Well, Flo Jo's didn't run 10.49 or similar often .. but that's a HUGE step from 10.64 ( .. which was 3 years ago)
Felix may well run the 200m wr one day .. heck, who figured MJ would lose 19.32 so soon.
I saw Koch's 400m, in Canberra; absolutely ridiculous.
TrackCoach wrote:
I would say the women's 4x100 with out a doubt, the USA handily beat a Jamaican team that contained of 3 of the fastest 100 meter sprinters ever. What is amazing is that they ran that time with an athlete who was formerly a LJ specialist, a 200m specialist and an athlete who has never run sub-11 or made an Olympic or WC 100m final. Btw, all of the women's sprint indivisual and relay records are very strong by any measure.
I don't think it's too surprising, considering how they had Jeter who is the fastest woman ever(adjusted time), allyson felix, who can run an good leg due to having a running start. Also bianca Knight runs a very good curve. All you gotta do is add in perfect exchanges and you have a WR
I was trying to figure out how thay were able to run that fast and I looked at about half dozen youtubes of USA 4x1s and Allyson Felix alway dominated her leg no matter who she was matched up against. Once Fleix gets up to speed, she is as fast as Price and Jeter. Madison who should have gotten smoked by Price, but she haned about even, Knight and Jeter were very solid and the handoffs weren't perfect but good.
Nobody's top end speed is better than Jeter's... People are over exaggerating Felix, she has good top end which looks amazing due to that ridiculous endurance
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I know about the 400, but I'm telling you, some women say they have just such a "new mentality", as you put it.
I think what you refer to as "new mentality" is commonly known as the Y-chromosome. Only chance this record by M. Koch can go down in the next 20 years.
In the long run Oliveira beating Pistorius and closing the last 100 of the 200 in 8.3 or 8.4 in a 21.4x race may have the most impact on Athletics in the long view. We'll have to revist all the definitions of clasifications male- female, disabled-aided disabled etc .
Webhs 14:08 gotta get it's props too! webb is back!!!
Gerald MacB-B speaks out wrote:
In the long run Oliveira beating Pistorius and closing the last 100 of the 200 in 8.3 or 8.4 in a 21.4x race may have the most impact on Athletics in the long view. We'll have to revist all the definitions of clasifications male- female, disabled-aided disabled etc .
Indeed - esp in light of the decision to allow Pistorius to run against abled competitors. In years to come, we could well view this as the defining performance of the year.
Until then, Rudisha, the boss.
wtfunny wrote:
Gerald MacB-B speaks out wrote:In the long run Oliveira beating Pistorius and closing the last 100 of the 200 in 8.3 or 8.4 in a 21.4x race may have the most impact on Athletics in the long view. We'll have to revist all the definitions of clasifications male- female, disabled-aided disabled etc .
Indeed - esp in light of the decision to allow Pistorius to run against abled competitors. In years to come, we could well view this as the defining performance of the year.
Until then, Rudisha, the boss.
You've got to be the biggest Rudisha fanboy of them all. Did you faint when he ran 1:40? I'm sure if you ever met him you would have uncontrollable seizures caused from multiple orgasms at sight.
Are you Jesse?
Your style of trolling seems familiar. If so, good job on reinventing yourself after the Rupp stuff.
Alan Webb's 14:01 in the Olympic Trials semi ... ;)
Significant for how far a 3:46 miler can fall.
wtfunny wrote:
Gerald MacB-B speaks out wrote:In the long run Oliveira beating Pistorius and closing the last 100 of the 200 in 8.3 or 8.4 in a 21.4x race may have the most impact on Athletics in the long view. We'll have to revist all the definitions of clasifications male- female, disabled-aided disabled etc .
Indeed - esp in light of the decision to allow Pistorius to run against abled competitors. In years to come, we could well view this as the defining performance of the year.
The word significant leads some to deeper thoughts than just time on the stopwatch. I applaude you!
Gerald--
Well, you're onto something with that observation.
Hmmm...good one! Pistorius even competing in the Olympics could easily be the most significant in the light of future history, as could Oliveira's victory, only time will tell.
