Usain Bolt would not laugh so much if..

Dont forget old feats wrote:

1)-learn to read not only literal meaning, oh sorry I didnt say 'specifically'..

-yes, injured + best second half, what didnt you understand? do you need me to explain again and again?

2)no comments, waste of time

3)no bolt fault, who said so? no matter whose it is, but if they had goals or not. learn to read

4)-a person who mock someone for misspelling one word in a forum discredit himself.

-Learn that 'illiterate' is not an insult in the context it appeared, get a little of self-confidence my 5 language speaker friend and take it easy ;) maybe you should shut your mouth after all.

faithfully

dont forget old feats.

1. I should read the things you didn't put in? How much faster than the fastest 2nd half ever would he have run if not injured? Your claim makes no sense. If MJ himself never ran a faster second half, your claim of injury is doubtful at best. I know he was hurt, but I doubt that it had much of an impact on that race.

3. MJ set three WR's in his career, I believe. Bolt has four already. You really want to discuss chasing goals?

4. You mock people for being illiterate endlessly. Your ad hominem attacks discredit you and your insults are tedious and take away from your argument, making it even weaker.

Why do you feel the need to discredit Bolt? If you want to make a case for MJ, do that, but the entire premise of your diatribe was that Bolt's not that good because ...

You have no objective evidence by which to argue that MJ was better, only your speculation and MJ's own biased perspectives.

Dont forget old feats wrote:

Im aware of that, and I was not refering to this but rather to his general attitude towards the rest of cometitors and the sport, he should learn something from frank fredericks, jonathan edwards, jan zelezny and so on all them class act

Or maybe you, a drooling never-was, should learn something from Usain Bolt, an actual athlete..

1) stubborn.. I said TRAIN 100 meters, not 100 'specifically' , I think everyone can get the meaning, not everybody write as you would like them to write with the exact words you want, if you get this, dont try again and go ask your mum please.

3)Im not discussing that, I discuss about bolt laughing at the rest of the field since he is unbeatable now, not probably back then, that is my point, do you want me to repeat again the general issue to discuss? thats enough.

4)¿? oh yes you are right two-bit philosopher,it makes it even weaker LOL

bye bye bolt-lover.

stupidd letsrunners wrote:

Dont forget old feats wrote:

Im aware of that, and I was not refering to this but rather to his general attitude towards the rest of cometitors and the sport, he should learn something from frank fredericks, jonathan edwards, jan zelezny and so on all them class act

Or maybe you, a drooling never-was, should learn something from Usain Bolt, an actual athlete..

Or maybe you should shut up and suck bolt penis since yours is too short and thin to even fit his ass, last night your mother told me, so I guess its a reliable source.. just saying

Michael Johnson was a great sprinter, but was only in Bolt's league on one day in 1996.

Dont forget old feats wrote:

1) stubborn.. I said TRAIN 100 meters, not 100 'specifically' , I think everyone can get the meaning, not everybody write as you would like them to write with the exact words you want, if you get this, dont try again and go ask your mum please.

What makes you think that if he trained for the 100 instead he would still have the same closing speed?

That's like saying if Bolt trained for the 400 he would close like MJ and still be able to open like he does now. Maybe, maybe not.

My theory is, if they could have, they would have. You can speculate on either one of them, but one has a sequence of marks and one has a single magical race. Like I said, I still believe MJ is the greatest long sprinter of all time, but if you ask who the greatest 200m runner is, Bolt is about 1 more WC gold from being it, if he's not already.

If MJ trained for 100m he would be injured constantly, just as he was in 1994

Galoolie34 wrote:

If MJ trained for 100m he would be injured constantly, just as he was in 1994

No, because MJ gets to train in don't forget's magical dream world but everyone else is subject to reality.

Bolt is in his own league!! MJ even said it! He can go sub 19 seconds. Johnson wouldnt of stood a chance! Not to mention that was a slow track and a headwind!

I have equal respect for both Bolt and MJ, my two all-time favorite sprinters but this just shows your ignorance on track and field.

your 100m time doesn't necessarily determine how strong of a curve runner you are (visa versa). Bolt has always been strong around the bend. e.g. at the 07 Osaka world champs, in the 200m final, Gay's 100m splits were 10.13 and 9.63 (19.76) with a 100m PB of 9.84 at the time, Bolt's were 10.15 and 9.76 (19.91) with a 100m PB of 10.03 at the time, so Bolt in 07 being .19s slower than Gay over 100m was still able to challenge him around the bend at the WC's.

you say if MJ trained for 100m his bend would be faster, which is probably true but that would also mean having to take time away from his 400m training, decreasing his speed endurance. 100m training wouldn't make MJ any faster over 200m as he relied more on speed endurance rather than pure speed (unless you expect him to have been able to train for 100m, 200m and 400m at that level?)so that 19.07 is pretty much BS.

Lastly, you must consider conditions, MJ's 19.32 was with a +0.4m/s tailwind compared to Bolt's 19.19 into a -0.3m/s headwind. 19.32 (+0.4m/s) = 19.38 vs 19.19 (-0.3m/s) = 19.17. with perfect reaction times of .100 that moves those times down to 19.32 and 19.14. even if MJ lost .05s from his stumble outta the blocks and another .05s from his slight deceleration towards the finish (which I don't believe was a result from injury, but just natural deceleration) thats still "only" a 19.22 compared to Bolt's 19.14 (and with the same adjustments Bolt's 19.30 in Beijing is a 19.15)

Again I'm an MJ fan myself and I'm not trying to take away from him but his 19.32 is NOT more impressive than Bolt's 19.19 or 19.30. Period.

With the TV camera pacer next to lane 8, records are easily broken. Get rid of the pacer and fewer records would be broekn.

No youre illiterate on this topic dummy. Why don't we just focus on the one event that both runners actually competed in... The 200. Bolt- 19.19 Blake-19.26 Bolt-19.30 Johnson-19.32. Old man Johnson is even stunned by bolts dominance. He's slower, sorry.

BUT Bolt ran his first 100m @ 9.92 versus MJ's 10.12. That's 0.2 seconds. That's a massive amount of time

that's how he beat the record by 0.13

he's 100m/200m guys. Johnson was a 200m/400m guy

stupid analysis because your key point is "If johnson had been a better sprinter in 100 meters he would have blown UB away."

=

"If I was a better runner, I'd be faster"

lame and super hypothetical. Everyone knows MJ was one of the hardest training, most driven athletes. You'd have better luck getting Bolt, a known lazy trainer, to become a hard worker and getting more sprint endurance than the other way around. MJ was closer to his ceiling than you think

I don't think Johnson was capable of a 9.92 first 100m and still finishing strong. He never showed signs of being able to run an elite 100m (10.09)

Your conclusion should be more like: "Imagine Bolt with a 9.92 and 9.15?!"

[quote]Dont forget old feats wrote:

Usain Bolt would not laugh at the rest of competitors and taunt them if Michael Johnson was there in 1996 form when he ran the FASTEST second 100 meters in the history of T&F:

Johnson 200 in 1996 (19.32) : 10.12 + 9.188 (even easing!! the last 10 meters due to a ham injury) + he had no references to beat like bolt did (world record was 9.66 at the time..).

Usain 'stop laughing until you got speed endurance' Bolt 200 in Berlin (19.19): 9.92+9.27

so 9.188 easing