Michael Johnson is mentally challenged

i'll be honest & say i reckon mo was in much better than 26'46 shape in eugene, probably nearer 26'35 shape in perfect run, without losing about 8s in a coupla early laps

i tend more towards

~ 51.6 / 1'48.5 -> 3'32.5 , 4'48.8 , 7'24.8 , 12'45.7 , 26'37.7

or, if he has that 3'30 speed as conjectured & which i'm increasingly leaning to :

~ 50.8 / 1'47.2 -> 3'30.6 , 4'46.6 , 7'22.1 , 12'42.6 , 26'35.1

i woud not be surprised at all this year that if he got right race & went for it, for him to approach 7'22 & 12'42

You are hilarious.

Thank you for illustrating how you are both (a) poor in predicting performances at 10000 and (b) poor at admitting when you are wrong.

And you were so, so wrong. And since you ask, I actually predicted Farah's time very nearly, thanks.

Now, how about those predictions for trials? I'd love to see you actually ***predict*** a time, not just blow gas about what so-and-so *might have* run for a hypothetical race 10 years ago.

Last year, you failed miserably with Farah and numerous other attempts to *predict* anything. Let's see this year's attempts! I eagerly await further comic relief from letsrun's biggest contributor to the noise:signal ratio.

you obviously have reading difficulties

which part of "no one on any board was predicting a 26'46 for him, 27'00 at best" can you not comprehend ?

it wouda taken 2s to find out his 10k potential if he'd said prior to eugene

"in training i have recently done mid-1'48 & mid-3'32" when we couda deduced

1'48.5 / 3'32.5 -> 4'48.9 , 7'25.0 , 12'46.2 , 26'39

but whether he even does any time trials in training is unknown & even if he did, it's unlikely he'd mention it

without such info, it was unknown what he couda gone for 10k, just consensus opinion of 27-flat - which i went with as i, along with majority didn't believe he was in same league as top ethipoians/kenyans - he clearly is

as for trials : it's pointless trying to predict road race times - does it have to be even mentioned the huge variations in courses/wind/etc ?

400 a mean event? I totally agree.

Yes, Bolt has definitely been a 100/200 guy...but things change as a person ages, even from the early 20's to the late 20's...I think he will at some point involuntarily be better in the 400 than in the 100.

And yes, if he went to the 400, Blake would likely kill him in the 200, and he would be routed in the 100.

He is big, which is why he will have a narrow window. 400 distance will take it out of him.

LJ is so technical, I don't think he can be crowned just yet.

Lewis' runway speed was essentially equal to what Bolt could muster and still have any semblance of control...plus Lewis weighed a lot less, practiced a lot more, and survived the beating that LJ can deliver.

Sprintgeezer wrote:And yes, if he went to the 400, Blake would likely kill him in the 200, and he would be routed in the 100

that is not a given

mj was so awesome in '96 that in his 19.32 shape, he couda won the 100 gold & broken the wr

he split 10.12 on the curve , ahead of frankie who went ~ 10.16 ( 9.86 that year ) & ato ~ 10.18 ( 9.90 that year )

a 10.12 has to be ~ 0.2s handicapped by the curve, so in effect he ran a 9.92 straight & kept going for another 100m

no one can give everything all out for 200m, so that curve had to have been run at a "controlled" pace to keep something in hand for last 100m

mj was possibly in 9.75 - 9.80 shape that meet & couda won gold & the wr ( albeit bailey got a poor start & shouda gone nearer 9.80 with a good start )

the simple 200m = 2* 100m time for = strongly 100/200 guys gives 19.32 as 9.66, but he was a better 200 guy than 100, so a 9.75 - 9.80 is entirely possible for him that meet

Vent, you are awesome.

It's a good thing that Bailey (9.84) didn't run the 200 at that meet, or he would have beaten Johnson.

