Congrats to Boling: destroys 200 field - 20.19!!

Whatley wrote:

Add Archie Hahn to my list, he was twice the national 100 champ, but,.......two time Olympic 200m gold. TONS of examples of what I'm telling you, Boling will be the latest,

Dude....what are you doing? Archie Hahn?!?!?!

A quick google says he won the Olympic gold in the 60, 100, and 200 at the 1904 Olympics. Wtf?

1. You claim white sprinters aren't explosive enough to run fast 40 yard dashes. Then cite a white guy who won gold in the 60 meter dash.

----1a. You're so desperate to make your ridiculous case that your using twisted info from an era when there was a medal opportunity in the 60 METER DASH.

2. You said he was a two time Olympic 200m gold medalist. He was in fact a two time 100 meter gold medalist....but ONLY if you count the 1906 games as part of Olympic cannon. As far as I know, most people do not. So not only did you get your info wrong, but you also ended up highlighting a proof AGAINST your argument. He was more a 100 guy based on medals "success". You lose, by your own hand.

3. You're using info back when black athletes didn't even remotely have equal access, which actually HURTS YOUR OWN ARGUMENT as it inflates white sprinting success in the early games....but your citing it anyway. Hell, other WHITE people didnt even have access, there was probably some Irish dude in Boston who could have been a 100m BEAST in 1904 but had zero access; and that's to say nothing of Jamicans or share croppers or god knows who else.out there. Flawed data. Sad effort on tour part....is this what you call.knowing your histiry?!?!?! For gods sake, the early Olympics were really more like "rich white people games". Jesus. What are you doing?

4. Archie Hahn ran a 21.6 HAND 200 meter dash. I ran a 21.68 FAT as a 17 year old high school kid coached by people who thought I was too white to be a sprinter. I don't care about Archie friggin Hahns St. Louis sprint triple that isnt even possible anymore by virtue of the elimination if events. Its worlds away and has no value outside of historical fact and era specific contexts.

5. You're no good at this. Don't make me actually dig in and obliterate you. I might not even care enough to fix your sickness to the world any more. You want to spread this BS, let the world burn then, I dont cate. If I did care, I'd coach sprints, but why bother, I don't want to teCh them to beat me, I just want to run fast myself still.

But let the record state that this is a small window I to your ineptitude.

Dude, i had to find out if you were reading me names at all, you kept ignoring them. Only way to find out was some BS at Archie Hahn, knowing you'd do what ya did if ya did. He was perfect because of that 60, an Olympic outdoor 60, ha!!!!!

See this.....

http://trackfield.brinkster.net/Profile.asp?ID=4684&Gender=M&Page=Results.asp&EventCode=MA1

.....that is where I get alot of my info, when I tell you MOST the time white 100/200 cats are more successful at 200m. just like that dude above.

Cool this silly tough guy crap, you look funny, ok?

So. You actually KNOW you're a troll, then. Right? Like, it's a full on schtick you KNOWINGLY do, for fun. Always have...or at least that's what you fall back to when convenient.

At the very least, I'd say that between the two of us, I'm the one making the most effort to stay somewhere in the vicinity of a common truth and reality. You just wanna have fun and poke, so you go where you please with it.

Please tell me you don't coach.

Dude, since 2000 only one white sprinter has been world ranked in a 100m, in the 200m we have had five white sprinters world ranked at 200m. That is trolling or educating?

I bet you had never thought about this before had you? Dude, little dumb ass kids troll, ok? Here I am a legit track geek simply telling you how it is and you refuse to listen.

I showed you a site that has everything you could wanna know about sprinting, it is all there. Why just ignore it? I can actually overwelm you with fact after fact after fact all proving what I am telling you, I don't troll what I do is educate.

Here is one of the first great white sprinters, so what was his better event?

http://trackfield.brinkster.net/Profile.asp?ID=7114&Gender=M&Page=Results.asp&EventCode=MA2

Go to 2:25, pretty much a SLAMDUNK!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME2ttN22ccY&ab_channel=FloTrack

Whatley wrote:

Add Archie Hahn to my list, he was twice the national 100 champ, but,.......two time Olympic 200m gold. (1) TONS of examples of what I'm telling you, (2) Boling will be the latest,

This is what I am trying to explain. Statement (1) does not allow you to make statement (2). It's apples and oranges. Population to individual. You may be right, but you may be wrong.