I think 4 real contenders have now emerged:
1) W4x100WR--because I keep flogging it, and because I claim OP rights
2) Rudisha 1:40.91--because it seems to have the most votes so far
3) Oliveira beating Pistorius while closing in 8.3/8.4--because who knows what the future will bring
4) Pistorius competing in the Games--for the same reason as (3)
*******************
BTW, there is a big prayer effort for CG going on right now. Even if you don't believe in these things yourself, make your voice heard to whatever cosmic forces you do believe in--he seems like a good, deserving guy, and his wife and kids need all the love and support you can give, faith-based, cosmic, or otherwise.
CG ? sorry am I missing some current event with someone initialed CG.
CG = the cancer guy
**************
wtfunny--
Everybody knows the 10.49 was made possible by an incorrect wind reading. Since it happened once before, it could conceivably happen again. All it would take would be a 10.6x athlete sprinting in a hurricane.
The US sprint nationals should so totally be held at Indianapolis. Maybe they still have the same official manning the wind gauge!
"This thread seems to be developing into a definition of terms: "significant," "impressive," etc. Even if we agree on the term "significant," it's not a clear standard: there is significant within the framework of the sport, and significant more generally, beyond the sport. For example, stephen Kiprotich
s Olympic victory in the marathon in 2:08 might have been the most significant performance of the year iin the impact it had on millions of people in Uganda. It was the Ugandan's first medal in track and field in 40 years and it was a gold in a widely followed event. Clearly, to take but one example, the late Samuel Wenjaru's performance in Beijing was a far superior performance, but it might be argued Kiprotich's was more significant.
Within the parameters of sporting excellence, I agree with Rudischa, for reasons pointed out quite persuasively by a poster on page one. I would only add that it's unfair to judge him harshly against his own remarkable record. The fact he "only" lowered his own WR in no way diminishes an eye popping Olympic performance. In terms of performance excellence, it's tough to wrap your arms around the decathlon. Many of us tend to take each of the ten events, look at the results and say "so what?" But if you can grasp that Eaton had all ten of those marks, it's mighty significant by any measure.
If I might take a moment, this post is likely to appear on page six or seven.On the off chance he might see this, a fellow called Prarie Dog made a complimentary comment on one of my earlier posts. If you happen to see this, thank you. Glad you appreciated it. You are either a real gentleman or a great kid, take your pick.
body master wrote:
You've got to be the biggest Rudisha fanboy of them all. Did you faint when he ran 1:40? I'm sure if you ever met him you would have uncontrollable seizures caused from multiple orgasms at sight.
Nah, not really. Now if Rudisha was 5'10" and ran 1:40, that would be something to get excited about.
Just to clarify things, here are 2 posts from body master, one immediately succeeding the other (emph added):
Rudisha's 800m WR is not impressive because we knew he could already do it. It was just another personal best. His 1:41:01 was about as good as that. It's just a different number.
Both Blake and Rudisha were impressive.
That's some consistent thinking there.
This is the same person who goes on to say:
A world record is not significant to us. Nor is olympic gold.
Which, if I may, is possibly the most ridiculous comment on this forum so far.
Woah, I thought all the WR's this year were significant... guess I gotta rethink everything
Honestly, body Master doesn't understand the meaning of significance
John O'Donnell wrote:
If I might take a moment, this post is likely to appear on page six or seven.On the off chance he might see this, a fellow called Prarie Dog made a complimentary comment on one of my earlier posts. If you happen to see this, thank you. Glad you appreciated it. You are either a real gentleman or a great kid, take your pick.
Am finding neither other john o'donnell posts nor a prarie dog posts on this thread. Where the moderated off?
John--
WITHIN the sport, "the sport" including the effect it could have on those not currently participating therein, but primarily focused on the effect on current participants within both contemporary and historic contexts.
"Excellent" and "impressive" meaning something distinctly different than "significant", although possibly co-extensive to some degree.
Better?
I think everybody basically understood what it was intended to mean, judging by the previous posts in this thread.
Carnivore 69 wrote:
Rudisha, by a long way. Eaton is a distant second.
Rudisha broke his own record at the Olympics and yes it was an amazing time in ok conditions but lost at the end of the year.
Eaton broke a 21 year old record in the cold pouring rain, listen to Trey Hardee's comments on how amazing his effort was in Eugene. undefeated this year
Merritt, Rudisha, Eaton threway tie all impressive in it's own way