Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lausanne m400

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    [quote=Davidokun]
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Davidokun quoted:

    '...no competition, not even the [OG], is the be-all, end-all. We're looking for people who maintain high standards over a whole year.'

    I did not know your were having a private conversation on a public forum. It's just my opinion which seems to be more consistent with the above quote, somthing you agreed with. You said:

    'Now, how many marks should we consider? You are correct in stating that ten marks would be more representative than five.'

    Hence my opinion that you should consider 10 not five.

    Why are you so angy with such an innocent suggestion? - please take your G-string out of your @#$ and take a deep breath you will live longer.
    As I understand it, all opinions regarding T&F are welcome here, as long as they comply with established guidelines. Since I am only a lowly member, it doesn't matter what I think about this policy. Nevertheless, I wouldn't have it any other way.

    On the other hand, regarding the sequence of marks criterion, you wrote:

    Originally posted by "proofs in the pudd'in":2y8mbcvd
    You should take the top ten marks not the top five - they represent the totality of a season much better than the top 5.
    Since I introduced this subject into the discussion, I still think it was reasonable to assume that you were addressing me. Your statement is in the form of a direction, not an opinion. I responded as I did to let you know that I'm not interested in your unsolicited advice. You now state that you were merely expressing an opinion. Since our only means of communication here is the written word, and the occasional emoticon, I had no way of knowing that was the case. (I'm only fluent in English.)

    Finally, after some consideration, I've decided not to respond to your feeble attempt at a personal insult, other than to say:
    • There you go again, trying to tell me what to do. Give it up, man.[/*:m:2y8mbcvd]
    [/quote:2y8mbcvd]

    Hey Davidokun, I don't want to fight with you so I will give it up. Yes your right I should have been more clear about it being my opinion - I just assumed that most of what goes on here is just that. I did not think you would be so upset in your first remark, thinking I was telling you what to do. As far as my remark no anger there just some fun in poking at you. Peace Man

    Leave a comment:


  • Davidokun
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    As an additional concern, the 400m is a distance where a winning athlete is often content to win, irrespective of time. I would not be surprised if the likes of JW and LM simply did not have ten all-out races in a normal season. From this angle, five is the more sensible number. (I would even go as far as rating a hypothetical 43.18, 43.6, 44,5, 44.6 ... series above a 43.6, 43.7, 43,8, 43.9, ... series.)
    Excellent point, imaginative. Note that in the case of our two protagonists, this effect even corrupts their top five marks. Merritt ran 44.12 while easing across the line in his Olympic semifinal; Wariner ran 44.15 in the same circumstance. Perhaps this complexity is one of the reasons sequence of marks carries the lowest weight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Davidokun
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    Davidokun quoted:

    '...no competition, not even the [OG], is the be-all, end-all. We're looking for people who maintain high standards over a whole year.'

    I did not know your were having a private conversation on a public forum. It's just my opinion which seems to be more consistent with the above quote, somthing you agreed with. You said:

    'Now, how many marks should we consider? You are correct in stating that ten marks would be more representative than five.'

    Hence my opinion that you should consider 10 not five.

    Why are you so angy with such an innocent suggestion? - please take your G-string out of your @#$ and take a deep breath you will live longer.
    As I understand it, all opinions regarding T&F are welcome here, as long as they comply with established guidelines. Since I am only a lowly member, it doesn't matter what I think about this policy. Nevertheless, I wouldn't have it any other way.

    On the other hand, regarding the sequence of marks criterion, you wrote:

    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    You should take the top ten marks not the top five - they represent the totality of a season much better than the top 5.
    Since I introduced this subject into the discussion, I still think it was reasonable to assume that you were addressing me. Your statement is in the form of a direction, not an opinion. I responded as I did to let you know that I'm not interested in your unsolicited advice. You now state that you were merely expressing an opinion. Since our only means of communication here is the written word, and the occasional emoticon, I had no way of knowing that was the case. (I'm only fluent in English.)

    Finally, after some consideration, I've decided not to respond to your feeble attempt at a personal insult, other than to say:
    • There you go again, trying to tell me what to do. Give it up, man.[/*:m:3vxs23c2]

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    most people go for longevity & medals + clockings

    i prefer sticking them all at their peak in 1 race - in that, i'd still favor quincy over jw
    I'm with the longevity, medals and clockings crowd, but your way is an interesting way of looking at it. And viewed that way, Michael Marsh moves way up on the 200 list, based on how he looked in his 1992 Olympic semifinal.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    most people go for longevity & medals + clockings

    i prefer sticking them all at their peak in 1 race - in that, i'd still favor quincy over jw

    Leave a comment:


  • elcaballo
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    i'm not too sure i'd even call jw the 2nd best all-time

    he's won 1 og & 2wc, & 43.45pb, but watts in '92 looked capable of breaking the wr & imo was worth a lot better than 43.50

    i can't remember his semi, but posters around here said he ran an easy looking 43.71
    his semi was the most-awesome looking quarter i've ever seen ... but you can't call a guy 2nd best all-time off the back of one season and potential.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i'm not too sure i'd even call jw the 2nd best all-time

    he's won 1 og & 2wc, & 43.45pb, but watts in '92 looked capable of breaking the wr & imo was worth a lot better than 43.50

    i can't remember his semi, but posters around here said he ran an easy looking 43.71

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Of the 16 fastest times run this year, eight of them were by LM, and eight of them were by JW. Is it too early to call Merritt the third greatest quartermiler of all-times?
    Much too early.

    Leave a comment:


  • Madd Marine
    replied
    If Merritt has another season like this one, beating JW in the WC and Nat's, leading time wise, then I think he'd move into third best and climbing. More than one season at the top is needed before putting him at third. But that's my opinion. He's the best this year, I'm not sure what the debate is about. I'm a fan of Wariner but he didn't get it done at the two biggest meets of the year. Merritt did.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Of the 16 fastest times run this year, eight of them were by LM, and eight of them were by JW. Is it too early to call Merritt the third greatest quartermiler of all-times?

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Originally posted by paulthefan
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    ... And even if it did I would still think to lean towards LM for consistancy when it counted in the two Major races - U.S. (OT) and International (OG). The new #1 400m Man is LM.
    proof positive that no one can convince proofsinthepud except himself.
    It always ends with yourself

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by proofs in the pudd'in
    ... And even if it did I would still think to lean towards LM for consistancy when it counted in the two Major races - U.S. (OT) and International (OG). The new #1 400m Man is LM.
    proof positive that no one can convince proofsinthepud except himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • proofs in the pudd'in
    replied
    Davidokun quoted:

    '...no competition, not even the [OG], is the be-all, end-all. We're looking for people who maintain high standards over a whole year.'

    I did not know your were having a private conversation on a public forum. It's just my opinion which seems to be more consistent with the above quote, somthing you agreed with. You said:

    'Now, how many marks should we consider? You are correct in stating that ten marks would be more representative than five.'

    Hence my opinion that you should consider 10 not five.

    Why are you so angy with such an innocent suggestion? - please take your G-string out of your @#$ and take a deep breath you will live longer.

    Leave a comment:


  • DentyCracker
    replied
    42.98 perhaps

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    As an additional concern, the 400m is a distance where a winning
    athlete is often content to win, irrespective of time. I would not be
    surprised if the likes of JW and LM simply did not have ten all-out
    races in a normal season. From this angle, five is the more sensible
    number. (I would even go as far as rating a hypothetical 43.18, 43.6,
    44,5, 44.6 ... series above a 43.6, 43.7, 43,8, 43.9, ... series.)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X