Meh. wrote:

Dude. NOBODY likes my writing. EVEYONE trolls me. essentially like Whatley does, either blatantly or in hinted or coded language.

So, while I would dream of a little encouragement...I obviously suspect something nefarious. To say the least.

Nah. I just like the vocab and logical structure. No troll. I thought your writing was strong and I thought I would say so in case you didn't already know. I know the power of encouragement. I try to write myself and it's not easy.

Whatley wrote:

Dude, are you paying any attention at all? This has been going on since the late 1800's, you really didn't look at one name I listed did ya? That won't change over a couple sprinters, ok?

Pay attention

The last USA white Olympic sprinters, 200m, one in 68 one in 76.

White sprinters have won Olympic titles, World title, but....at 200m

More white sprinters have been world ranked at 200m than 100m

What about that is confusing you?

What did we just see at the NCAA meet, black sprinter wins the 60, who won the 200m?

Come on man you are starting to look cartoonish, ok?

What are you even talking about? What I posted is exactly what has transpired. Since you don't seem to know, please take a look at the Olympic 100m finals for 1972, 1976, & 1980..

He won by 3 inches...ask your girl if she thinks 3 inches is "destroying it".

There's nothing about white people that makes them better 200m sprinters than 100m sprinters. They have had more success at 200m, as you argue, but not because there's something in them by nature, as if they all had just the exact same sprint-relevant genes. They get pushed up the distances from the get go and in this sprint powers, black kids go much more into junior track clubs and meets from an early age, which is why if a white sprinter pops up, they're much more likely to be put in the longer sprint distances, 200-400m (look at how many white guys have run 44s), but especially likely to be put in 800 and up. That just matches social expectations and let's face it, a lot of very experienced black sprinters are coming into high school after multiple years doing AAU track, so they are going to dominate, whereas white participation in AAU is mostly in the distances and is not very high anyway.

areusure? wrote:

He won by 3 inches...ask your girl if she thinks 3 inches is "destroying it".

I think he actually won by 9 inches based on the time.

Meyer says hello wrote:

areusure? wrote:

He won by 3 inches...ask your girl if she thinks 3 inches is "destroying it".

I think he actually won by 9 inches based on the time.

9 inches is not destroying it either - modesty aside.

YEEESSSS. You're stealing my thunder on logical responses, xcxvxvxvzvchd, DAMN YOU!

Richard Kilty won a 60 title in 2014. Does it matter to Whatley? Not matter? I cant even ask him about it specifically cause he just whines about me not clicking his links and acknowledging his rambling lists.

What does "first great white sprinter" even mean, Whatley?!?!?! . Are we talking 1899? Where do you even come up with baselines for some of your assertions? Arbitrary landmarks you pick ad hoc?

Look, there IS a story as to why there aren't many 100m guys over 100 meters. And it can't just be that "they just can't cut it" since we've seen guys who can do 60s, and we've seen guys who can do 200s. Theres no realistic reason why the 100 is off limits, just like you say, xvxccxvxvx (sorry that I butcher your username)

I'm not even comfortable with where some questioning of why things are as they have been since about the 60s/70s would go pertaining to white sprinters. Especially these days in the crappy woke chaos world that we now live in and how uncomfortable and ironic some of the story might look. But let it be stated that my high school coaches wanted me to run the mile and 800 in high school, and I ended up running 10.27 in college. And they were WHITE coaches.

I don't even feel like Ramil Guliyev is all that good, but he's clearly had some success over 200 meters. What, is he supposed to represent the genic limit of white men? I mean come on, that's again like saying Lyles represents the limits of of people who are black over 100 meters. That's a stacked deck against obvious SKILL SET persuasions.

Part of the story is, as you discussed xcxcxvx, the white guys that DO make it on the 200 lists still are not prototypical 100/200 guys. They are guys who can't find a home particularly comfortably in the 100 or 400, but find a niche in the 200, which is helped along a bit because there's wiggle room for that niche space in the 200 event. Why?

Well, some of the 100 competition is too busy being 100 guys or lack the full skill set to extend all the way out to 200, especially in the crucible of elite/international competion (like a Quinn as a pro, who had success over 200 as a collegiate, or what Micah Williams appears to do/present as; I'm not sure if he even ATTEMPTED a 200 indoors probably to just let him focus on his 60 meter first).

