I certainly never said it wasn't impressive. It's awesome. But it's also 0.06 seconds slower than whatBolt ran this year.
9.58 remains unchallenged, except by Bolt's 9.63 this year.
Rudisha's 800m was not impressive? You're out of your tree. That entire race was more than impressive. 2 teenagers ran under 1:42 and 1::43. If that doesn't impress you, I'm not sure what might.
Most significant T&F performance of 2012
Pro News/Info/Results
History
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
As an illustration of how tough what Rudisha did is, Wilson Kipketer never won an Olympic gold .. one of the very greatest 800m runners of all time. Rudisha's performance was ridiculous.
-
wtfunny wrote:
I certainly never said it wasn't impressive. It's awesome. But it's also 0.06 seconds slower than whatBolt ran this year.
9.58 remains unchallenged, except by Bolt's 9.63 this year.
Rudisha's 800m was not impressive? You're out of your tree. That entire race was more than impressive. 2 teenagers ran under 1:42 and 1::43. If that doesn't impress you, I'm not sure what might.
Ok so what? Can you read correctly? This thread is called "Most significant" so please google that definition and then change your opinion that Rudisha wins that award.
Both Blake and Rudisha were impressive. Even in that category i'd say Blake was more impressive because his 9.69 left a bigger "impression" on anyone than Rudisha running another WR. We knew he could do it. So how does that impress you? I think you have to NOT know something is coming for it to be very impressive.
I never saw the race before the results. I just stared at those numbers with the wind reading next to them in awe. For a whole minute. This is the first time anyone's ran a 9.6 into a headwind. No matter how minor. Bolt's 9.63 was NOT faster than this performance if you gave them the same conditions.
As far as this thread title goes, what significance does Rudisha's WR have? We already established him as the most dominant 800m runner. As the WR holder. This has little significance.
Blake's on the other hand. No more do we have to say Bolt is vulnerable simply because he's not at his best.
Now we can say Bolt is vulnerable EVEN at his best. -
To further clarify on what impressive means.... i'm sure everyone knew Rudisha was in the form of his life to win the Olympic Gold. Are you going to argue with me that it was impressive that he had the mental strength to win? Because that's the only thing that can be impressive at that point. Physically everyone knew it was there.
Blake had ran 9.75 twice. Both with strong legal tailwinds assisting him. Equivalent to about 9.79 adjusted. But now he's just taken a tenth of a second off. Into a headwind.
How can that not "impress" you more? By all definitions of that word. -
Body master
It does impress me. Anyone running under 10.5 impresses me. Under 10? Super impressive. Like I said, it's awesome. But 'significant' doesn't = "impress'. Fyi, the title of the thread isn't "impressive", either.
Significant? A world record is pretty damn significant. An Olympic gold medal is pretty damn significant. I guarantee you ask Blake which he'd rather have, his 9.69 into a slight headwind, or a WR AND Olympic gold medal and his answer is not 9.69. I'll bet you a dollar a wr & olympic gold medal is a whole lot more significant to him than a 9.69. -
Allyson Felix 3 Olympic Gold Medals
-
wtfunny wrote:
Body master
It does impress me. Anyone running under 10.5 impresses me. Under 10? Super impressive. Like I said, it's awesome. But 'significant' doesn't = "impress'. Fyi, the title of the thread isn't "impressive", either.
Significant? A world record is pretty damn significant. An Olympic gold medal is pretty damn significant. I guarantee you ask Blake which he'd rather have, his 9.69 into a slight headwind, or a WR AND Olympic gold medal and his answer is not 9.69. I'll bet you a dollar a wr & olympic gold medal is a whole lot more significant to him than a 9.69.
Lmao! Did you read what i wrote? I was the one who chastised you for talking about impressive and not adhering to the threads title. Why are you trying to tell me the same thing lolol!
A world record is not significant to us. Nor is olympic gold. It's only significant to that person. No where did sprint geezer want to know what was most significant to a specific individual.
Something significant is something that changes the way we imagine or our thoughts. 1:40 and olympic gold did neither.
Blake's 9.69 did both. Now we can BELIEVE that someone other than Bolt can break 9.58
Now we can BELIEVE that you don't have to be 6'5 to run that fast. -
wtfunny wrote:
Significant? A world record is pretty damn significant. An Olympic gold medal is pretty damn significant. I guarantee you ask Blake which he'd rather have, his 9.69 into a slight headwind, or a WR AND Olympic gold medal and his answer is not 9.69. I'll bet you a dollar a wr & olympic gold medal is a whole lot more significant to him than a 9.69.
+1 -
I did leave room for Rudisha's 800m, when I said "among others".
My thinking in starting this thread was like Body Master's--most significant, as opposed to most impressive, beautiful, deserved, publicized, etc.
