Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2009 Reebok GP: M-400m [Merritt 44,75]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by 502CD
    Originally posted by trackdug
    If the wind was so strong down the back straight, why did the women's 1500, 5000, 400 & 800m all produce the fastest times in the world this year? Face it, his time was pretty mediocre for this point in the year. JW beat Quow by .4 a couple of weeks ago and Merritt only beat him by .14 in this race.
    That doesn't mean anything at this point.
    Keep convincing yourself of that. Merritt had run MUCH faster at this point last year.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by trackdug
      Originally posted by 502CD
      Originally posted by trackdug
      If the wind was so strong down the back straight, why did the women's 1500, 5000, 400 & 800m all produce the fastest times in the world this year? Face it, his time was pretty mediocre for this point in the year. JW beat Quow by .4 a couple of weeks ago and Merritt only beat him by .14 in this race.
      That doesn't mean anything at this point.
      Keep convincing yourself of that. Merritt had run MUCH faster at this point last year.
      Again, that doesn't mean anything at this point. His SB is faster than JW's and that doesn't mean anything at this point either. It's May, granted its the end of May but it's still May.

      Comment


      • #18
        What's interesting (to this point) is that Merritt and Wariner are pretty close in both races.

        Merritt: 200m - 20.07 / 400m - 44.50
        Wariner: 200m - 20.30 / 400m - 44.66

        Their first race against each other should be pretty fun to watch.

        Comment


        • #19
          They are not close in the 200m, trackdug.

          Merritt's 20.07 was about the fastest 20.07 humanly possible. He was running it into a headwind, and he got out slow, and he shut down before the tape.

          As far as I'm concerned, Merritt is a good HALF SECOND faster than Wariner in the 200m, which is not "close."

          That said, I think Wariner might beat Merritt in the 400m, if Merritt keeps goofing around like this, even though he's not as fast at the 200. It's not a 200m race. It's a 400m race. And Wariner is good at running the 400.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by trackdug
            What's interesting (to this point) is that Merritt and Wariner are pretty close in both races.

            Merritt: 200m - 20.07 / 400m - 44.50
            Wariner: 200m - 20.30 / 400m - 44.66

            Their first race against each other should be pretty fun to watch.
            Indeed.
            I think JW will do much better.
            Not saying he'll win, but better.
            I always said it'll take somebody with sub 20 speed to beat him- and thats what happened (loving when I'm right). But he's gotta work to keep that up. JW's hungry again. Merritt will need to beat him the first meeting and not let him get confident. Damn I wish Xman would focus on the 400. He "used" to be faster than Merritt and JW in the 200. If he ever gets that back...... :shock:

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Atheist
              They are not close in the 200m, trackdug.

              Merritt's 20.07 was about the fastest 20.07 humanly possible. He was running it into a headwind, and he got out slow, and he shut down before the tape.

              As far as I'm concerned, Merritt is a good HALF SECOND faster than Wariner in the 200m, which is not "close."

              That said, I think Wariner might beat Merritt in the 400m, if Merritt keeps goofing around like this, even though he's not as fast at the 200. It's not a 200m race. It's a 400m race. And Wariner is good at running the 400.
              WTF??

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by trackdug
                Originally posted by The Atheist
                They are not close in the 200m, trackdug.

                Merritt's 20.07 was about the fastest 20.07 humanly possible. He was running it into a headwind, and he got out slow, and he shut down before the tape.

                As far as I'm concerned, Merritt is a good HALF SECOND faster than Wariner in the 200m, which is not "close."

                That said, I think Wariner might beat Merritt in the 400m, if Merritt keeps goofing around like this, even though he's not as fast at the 200. It's not a 200m race. It's a 400m race. And Wariner is good at running the 400.
                WTF??
                I'm saying, it would be nearly impssoble for Merritt to have run much slower of a time than he did in his 200m run in Carson. Go watch a youtube video of his race, and you'll see what I mean. With even halfway optimal scenario, Merritt would have run sub 19.9 in that race, and with perfect everything, he probably would've been sub 19.80.

