AND after the race disagrees with you.

DB's 60m speed wasn't so hot either, and he broke the 100m WR. The WR of Carl Lewis, another guy who rarely ran a hot 60m.

What was MJ's 200m PB when he ran 10.09? You think he suddenly took half a second off his 200m time with only a 0.1 - 0.15 drop in his 100m time? I don't.

Nobody runs 19.32 off a 10flat 100m potential.

wtfunny wrote:

Ato's own commentary both before AND after the race disagrees with you.

DB's 60m speed wasn't so hot either, and he broke the 100m WR. The WR of Carl Lewis, another guy who rarely ran a hot 60m.

What was MJ's 200m PB when he ran 10.09? You think he suddenly took half a second off his 200m time with only a 0.1 - 0.15 drop in his 100m time? I don't.

Nobody runs 19.32 off a 10flat 100m potential.

Who cares what he says? Athletes are going off feeling and emotion. Hell, in this video, he says you need to go 80-85% out of the blocks!

He isn't somebody I would take advice from.

Carl ran 6.46 60m in Tokyo, so I don't really get your point here. Do you think MJ could have gone 6.4x?? Or even 6.5low? I don't think so, no chance in hell.

wtfunny wrote:

trlololololol wrote:

I am stunned at how people think that running a faster first 100 of a 200 somehow means you have a faster 100 on the straight in a 100m race. If you run much slower over 200m, you are going to have to be going at a slower speed unless you want to be absolutely toasted at 150m and zombie walk to the finish line.

Do you think Ben Johnson, a real 9.7mid guy that never ran anything sub 20 in the 200, would have run 10.1 on the curve in a 200m race?

Watch that race again and tell me MJ wouldn't have been competitive over 100m. Would he have won? I don't know. But the idea that he wouldn't flatly have made the final is downright silly.

I'm struggling to see how competitive in a race where one guy went 9.8mid means that he can run 9.75. I think MJ would have gone 9.9mid/high at his best in the 100m flat. That would be competitive, sure, but it isn't anything to freak out about. There is nothing to indicate that he had the top speed, let alone the acceleration, to be competitive over that distance. His primary asset was his incredible speed endurance, which is unfortunately not as important for a race where the best are accelerating for 60+% of the race.

I didn't say he'd go 9.75 ... I think trying to extrapolate any kind of time to within less than 1/10th sec is a bit ridiculous, myself .. but I think what we saw in the 200m showed he'd have been competitive with the best of the guys in the 100m. Would he have won? Nobody knows that. If they ran that race again, who'd have won? The 100m, probably more than any other race, comes down to so many tiny variables race to race, that it's a little bit silly to say he'd have come 5th, but not 4th, for example.

The fact that he ran 19.32 tells you he had the top speed, we know he had the speed endurance, and the fact that he ran 10.12 on the curve suggests to me he'd have been competitive in that 100m final. The fact that he smoked the 2nd and 3rd place winners, at least one of whom confirmed more than once that he ran the first 100m flat-out, says MJ would've been right in the pack. IMO.

So you wouldn't take advice from him? Who would you take advice from, and what is their advice on the 200m? 90%? 100%? 70%?

I don't know what MJ would've gone for 60m; but I watched him destroy the 2nd and 3rd fastest 100m sprinters in the world at the time over the first 80m of the 200m. Even if they weren't running as all out as he was, there was never a point in that race where they showed higher top end speed than he had.

I'm not saying he'd have beaten them over a straight 100m; such a comment is silly; Frankie beat MJ before Atlanta, and then again after Atlanta. Frankie beat Donovan before Atlanta, as well. But I'd give him every bit of a shot at a medal in that race as anyone else. What's most absurd is the comment (earlier in the thread) that he wouldn't have even made the final.

rockrolled wrote

50m? Who runs a 50m? Look at his 60m PB .. he's not even close to Carl lewis, a notoriously slow starter. It takes a sprinter 60m to hit top speed; immediately after which DB ran by the field .. he didn't conserve anything.

I'll take the word of the guys in the race as, at the least, something to seriously consider. I wish I the press interviews with those guys after the race were still around; there wasn't a guy in that race who said they thought they could've beaten MJ over 100m.

Whether or not they would've is anyone's guess. But, imo, it certainly would've been a competitive race. He lowered his own 200m record by .3 sec .. and nearly .5 sec from previous years. You guys think his 100m wouldn't have reasonably lowered by at least .2? That's absolutely ridiculous.