Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

¶m400: Jeremy Wariner (US) 43.45

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by kamikaze7
    AFAIK, MJ never really hit his stride until he was in his late 20s.
    Before he was 25, MJ had won world titles at 200 (beating Frank Fredericks) and at 400 (beating the then WR holder, Butch Reynolds). He continued to lower his times in his late 20's, but I'd hardly say that he hadn't "really hit his stride" until then.
    Continued to lower his times ? Talk about an understatement !

    MJ started to break records in his late 20s. When he was Merritts age he was winning but he seemed beatable in fact was beaten quite a few times. In 95/96 (age 29 )he became the undisputed king of the 200 and 400 and was on a record breaking streak. I think most people would call that hitting your stride or being at the peak of your powers. Also , prior to his late 20s he seemed injury prone and looked like he would retire anytime. I am guessing he wisened up and changed his training regimen ?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jazzcyclist

      PR's by age:

      Age 18, Wariner 46.10, Merritt 45.25
      Age 19, Wariner 45.13, Merritt 44.73
      Age 20, Wariner 44.00, Merritt 44.14
      Age 21, Wariner 43.93, Merritt 43.96
      I couldn't find data for Michael Johnson before age 22, but maybe someone else has that info.

      Michael Johnson's PR's by age:
      • 22, 44.21
        23, 44.17
        24, 43.98
        25, 43.65
        26, 43.65
        27, 43.39
        28, 43.39
        29, 43.39
        30, 43.39
        31, 43.18

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jazzcyclist
        PR's by age:

        Age 18, Wariner 46.10, Merritt 45.25
        Age 19, Wariner 45.13, Merritt 44.73, Johnson 46.29
        Age 20, Wariner 44.00, Merritt 44.14, Johnson 45.23
        Age 21, Wariner 43.93, Merritt 43.96, Johnson 46.49

        I couldn't find data for Michael Johnson before age 22, but maybe someone else has that info.
        I've added some data to your table, above.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jazzcyclist
          Originally posted by Johnny Walker Red
          We have a number of people touchy about Wariner's success, and jazzcyclist is definitely one of them..
          I assume that the reason you didn't answer the questions I asked you in my earlier post is because you can't. You are the epitome of the word "paranoid". :roll:
          No. Just on vacation. I won't scroll through the earlier posts - the gist of it is your roundabout way of disparaging Wariner and fawning all over Merritt. Considering Wariner's record so far against Merritt and everyone else, it's safe to say Wariner has a great deal of talent. In fact he's a bit of ahead of Merritt at each "stage" (age) of development so far. Getting worked up and paranoid over this isn't the way to go, so don't. If Wariner continues to do well and improve, then so be it. But don't agonize over it. :P

          Comment


          • [quote=Johnny Walker Red]
            Originally posted by jazzcyclist
            Originally posted by "Johnny Walker Red":3v1ar1ge
            We have a number of people touchy about Wariner's success, and jazzcyclist is definitely one of them..
            I assume that the reason you didn't answer the questions I asked you in my earlier post is because you can't. You are the epitome of the word "paranoid". :roll:
            No. Just on vacation. I won't scroll through the earlier posts - the gist of it is your roundabout way of disparaging Wariner and fawning all over Merritt. Considering Wariner's record so far against Merritt and everyone else, it's safe to say Wariner has a great deal of talent. In fact he's a bit of ahead of Merritt at each "stage" (age) of development so far. Getting worked up and paranoid over this isn't the way to go, so don't. If Wariner continues to do well and improve, then so be it. But don't agonize over it. :P[/quote:3v1ar1ge]

            I have not made a single disparaging remark about Wariner. Of course, right now, he owns Merritt. But am I obliged to pull for him just because he's the king of the hill? Can't I pull for the underdog? Now I'm beginning to understand your logic:
            • a)Wariner has been the undisputed kjng of the 400 for the last four years,
              b)Wariner is White and Merritt is Black,
              c)Therefore, anyone who pulls for Merritt to dethrone Wariner is a racist.