Compared to Fredericks (9.89) and 19.68 (2 x 9.84), Bailey was .05 better over the 100m according to times. He got a crappy start and was 0.15 down by 20m, however, so he was really in .20 better shape than Fredericks over 100m, where Fredericks got a great start.

.20 better than 9.84 is 9.64, and (9.64 x 2) = 19.28 for the 200m

"[mj]db was so awesome in '96 that in his [19.32]9.84 shape, he coulda won the [100]200 gold & broken the wr"

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VENTOLIN YOU ARE SO FULL OF ABSOLUTE CRAP.

STILL NO ANSWERS FROM YOU TO BASIC QUESTIONS.

YOU ARE AN UNMITIGATED RETARD.

drivel

bailey was nothing more than a "pure" 100 guy

he has no 200pb of any note

idiot

ff didn't run his best 100 that meet

his best 100 of year was 9.86 into a 0.4 in lausanne

the difference between bailey/ff was minimal if they'd run their best

nonsense

bailey couda gone 9.80 (+0.7) with perfect start = 9.845 basic

ff in lausanne went 9.86 ( -0.4) = 9.859 basic

if ff had run his lausanne race, he shouda been less than 0.02 behind bailey if he'd got a perfect start

in atlanta ff went 9.89 (+ 0.7 ) = 9.936 basic

ff ran nearly 0.08 slower in atlanta than his season's best 100m in lausanne

get a clue before posting rubbish

no

9.80 was possible for him that day, giving him 19.60 possibilty, but you idiot, bailey was a nobody as a 200m runner

the doubling relationship applies only to equally strong 100/200 guys

bailey may have just cracked 20 that meet but no better

moron

considering the drivel you've posted, it's no surprise you are too stoopid to have understoood the answers

you are a total imbecile

yu cray

Bolt is just another black guy running the 400. Another no name.

Was bolt a big star in 2007 or 2008 before his 100 in NYC? No.

No one knew who he was or cared. Then he set the 100m WR.

His stock jumped. Then he destroyed the 100 and 200 WR in the olympics. His stock jumped even more. He made his millions because he ran the 100 and 200 and destroyed records at the premeir events in track the 100 and 200. Then he did it again in 2009.

If he turns his attention to the 400 his career is virtually over in the 100 and 200. His 'super smart' coach should know that, or maybe he does know that. He will turn into Asafa Powell so fast it won't even be funny, and Blake will take his place in a snap. And there are other guys too right behind them.

Bolts best bet is to do what he does best, the 100 and 200, and 4x1 at the Olympics. The 4x4 probably won't hurt so he can do that too. The open 400 is just too much. And the LJ will get him hurt.

Once you start training for the 400, you can kiss your 100 top end and 200 top end good bye. Bolt would be adding one gold and losing 2 in the process, and would really hurt his earning potential for the next 4 years until Rio and by then his career is probably over.

This should be Bolt's peak olympics. Breaking the 100 and 200 records should be his focus, not adding the 400 to the program. He can add the 400 in Rio AFTER he's enjoyed a couple more years as fastest man.

OF COURSE it's drivel and idiot nonsense, you MORON. That was the whole point.

Vent, you're so retarded that you don't even know when somebody is making fun of you.

You have taken the fun out of even that, it's just not cool anymore.

"Bolt is just another black guy running the 400. Another no name."

No. Bolt is not just another no name, no matter what event he chooses. Bolt is, in fact, the ONLY name to those who don't follow track regularly.

"If he turns his attention to the 400 his career is virtually over in the 100 and 200." "Blake will take his place in a snap"

Agreed.

"He will turn into Asafa Powell so fast it won't even be funny"

No. Bolt can NEVER be Powell--Bolt has not only destroyed the 100 (including Powell's) and 200 WR's, he has won major championships including the Olympics.

"the LJ will get him hurt."

Agreed.

"Bolts best bet is to do what he does best, the 100 and 200"

IDK, that assumes what it sets out to prove. He could very well be relatively better at the 400 than the 200 and 100.