Rudisha's was great for all the reasons mentioned already, but in the end it was only an excellent performance by someone who was widely believed capable of delivering said performance on the big stage, and it was only very incremental in terms of the WR. Probably the only twist to his WR is that he didn't have a rabbit. Plus, it was his own WR he was breaking, it was a very recent WR, and it was only slightly ahead of Kipketer.
Like body master was saying, significant should change the way we think about things, or it should change the landscape. That's why I voted for Blake 19.26 last year.
Any time a massively doped, super-old women's record goes down, that is super-significant, especially when it is either a power event, or a Chinese/East German/East European record. We all know how old those records are, and that there have been truly great athletes to come along throughout the years, both juiced and not, who haven't been able to touch those times. Marion and Jeter never got the 100. Perec and Felix never got the 200. Not even Semenya has touched the 800. The records are all so ridiculous, that many have proposed wiping them from the books.
But what about now that one of them, a big one, has gone down--and not just by a little bit, but by a LOT? Over half a second! What does that tell women about the rest of those records?
Face it, WR's are a very psychological thing. Half the battle is people believing they can be broken. All the women's records have been dismissed as unbreakable--but guess what? Apparently they're not. It is of course reasonable to believe that many of today's best women are juicing, but as yet we don't know if that juice is legal or not. The point is that whatever they are doing, they have proved themselves capable of matching or bettering those historic performances, especially if we are still relatively early in the history of whatever new techniques they are employing.
Look at Felix's 200. With the exception of VCB's handful of performances in 2008, and Stewart's 21.99 in 2008, all of the performances under 22.00 were done forever ago, and many by acknowledged dopers--names appear like Kratochvilova, Krabbe, Privalova, Wockel, Miller, Gladisch, Gohr, Dreschler, Ottey, Jones, Koch, and of course FloJo. The dates of the best performances are super-old, with half or more in the 1980's!
But now Felix is there. Yes, she is a mile away from 21.34, and all the other women are miles away from the 400, 800, etc. But the 4x100 proves it possible.
Just like Jeter's 100 times, which are equal to/better than all of FloJo's except for that 10.49 Jeter was there knocking on the door, and but for a faulty wind gauge, she would have the WR.
There are probably people who believe that the individual records are still unbreakable, notwithstanding the 4x100 WR, and given how far ahead they still are, it could be a good argument--but the best test is probably how the athletes see the records. They're getting closer, and have to now believe that they are possible to get.
Jeter could have gotten the 100 but for the wind gauge.
Felix is the best 200 to come along in a LONG time.
Felix might have the best shot at the 400, if she dedicates herself to it.
Look at the men's side: the 100, 200, 4x100, 800 have all gone, the only old records remaining are really MJ's.
IMHO the 4x100 WR redefines what is possible for the women, and that is why I picked it as the most significant performance.
**********************
As for most "impressive", I was more impressed by Eaton's deca WR in the cold rain than I was by Rudisha's 800WR. Yes, Eaton had home field advantage--but have you ever tried doing a deca in the rain? I have. To set the WR under those conditions is nothing short of incredible, and it likely means that he will put it out of reach for a long time, if he stays healthy.
In setting it, he LJ'd to 14th on the world list year, TAKING ONLY ONE JUMP, in a distance that would have won him Olympic silver.
His LJ was a decathlon best, as was his incredible 10.21 100m, which would have qualified him for trials in the 100m, and which was only .03 slower than the Olympic A standard.
That same day, he ran 46.70 in a monsoon.
He did all that, AND got a WR at the same time.
No doubt Rudisha's 800m was impressive, but for my money, Eaton was even better. -
Look at Felix's 200. With the exception of VCB's handful of performances in 2008, and Stewart's 21.99 in 2008, all of the performances under 22.00 were done forever ago, and many by acknowledged dopers--names appear like Kratochvilova, Krabbe, Privalova, Wockel, Miller, Gladisch, Gohr, Dreschler, Ottey, Jones, Koch, and of course FloJo.
A long time ago, for sure, but not all by dopers; Jackson? Torrence? Ashford? Whether it was 2 years ago, or 20 years ago, that's a silly measuring stick.
Felix ran a great race, but it hardly will be remembered in the annals of sprinting; it was only slightly faster than what Grace Jackson ran, and Gwen Torrence ran. Much like Blake's 100m.
Rudisha's run was, simply awesome.
Eaton's performance was, simply awesome.
Blake's run didn't change ANYTHING. But it was certainly awesome.
You're both, imo, speculating an awful lot about what it might bring, and I don't think that's a real measure of significance. Blake had the greatest chance of his lifetime to beat Bolt this year, and Bolt smoked him. When the chance came, the chips were all on the table, Bolt walked away from him. Not because Blake's not a fantastic sprinter, but because Bolt walks away from EVERYONE.