Then some of the 400 guys can't or won't swing for the 2/4 double, and who can blame them: meet schedules often limit their access. Boom, a Greek slips in here (referring the 2000 Oly 200m champ, who also had an interesting opportunity when Greene and Johnson got injured at their trials and had to drop their 200 pursuits; with them in the mix I have to assume he ends up with a bronze only -though still on the medal stand-). A Turk there (Guliyev, who again got access to a gold opportunity when Lyles blew a hammy that one year). But that's not a sole indictment for the idea that "white people" can only properly succeed over 200 rather than over 100. It's likely more a case of talent economics and happenstance. Plus some biases mixing in somewhere along the line....like the one you represent, Whatley.

What's the 100m equivalent of a 19.75/19.80? Especially these days, where 19.7x and 19.8x is a lot more common than it was post Michael Johnson? 9.90ish is an equivalent, maybe? Well, we've had a white guy go 9.92, which in your book COUNTS SOLEY as a 9.92, Whatley. That matches up fairly well with 19.8/19.75 as long as you (as a sprinter) don't fall apart and know how to RUN a 200. 9.85 hasn't been touched by a white chap, that's true....but I'd bet money on Boling getting there somewhere along the way if he aimed to be a 100 guy...which I'm not sure he's committed to yet.

My argument is: get some more substantive guys who are white and more in the true 100/200 mold. Less Michael Johnson/Noah Lyles types (guys who are either 2/4 guys or lean heavier on the longer 200 zone than 100 skill set), less Coleman/Cason types (like Kilty or the Combest mythos), and more Tyson Gay/Greene/Gatlin types. Show me white guys who fit THAT mold, and then show me where their "success" presents between the 100 or 200.

Continue with the Menneas and Guliyevs examples ONLY, then, yeah it APPEARS that white guys "succeed" more over 200. But that's because your stacking the deck based on individual skill sets of those in question, but hiding it behind "race" claims.

Where are the 100/200 mold white guys? I dunno, exactly. Hard to truly except that the ONLY explanation is that they "don't exist", and from personal experience I can tell you theres waaaaaay more to the story than just that angle.

Pietro Mennea lives in Italy, do you really think he was ever told about black sprinters? How about LeMaitre in France, Guliyev in Turkey, Kenteris in Greece, Burruti another Itailan, What did black sprinters have to do with them?

We can go back in history before black sprinters started dominating and thre it is, white 100/200m sprinters more successful at 200m.

Hal Davis (white) was the most dominate sprinter in he world around 40-44, as we know no Olympics to star in, he was more successful at 200m, Then here came Mel Patton histories first 9.3, but,,,1948 200 Olympic gold. In the 50's a high school kid here in California named Forrest Beatty ran a near 200 world record, he was a multi talented guy, ended up more 400m at Cal.

Larry Questad and Mark Lutz ran the 100/200, both made our Olympic team, in the 200m. Kevin Little was a 10.13 guy, but had far more success as a 200m man.

Black sprinters have nothing at all to do with this,. as we are seeing with Boling,

So what was your take on Boling talking about the 2oom as his best/favorite event?

Meh

Why is it you keep ignoring facts? Do you not understand that word.....successful?

Please pay attention, getting tired of telling you this only to watch you ignore it.

1. More white sprinters have been world ranked at 200m than 100m.

Ok, do you get that? Don't continue to ignore it, ok?

2.When it comes to quality times more white sprinters have ran sub 20.00 than they have sub10.00, ok?

What does that tell you? Stop ignoring it? And stop talking about the 60, that means nothing.

3, When it comes to Olympic/World medals white sprinters have won more in the 200m.

So if we add all those FACTS up what does it tell us, well?

Ever hear of Ben Vaughn out of Georgia Tech, how about Dennis Shultz at Oklahoma State, familiar with Arizona States Jerry Bright, how about Fresno States Mike Agostini or Thane Baker from Kansas State, what it is is that you simply don't know enought about this, and it shows.

[quote]Whatley wrote:

Pietro Mennea lives in Italy, do you really think he was ever told about black sprinters? How about LeMaitre in France, Guliyev in Turkey, Kenteris in Greece, Burruti another Itailan, What did black sprinters have to do with them?

We can go back in history before black sprinters started dominating and thre it is, white 100/200m sprinters more successful at 200m.

