body master
Blake is no more 'on par' with Bolt than Tyson is, certainly over 100m. They both have a recorded best of 9.69. And Tyson also has a 9.71, so if anyone has a claim to being closer to par with Bolt there, it's Tyson. And Bolt has run well under that TWICE. Neither of those athletes are on par with Bolt.
Blake's 200m time is 0.07 seconds slower than Bolt. Not a huge margin, but not 'on par' either.
I think you're doing exactly what you're accusing Ventolin of doing; reaching for a 'What if' ... Blake hasn't run any faster than Tyson did. Blake ran quite a bit slower than Bolt did this year, was smoked by Bolt in the OG, and hasn't got near the WR. To surmise that he may be able to one day is no different to guessing what a healthy Tyson might run, or Asafa if he was taller, or Lemaitre if he was blacker.
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.
-
-
Uh, look at the list, the names speak for themselves.
In any case, I wasn't arguing for Felix's performance, I was just pointing out that she is now closer to the WR than anybody has been for a very long time. -
joho: "Rudisha's performance has the potential to change the 800 the same way Sammy changed the marathon."
I totally agree with this, but the USA women's 4x100 WR has the potential to change all of the sprints, throws, and some of the middle distance in women's T&F.
Or, maybe I'm overinflating it--but I have talked to some women who view this as the historic breakthrough that they have been waiting for. I've even heard some refer to "the glass ceiling having been broken". -
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.
The only thing significant Rudisha's performance did was make the world aware of a glaring stupidity in the form of training strategy among 800m runners.
They never needed a rabbit to run fast. It's only 2 laps good god. I'm sure 400m runners would have a rabbit if you didn't have to stay in your lane. "Take me through the 200 at 21.5 ! I haven't trained enough to know what that feels like!"
Now, maybe meets can cut costs down by not having a rabbit. Ever heard of the term practice makes perfect? Or are 800m runners so dull in the head that they have no idea what pace feels like? -
Chris Solinsky at Falmouth.
-
asdgfh wrote:
bangalangadanga wrote:
I'm going to give a nod to Kiprop's sub 3:28
make that sub 3:29. (3.28.88)
I have just recently gotten back into following the sport, but I'm a bit curious about Kiprop's sub-3:29. I remember when I was last following mid-distance running, it was in the end of the era of El Guerrouj and Lagat and those guys at their prime. It was pretty common to have the best times of the year be under 3:30.
Is this not the norm anymore? Is a sub-3:30 really that rare? I guess this would make sense, since supposedly drug-testing has gotten much tighter since the heydays of the '90s.
Coming back to the sport, I'm very happy to see that Webb was finally able to pull off an amazing time with a 3:46 mile. However, it's surprising to see that he never broke 3:30. I wonder what his 1500M split was in the 3:46. Perhaps his 3:30PR IS the split of that race.
Oh well, just wondering if 3:29s or 28s are really that rare in this day and age now. -
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Or, maybe I'm overinflating it--but I have talked to some women who view this as the historic breakthrough that they have been waiting for. I've even heard some refer to "the glass ceiling having been broken".
They didn't break the men's record. -
wtfunny wrote:
body master
Blake is no more 'on par' with Bolt than Tyson is, certainly over 100m. They both have a recorded best of 9.69. And Tyson also has a 9.71, so if anyone has a claim to being closer to par with Bolt there, it's Tyson. And Bolt has run well under that TWICE. Neither of those athletes are on par with Bolt.
Blake's 200m time is 0.07 seconds slower than Bolt. Not a huge margin, but not 'on par' either.
I think you're doing exactly what you're accusing Ventolin of doing; reaching for a 'What if' ... Blake hasn't run any faster than Tyson did. Blake ran quite a bit slower than Bolt did this year, was smoked by Bolt in the OG, and hasn't got near the WR. To surmise that he may be able to one day is no different to guessing what a healthy Tyson might run, or Asafa if he was taller, or Lemaitre if he was blacker.
Did you read my post or ignore it again? I already dealt with everything you're struggling to use as an argument in my post before this post.
I am alluding to facts. Ventolin is alluding to giant what if's.
And are you unaware of the significance of Blakes 19.26? With a normal reaction time he would have broken Bolt's WR. Where were you when this was being discussed? There's one fact.
Tyson ran 9.71 with about a 1.0 tailwind. Blake ran 9.69 into a headwind. With a 2.0 wind Tyson would have ran about a 9.65
Blake would run a 9.58. Also Blake has run 9.75 like three times already. Your post lacks clear logic and common sense. Anyone knows Blake is faster than Tyson in both events quite clearly. -
If you're going to speculate at least use concrete speculation... not fanciful speculation.