Ask the rest of the 800m field how significant Rudisha's performance was. -
I'm going to give a nod to Kiprop's sub 3:28
-
David Rudisha. Notice the punctuation used, because there is no possible debate here unless you are defining your terms differently.
-
body master wrote:For years no one thought 9.58 could EVER be challenged. The closest we got was a 9.69 from Tyson Gay with the max allowable wind
no
follow better
tyson ran that 9.69 with an atrocious start/pick-up with a groin needing surgery he'd put off all year & had soon after
the shit start at worst offset the +2 wind = 9.69 basic
fully healthy groin ?
call him mid-9.6 that day if fully fit
bolt's 9.58 works out at 9.62/9.63 basic
there was little difference between peak bolt & healthy tyson -
This thread has devolved into word games. I'm not going to quibble over what people mean by "significant" or "impressive" or whatever because by any definition the answer is Rudisha for the reasons that have already been stated.
-
bangalangadanga wrote:
I'm going to give a nod to Kiprop's sub 3:28
make that sub 3:29. (3.28.88) -
Rudisha's London performance is the most significant because it changes the entire mentality of the approach to the event.
Nearly every 800 on the circuit for years and years has had a rabbit.
All records and record attempts have had rabbits for a very long time.
The mentality to PR in the 800 was that you had to follow someone.
Rudisha followed no one and ran the fastest time in history.
Significant is probably the best word that you could use to describe his performance.
Going forward, you may see more attempts at fast 800's with fast guys just going out and taking it on their own because of the significant influence of this one performance. -
ventolin^3 wrote:
body master wrote:For years no one thought 9.58 could EVER be challenged. The closest we got was a 9.69 from Tyson Gay with the max allowable wind
no
follow better
tyson ran that 9.69 with an atrocious start/pick-up with a groin needing surgery he'd put off all year & had soon after
the shit start at worst offset the +2 wind = 9.69 basic
fully healthy groin ?
call him mid-9.6 that day if fully fit
bolt's 9.58 works out at 9.62/9.63 basic
there was little difference between peak bolt & healthy tyson
Rofl. Are you joking? Look at any great athlete and they are NEVER in perfect condition. There's always that nagging injury and yet they still run the best times of their life.
You're reaching for a conclusion that is entirely laughable. A fully healthy groin wouldn't have changed anything. Tyson had numerous chances to break the WR that year and the closest he managed was that time. He had a perfect race in Berlin and ran 9.71 with Bolt going away from him the entire race.
BTW... im shocked someone as supposedly intelligent as you are (the way you shit on everyone in every thread) fell for the "if he had a better start" bullsh*t
It's a WELL KNOWN fact that a better start does not automatically mean you will run a better time. Look at everyone who raced Carl. They thought if they got out better they would beat him. They ended up dying even worse the final meters.
A true example of this is Tyson's 100m final. He got out well and died. You should know better. That's the most god awful speculation for a better time.
Most of the fastest times are won from behind in the start. You know better. -
toro wrote:
Rudisha's London performance is the most significant because it changes the entire mentality of the approach to the event.
Nearly every 800 on the circuit for years and years has had a rabbit.
All records and record attempts have had rabbits for a very long time.
The mentality to PR in the 800 was that you had to follow someone.
Rudisha followed no one and ran the fastest time in history.
Significant is probably the best word that you could use to describe his performance.
Going forward, you may see more attempts at fast 800's with fast guys just going out and taking it on their own because of the significant influence of this one performance.
Not to mention that an 800 guy can no longer train to run a 1:42/43 low and still expect to win an Olympic Medal with a good kick.
Rudisha's performance has the potential to change the 800 the same way Sammy changed the marathon. -
And what of the next year when Tyson had a fully healthy groin? Why couldn't he run 9.69 basic? Oh... let's wait for the excuses to back Tyson up.
"He had surgery so he wasn't 100%"
"He had another injury" etc etc
The difference between Blake and Tyson lies in the reality of the run. You're reaching for a lie, a big WHAT IF, while I'm applauding Blake for delivering that WHAT IF.
Please back your statement up with facts that a fully healthy Gay is as fast as Bolt. You have none so far except opinion. And plenty of contradicting evidence.
On the other hand, Blake has proven with his 19.26 and 9.69 that he's on par with Bolt. -
If you're going to speculate at least use concrete speculation... not fanciful speculation.
Concrete: A max 2.0 wind and Blake would have ran 9.58
Fanciful: A better start/healthy groin in Shanghai and Tyson would have ran 9.58 (you DID say he was 9.69 basic)