Hal Davis (white) was the most dominate sprinter in he world around 40-44, as we know no Olympics to star in, he was more successful at 200m, Then here came Mel Patton histories first 9.3, but,,,1948 200 Olympic gold. In the 50's a high school kid here in California named Forrest Beatty ran a near 200 world record, he was a multi talented guy, ended up more 400m at Cal.

Larry Questad and Mark Lutz ran the 100/200, both made our Olympic team, in the 200m. Kevin Little was a 10.13 guy, but had far more success as a 200m man.

Black sprinters have nothing at all to do with this,. as we are seeing with Boling,[/quote

You just can't see the forest from the trees.

Hal Davis, as per the USATF website:

"A poor starter, Davis had an extremely fast finish and was at his best in the longer 200 meter race..."

Source:

http://oldserver.usatf.org/HallOfFame/TF/showBio.asp?HOFIDs=41p

So...a Noah Lyles. Ironically, everyone wants to act like he (Davis) was a better over 200 than 100, but none of his "success" indicates that other than mythos like the quote above implies.

My quick data check indicates he gained a WR only over 100 METERS. And never attained it over 200 or 220y. Seems like you performed a debate seppuku again, Whatley...or is this more " a check" on me (which is straight trolling, as previously diacussed).

Mel Patton. Jesus.

Mel Patton didn't even win his Olympic Trials over 100. He's a GREAT argument against giving much credence to "rankings", which is a major part of your idiotic equation, apparently. He's ranked "#1 in the 100 and 200" in '47 and '49, but lost to Ewell at the '48 trials over 100 and Dillard and Ewell went 1-2 in London while Patton landed in 5th. Sounds to me like his ranking was superficial. Is he proof of your theory, or was he just outclassed in the 100 and he was more suited for 200s...like a Lyles?

This is ALSO the problem with citing the 40s and eras like it (or widespread FAT, essentially). Patton gets a huge famous nod for running "the first 9.3 100 yarder", but Ewell tied the 100m world record in '48 and beat Hal Davis late in his career. Maybe Pattons "dominance" over 100 was simply a virtue if circumstances (post WWII, in college and facing only peers, getting hand timed, etc) and thusly artificially inflated.

Throw him into international waters and BOOM, 5th. Who TF cares about a hand 9.3 100 yarder with what we know these days about hand times and such. Sounds like Ewell was the hot shot in the post Davis void, but he suffered a bit from the WWII vaccum, although less than Davis did.

What does Lindy Remigino do to your theories, then? He's a patron, but in reverse. He won the 100 in '52. It's not like he DIDN'T run the 200, he was just BETTER over 200. And he was white. Shocking. We already know Morrow doesn't fit....sounds like the 50s Olympic cycle doesn't do you any favors.

Stop talking about Kevin Little. You've even mentioned before he "seldom ran" the 100m. Then why is he patt of 100/200 discussions?????

Bringing up friggin Forest Beaty. WHY?!?! Isn't he just a clear 2/4 guy?!?!?! You know what, I guess you're right. OK, put out an immediate release from the CDC on new guidance. IMMEDIATE RELEASE.. All black people should STOP participating in 100 meter dashes because Michael Johnson never officially broke 10 in the 100 meter dash. History proves it, just like Forrest Beaty!!!!!

I'M not even going to google Lutz and whoever else. I ignored your examples because I could tell it was spin and didnt want to waste my time. I've done it twice now, and it's proved I was assuming correctly. I'm not going to hint down pre-FAT hand results just to coontinually shoot down your joke debating style. It's a waste of everyone's time.

ONE MORE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, what is your take on Boling talking about the 200 being his best event?

Answer the question.

Mel Patton world ranked number one in both sprints, WR holder in the 100, but....Olympic 200m gold.

Beatty was a 9,4 guy, but became more 200/400,

Remigino was a strange case, he only took 5th at that years NCAA 100, and there are still those who think Herb Mckenley beat him, he thought Mckenley beat him. Thinking he didn't run the 200m.

Davis won more USA titles at 200m. Bummer no Olympics to star in.

Meh,,,

More world rankings, more titles won, more fast times, what about that aren't you getting?

All Hal Davis had was USA Champs. as we can see more 200m success....

http://trackfield.brinkster.net/Profile.asp?ID=1451&Gender=M&Page=Results.asp&EventCode=MA1

Remigino did run the 200m. he came in 4th at our Nationals, 6th in the 100m.