Classic. "concrete speculation". You should write speeches for politicians. :) j/k -
jsdietsche wrote:
Chris Solinsky at Falmouth.
Ahh, brevity--the essence of wit. -
body master
What is not speculation is the times that are recorded. ANYTHING else is pie in the sky. Gold medals and world records aren't handed out on the basis of 'with a normal reaction time ....' any more than 'the fastest white guy' or 'the fastest non-African time' .. etc .... Blake ran 19.26 with HIS reaction time. Not a normal reaction time, not my reaction time, or Bolt's or anyone else's. That's the whole point of individual performance.
Bolt wasn't given an extra 1/10th of a second for his Beijing 100m jog. He was given the time he recorded, on that day.
When Blake runs something faster than or equal to Bolt, THEN you can say he's on par .. until then, Usain has 2 gold medals, 2 (individual) world records, and he toasted Blake in the 2 biggest races of the year.
body master wrote:
Did you read my post or ignore it again? I already dealt with everything you're struggling to use as an argument in my post before this post.
I am alluding to facts. Ventolin is alluding to giant what if's.
And are you unaware of the significance of Blakes 19.26? With a normal reaction time he would have broken Bolt's WR. Where were you when this was being discussed? There's one fact.
Tyson ran 9.71 with about a 1.0 tailwind. Blake ran 9.69 into a headwind. With a 2.0 wind Tyson would have ran about a 9.65
Blake would run a 9.58. Also Blake has run 9.75 like three times already. Your post lacks clear logic and common sense. Anyone knows Blake is faster than Tyson in both events quite clearly. -
Perhaps the most "significant" performance of the year was the US men's 4x400m in London? First loss in 40 years.
How about Manteo's 45 sec split on a broken leg?
I think my favorite EVER Olympic moment was Derek Redmond and his dad. Breaks me up every time I see it. -
wtfunny
You have absolutely lost it. There is no more reasoning with you. You're crawling back into your little hole and meekly defending yourself with a statement even YOU don't believe.
So you're telling me, with your reasoning, that you're blind to anything but the time on the scoreboard.
With that reasoning why didn't you use Tyson Gay's 9.68 but instead choose to use his 9.69 ?
If Tyson runs a 9.80 into a -5.0 headwind you simply take the time as is and have no second thoughts about what it means?
And what of corrected times? Adjusted for the wind? You obviously don't take that into account either.
Your posts are becoming less and less logical and more and more like a futile rebuttal against my own argument. It's becoming quite plain in how low you've sunk to defend yourself.
I'm sure when someone runs a 9.57 with a 6.0 tailwind you'll believe they're faster than Bolt. -
I'm sure when someone runs a 9.57 with a 6.0 tailwind you'll believe they're faster than Bolt.
body master
Not at all. A legal 9.57, sure.
It's like measuring Lewis' jump where he fouled; that's now what goes into the annals of T&F. Powell has the WR, not Lewis, regardless how far Lewis jumped in training, or over-stepping the board.
Blake's run was a great run; for sure. No question. He's a great athlete. He had a great year. But against Rudisha's wr, or Merritt's wr, or the women's 4x100m wr, it's no question.
Speculating about what he would've run had he worn different color shoes is one thing. Trying to elevate speculated performance against legal world records is, imo, using the wrong yardstick. -
body master wrote:
The only thing significant Rudisha's performance did was make the world aware of a glaring stupidity in the form of training strategy among 800m runners.
They never needed a rabbit to run fast. It's only 2 laps good god.
While Rudisha showed that you can run very fast without a rabbit, he pulled almost everyone else in the field to lifetime PR's as they had someone to chase.
Now we have someone else on the 1:41 list after trying to chase Rudisha.
Nick Willis 1:42.95? He could never front-run that time.
This was an unprecidented race and it was all dictated by Rudisha. -
body master wrote:Rofl. Are you joking?
no
Look at any great athlete and they are NEVER in perfect condition
some are close enough not to mention it all year before & need delayed surgery soon after
There's always that nagging injury and yet they still run the best times of their life
so?
just shows how good they are even at well below 100%
You're reaching for a conclusion that is entirely laughable
moron
his groin stopped him defending his 200 title
where was his 200 entry in berlin as wildcard you idiot !?
A fully healthy groin wouldn't have changed anything
idiot
it woud
it handicapped him enough for no 200 in berlin
Tyson had numerous chances to break the WR that year and the closest he managed was that time
moron
rest & intense physio obviously helped
however
he still got sh!t start/pick-up in 9.69
He had a perfect race in Berlin and ran 9.71 with Bolt going away from him the entire race
idiot
doesn't the fact that 4th race on injured groin in 9.71 offer something closer to 9.58 uninjuree ???