            Like I said earlier, even Al Sharpton would blush at that wreckless use of the race card.

            P.S. Besides being paranoid, it seems that you're unable to comprehend the most rudimentary math:
            46.10 is slower than 45.25 and
            45.13 is slower than 44.73

            Comment


            • i gotta admit, i was a little disapointed at lashawn's time in osaka - 43.96

              he ran 44.06 in trials ( unlucky to get beat when he led nearly all the way ) - those weren't good conditions & i think he couda gone a bit quicker with better weather

              then he made a comment between trials/osaka that he still
              "needed to work on a coupla things"
              prior to osaka

              this seemed reasonable - work on a different pace strategy, as currently he tended to get run down in the stretch

              with better weather & better pace strategy, i was expecting him to knock a good few 10ths off his 44.06 - probably nearer mid-43 rather than high-43

              so, i do think he did underperform this year ( & he did last year when he ran 44.14pb from an inner lane - i thought he shouda gone <44 last year )

              so i don't believe it's a simple case of jw out-performing, there's also an element of lashawn underperforming in the story of the 400

              it's possible though that lashawn has reached a plateau at high-43, but from his point of view of 2nd ever fastest 200m runner ( he looks capable of 19.90 if he'd ran 1/2 dozen of those in elite company this year, with no extra, specific 200 training - just off his current training ) - if you're primarily a 400 guy & can run 19.90 in your 2nd event, then 43.96 is a poor return

              Comment


              • [quote=bad hammy]
                Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                Originally posted by "bad hammy":2ax27qi8
                Wariner is not beatable. He is even more of a lock in any 400 he enters than Isi in the wPV, and he is continuing to improve every year. It could be years before someone beats him in a 4.
                PR's by age:

                Age 18, Wariner 46.10, Merritt 45.25
                Age 19, Wariner 45.13, Merritt 44.73
                Age 20, Wariner 44.00, Merritt 44.14
                Age 21, Wariner 43.93, Merritt 43.96

                Time is on the side of Merritt.
                Merritt has to first wait for Wariner to stop progressing (this could be a while), while at the same time continuing to progress himself. It is certainly no sure thing. Obviously at some time down the road Wariner will plateau and fall back, but it might be past Merritt's time when it happens.

                The fun is watching it happen . . .[/quote:2ax27qi8]
                Could this be the year that it happens?

                Comment


                • [quote=jazzcyclist]
                  Originally posted by bad hammy
                  Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                  Originally posted by "bad hammy":1btqn7xq
                  Wariner is not beatable. He is even more of a lock in any 400 he enters than Isi in the wPV, and he is continuing to improve every year. It could be years before someone beats him in a 4.
                  PR's by age:

                  Age 18, Wariner 46.10, Merritt 45.25
                  Age 19, Wariner 45.13, Merritt 44.73
                  Age 20, Wariner 44.00, Merritt 44.14
                  Age 21, Wariner 43.93, Merritt 43.96

                  Time is on the side of Merritt.
                  Merritt has to first wait for Wariner to stop progressing (this could be a while), while at the same time continuing to progress himself. It is certainly no sure thing. Obviously at some time down the road Wariner will plateau and fall back, but it might be past Merritt's time when it happens.

                  The fun is watching it happen . . .
                  Could this be the year that it happens?[/quote:1btqn7xq]
                  Obviously all previous emphatic statements promoting Wariner as the 400 god are now on semi-hold. I’m already on record as saying that his split from Hart precludes a WR. However, I would not go so far as to think that the pack is automatically going to catch up (or that he is automatically going to fall back). He has a sizeable gap on the current field. I do think that today’s announcement makes him vulnerable for a number of reasons, but barring injury he still stands a great chance of taking care of Oly business this year.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by bad hammy
                    I’m already on record as saying that his split from Hart precludes a WR.
                    I don't think the split precludes a WR, but I do think it makes one a bit less likely. I guess what I'm saying is that I can imagine JW doing as well without Hart as he would have done with him, but I find it hard to imagine him progressing better with someone else--anyone else.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X