"Once you start training for the 400, you can kiss your 100 top end and 200 top end good bye."

Agreed.

"Bolt would be adding one gold and losing 2 in the process"

IDK, Johnson fared very well in the 200 against 2 amazing sprinters who definitely DID retain their 100 top end--Boldon and Fredericks. He could very well still win the 200, while training primarily for the 400.

"Breaking the 100 and 200 records should be his focus"

If it were anybody but Bolt, I would say that that is totally unrealistic...but who knows. OTOH, it might very well take WR form in at least the 200 just to win Olympic gold, so breaking the 200 record should be not only Bolt's goal, but Blake's and Dix's, as well.

Good post, Noice, with the exception of the black guy stuff.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

OF COURSE it's drivel and idiot nonsense, you MORON. That was the whole point.

Vent, you're so retarded that you don't even know when somebody is making fun of you

so, spouting drivel is your stock in trade, moron

an admission wasn't needed

Sprint Geezer disagrees with Michael Johnson so Johnson is mentally challenged? Right. After all, what could Johnson possibly know about sprinting?

How could he possibly know anywhere near as much as a racist buffoon like Sprint Geezer

You POS, back with the race-baiting, are you?

You are fooling nobody.

What exactly do you have against racial harmony anyway?

You f'ing POS.

You bu11shlt will never, NEVER go unmet as long as I am aware of it.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

You POS, back with the race-baiting, are you?

You are fooling nobody.

What exactly do you have against racial harmony anyway?

You f'ing POS.

You bu11shlt will never, NEVER go unmet as long as I am aware of it.

As if being a blatant racist isn't enuff, you have to be a whiny, thin-skinned one as well?

Mo Greene and MJ don't agree on Bolt. Neither is mentally challenged, nor is SprintGeezer. They just see the same info differently.

More fuel for the fire:

Yohan Blake thinks he can break Bolt's WR in the 200.

If he does so, will that be enough to win?

Regarding Blake and Bolt, the best comment I have yet heard comes from Kim Collins:

"two male crabs cannot live in the same hole"

Another example of why we should all like Collins.

Of course Blake can beat 19.19--he already would have, if he hadn't missed the start in his 19.26

The thing is, although I don't believe that 9.58 will be broken, I believe that Bolt can also break 19.19, based on his apparently new-and-improved speed endurance form he displayed in the 37.04 anchor leg.

So the question is still the basic one: who will be faster over 200m?

Those 2 guys are so far ahead of everybody else that it has to be considered a 2-man race, unless Dix or Gay can pull off a miracle.

Only Bolt can answer that one. It depends on how hard he is willing to work to keep that other crab out of his hole.

I'm not so sure that either record is going to be broken in London, because of the likely weather. Lausanne, Zurich, Berlin, Rieti...

ventolin^3 wrote:

which part of "no one on any board was predicting a 26'46 for him, 27'00 at best" can you not comprehend ?

Idiot. Moron. Drivel. What part of "I DID" do you not comprehend? OK, fine, 26:50-:54 was what I said. Many others were calling for him to drop 4'48.9 , 7'25.0 , 12'46.2 , 26'39

[/quote]

HILARIOUS. You really are a clown, you know that, right? Wentolin: "Um, I was off by nearly 30 seconds, but if Farah had run flat-out 800 and 1500 time trials as part of his 10,000 preparation (???) and provided the results, and if those results were what I retrospectively think they should have been, my little calculator could have guessed correctly!"

You clearly no NOTHING about training or racing. Your previous babbling about days of "carb loading" for a 1500 proves that. As I have said, your little calculator is interesting for 800-3000, marginal for 5000 and useless for anything outside of that range. Or do you have any actual *predictions* to offer?

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

...do you have any actual *predictions* to offer?

Oh, that's right. The only predictions you have ever offered (e.g. being 30 seconds off Farah's 10,000) have been catastrophically wrong. Better luck this season!