This felt harder than the 100m to me. The eras are harder to mold together, it seemed, but here's what I came up with.
I did what I did for the 100m; seeded the lanes based on a ranking I came up with built mostly on my own subjective reasoning/logic. I get cranky about drugs, personally, so that's often how I move people around, and it can sometimes weirdly give more of a pass to some than to others. Kinda hypocritical/contradictory on my part...but I have to make decisions at some point (i.e. a demoted Blake but I keep Bolt king, etc.).
Also, doing this made me take a serious look at my views on Hayes. If Hayes was "the first Bolt", why isn't he in here? I know very little of Carr. Obviously he was something special, too, so maybe Hayes just didn't care to battling/dealing with Carr for the 200. I dunno. It was a different time then, I guess; even Maurice Greene tried to expand hard into 200s, as does Coleman currently. I feel like if Hayes came up in the current era, we would obviously have a much better idea of what he could have been over 200, too. As it is he's no where to be seen here.
Also, like I said, I seeded the lanes as if they were being placed into a race at a meet, and based it on my own subjective ranking system. But, based on certain talents/skill sets, I wonder if moving people around would make for a better/more interesting race (in theory). Like, for example, maybe it would be more interesting to have Johnson on the inside of Bolt to see if his 400m ability would allow him the opportunity to chase down Bolt *if he had it in him* (though you could argue the other way too -I suppose- and having him in front would allow him opportunity to perhaps control the race in some way). I didn't seed based on any of that thinking, though; just a standard best to worst ranking.
Anyway, here is my "A" 200m heat:
1. Yohan Blake
2. Pietro Mennea
3. Henry Carr
4. Usain Bolt
5. Michael Johnson
6. Tommie Smith
7. Carl Lewis
8. John Carlos