                Comment


                • #23
                  [quote=The Atheist]
                  Originally posted by trackdug
                  Originally posted by "The Atheist":wyj7irlc
                  They are not close in the 200m, trackdug.

                  Merritt's 20.07 was about the fastest 20.07 humanly possible. He was running it into a headwind, and he got out slow, and he shut down before the tape.

                  As far as I'm concerned, Merritt is a good HALF SECOND faster than Wariner in the 200m, which is not "close."

                  That said, I think Wariner might beat Merritt in the 400m, if Merritt keeps goofing around like this, even though he's not as fast at the 200. It's not a 200m race. It's a 400m race. And Wariner is good at running the 400.
                  WTF??
                  I'm saying, it would be nearly impssoble for Merritt to have run much slower of a time than he did in his 200m run in Carson. Go watch a youtube video of his race, and you'll see what I mean. With even halfway optimal scenario, Merritt would have run sub 19.9 in that race, and with perfect everything, he probably would've been sub 19.80.[/quote:wyj7irlc]

                  Let the hyperbole and speculation begin. And I guess if Bolt had been running in that race then Merritt would have set the world record.


                  :roll: :roll:

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [quote=trackdug]
                    Originally posted by The Atheist
                    Originally posted by trackdug
                    Originally posted by "The Atheist":1e9u8jrj
                    They are not close in the 200m, trackdug.

                    Merritt's 20.07 was about the fastest 20.07 humanly possible. He was running it into a headwind, and he got out slow, and he shut down before the tape.

                    As far as I'm concerned, Merritt is a good HALF SECOND faster than Wariner in the 200m, which is not "close."

                    That said, I think Wariner might beat Merritt in the 400m, if Merritt keeps goofing around like this, even though he's not as fast at the 200. It's not a 200m race. It's a 400m race. And Wariner is good at running the 400.
                    WTF??
                    I'm saying, it would be nearly impssoble for Merritt to have run much slower of a time than he did in his 200m run in Carson. Go watch a youtube video of his race, and you'll see what I mean. With even halfway optimal scenario, Merritt would have run sub 19.9 in that race, and with perfect everything, he probably would've been sub 19.80.
                    Let the hyperbole and speculation begin. And I guess if Bolt had been running in that race then Merritt would have set the world record.


                    :roll: :roll:[/quote:1e9u8jrj]

                    How would a 19.80 have been a world record?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      :roll:

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        :roll:

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The current 200m world record is 19.30. If Merritt had run a 19.80 in Carson in better conditions and running to the tape, that's still half a second short of the WR... Not sure why you keep rolling your eyes...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Live and in person, I thought Merritt looked comfortable. He didn't run a great race and he certainly didn't get out all that well, but he ran a great 200-300m interval and generally closed it down, IMHO. Quow was definitely gaining on him and certainly made a race of it, however.

                            Very disappointed Rock was DNS. I will forever be rooting for him, however. Not much else to note in the race. It was breezy, but not excessively so.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by trackdug
                              What's interesting (to this point) is that Merritt and Wariner are pretty close in both races.

                              Merritt: 200m - 20.07 / 400m - 44.50
                              Wariner: 200m - 20.30 / 400m - 44.66

                              Their first race against each other should be pretty fun to watch.
                              That may not be until August 21. Merritt said that he plans to run more 200s and less 400s in 2009.
                              none

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Unless Wariner gets on up to Toronto. I missed this from the Toronto Star a couple of days back:

                                The Festival of Excellence is benefiting from Merritt's desire to expand his horizons. He told his agent he wanted to race at some meets this year that he'd never done before. He's never been to Canada, so this new track meet being organized by the University of Toronto definitely fit the bill.
                                http://www.thestar.com/article/642363

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X