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
idiot
i saw the race live on tv with all commentary before
if you think tyson had anything but a sh!t start then you are an utter moron
It's a WELL KNOWN fact that a better start does not automatically mean you will run a better time
moron
this shows you are completely clueless about sprinting
for elite 100 guys with perfect 60/last 40 ( see mo )
100 = 2*60 + 3
6.50 -> 10.00
6.45 -> 9.90
6.40 -> 9.80...
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
idiot
King was a ~ low-6.5 ( = 10.00++ ) with a ~ high-3.3/low-3.4 finish ( = 9.75+/9.80 )
he was running against poor quality & finishing abilty of 9.75/9.80 for last 40 exaggerated it
A true example of this is Tyson's 100m final
moron
it was only at the time he ran it
it was his 4th race in 2 days with a groin injury which coud only hurt/handicap more after every race
He got out well and died. You should know better. That's the most god awful speculation for a better time
idiot
1-off race with his groin intact probably due to intense physio
9.69
off sh!t-start !!!
Most of the fastest times are won from behind in the start. You know better.
moron
tyson is good for mid-9.6 basic at peak, but only off high-6.3/low-6.4 ->
6.37/3.28 - 6.42/3.23
the finish is the important
formula above indicates tyson had likely
9.58
finish -
body master wrote:And what of the next year when Tyson had a fully healthy groin?
moron
how succesful was the surgery ???
groin surgery invariably never gets you back to 100%
the muscles/tendons/ligaments are small & surgery is not capable of repairing these to pre-injury level
the surgical technology isn't there yet to repair groin 100%
+
he was also older in '10 & no spring chicken before
Why couldn't he run 9.69 basic? Oh... let's wait for the excuses to back Tyson up
see above moron
"He had surgery so he wasn't 100%"
moron
remedial surgery repairs, not enhances an elite
"He had another injury" etc etc
f*cking idiot
i haven't stated this
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
moron
blake didn't drop the 200 like tyson
200 was his best event
only an utter idiot woud believe tyson's 9.69 was his best possible without injury
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
boy
go fetch their respective last 90/80 in their 9.58/9.69
we can correct wind after
On the other hand, Blake has proven with his 19.26 and 9.69 that he's on par with Bolt.
moron
if you had a clue, the 19.26 was worth ~ low-19.3 on a standard 116/84 off ~ 0.15s
he's nearly 0.2s behind a peak bolt over 200
he's ~ 0.06s behind over 100m -
body master wrote:The only thing significant Rudisha's performance did was make the world aware of a glaring stupidity in the form of training strategy among 800m runners.
They never needed a rabbit to run fast. It's only 2 laps good god. I'm sure 400m runners would have a rabbit if you didn't have to stay in your lane. "Take me through the 200 at 21.5 ! I haven't trained enough to know what that feels like!"
Now, maybe meets can cut costs down by not having a rabbit. Ever heard of the term practice makes perfect? Or are 800m runners so dull in the head that they have no idea what pace feels like?
f*cking moron
list the fastest all time solo 800s -
body master wrote:I am alluding to facts. Ventolin is alluding to giant what if's
no
moron
just preliminary expectations
And are you unaware of the significance of Blakes 19.26? With a normal reaction time he would have broken Bolt's WR. Where were you when this was being discussed? There's one fact
see above
your peabrain needs to learn what is a 116/84 track & what isn't...
Tyson ran 9.71 with about a 1.0 tailwind. Blake ran 9.69 into a headwind
moron
it was miniscule wind of 0.1
it was also at a whopping 600m altitude
it comes out at 9.70+ basic
With a 2.0 wind Tyson would have ran about a 9.65
who gives a sh!t about this drivel
Blake would run a 9.58
moron
uninjured tyson woud be down to 9.53 - 9.54 in shanghai form
Also Blake has run 9.75 like three times already
who gives a sh!t
i'm only interested in sub-9.6
Your post lacks clear logic and common sense. Anyone knows Blake is faster than Tyson in both events quite clearly.
moron
learn to think
tyson may not be faster over 200, albeit his 19.62 on sh!t cold day is close to blake's 19.26 on non-116 track, but his 9.69 is better than blake's, idiot -
Up front I will disqualify Bolt, Blake, and Merritt for obvious and flagrant doping violations.
I vote Rudisha as #1. Winning an Olympic 800 from gun-to-tape is unbelievable. Setting a world record in an Olympic 800 final is INSANE.
Farah is #2. Incredibly double, and a showcase of great finishing speed.
Driouch is #3. The way he casually surged a 52.xx lap in a the junior champs was amazing. Seems to be the man who will one day challenge the el G records. Looks and runs like a gazelle.
#4 - Makh-Daddy! Watch that Olympic final 1500 again if you have time. DAT BACKSTRETCH.
